Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Meanwhile, inside the mind of Donald Trump.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-snoop-dogg-go-prison-assassination-music-video-rapper-marco-rubio-a7630841.html


My head hurts from all this face-palming.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Meanwhile, inside the mind of Donald Trump.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-snoop-dogg-go-prison-assassination-music-video-rapper-marco-rubio-a7630841.html


My head hurts from all this face-palming.

"Donald Trump has suggested Snoop Dogg should be arrested for pretending to shoot him in a music video."

I suggest Donald Trump should be arrested for pretending to be fit to be President.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Meanwhile, inside the mind of Donald Trump.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-snoop-dogg-go-prison-assassination-music-video-rapper-marco-rubio-a7630841.html


My head hurts from all this face-palming.

I know it is probably mentioned in the article, but does that mean he should be arrested for saying someone should assassinate HRC?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/324230-trump-budget-proposes-entirely-eliminating-national-endowment

resident Trump's proposed budget would cut entirely the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities (NEA), according to a new report by The New York Times.

Federal officials told The Times that the chairwoman of the arts endowment told her staff the news Wednesday. It was reportedly met with a mix of sadness and surprise.

Chairwoman Jane Chu reportedly told staff that the arts endowment would continue business as usual as the budget process moves forward and said she called the meeting because she didn't want staff hearing from the media.

Oh boy here we go the targeting of the arts. Maybe if the GOP wanted to save money they would force the first lady and baron to move into the white house instead of wasting millions protecting them in new york and would stop the protection of the gaggle of trumps running around

Well another loss for Trump. Judge froze at least for now the new anti-muslim law by Trump.

Dumpster fire-in-Chief says he will have evidence of wiretapping "soon". Don't you usually have evidence of something before you very publicly claim it's true and throw shadow on a former POTUS'? Okay, I concede, this was a pretty good joke, now will the real POTUS please take office.

"Trump said his definition of wiretapping "covers a lot of different things." -translation: I spoke out of my ass as usual and now my drogies are looking for something that I can call "wiretapping".

"That really covers surveillance and many other things. Nobody ever talks about the fact that [the words 'wires tapped'] was in quotes [in the tweet], but that’s a very important thing." -translation: As I said, I spoke out of my ass and now the scramble is on to cover.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-he-will-submit-evidence-of-wiretapping-to-house-committee-very-soon/ar-AAook0C?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

We should vote to remove healthcare subsidies from members of congress. It would give them the freedom of choice and the advantage of the free market that every American citizen has.

 Vash108 wrote:
We should vote to remove healthcare subsidies from members of congress. It would give them the freedom of choice and the advantage of the free market that every American citizen has.

I've wanted this for, well, forever. They should have the same experience as every American citizen.

 Vash108 wrote:
We should vote to remove healthcare subsidies from members of congress. It would give them the freedom of choice and the advantage of the free market that every American citizen has.

Indeed.

tneva82 wrote:
Well another loss for Trump. Judge froze at least for now the new anti-muslim law by Trump.

Which was totally bs.

The Judge said it was basically facially neutral, but because of prior campaign speeches, Trump poisoned it (the Animus Doctrine).

Basically, feth what the law says... I hate Trump because he's a meanie.

Oh... it's not an anti-muslim law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:
We should vote to remove healthcare subsidies from members of congress. It would give them the freedom of choice and the advantage of the free market that every American citizen has.

I've argued for this a million times.

Or, at the VERY least, whatever government programs that joe schmoe has to participate in, Government employees should also be in the same bucket. No special exemption or programs.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
We should vote to remove healthcare subsidies from members of congress. It would give them the freedom of choice and the advantage of the free market that every American citizen has.

Indeed.

They have the same employer based coverage as every other federal employee though.

Edit: never mind, they forced themselves on the exchanges in 2014, but they kept the employer contribution.

 whembly wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well another loss for Trump. Judge froze at least for now the new anti-muslim law by Trump.

Which was totally bs.

The Judge said it was basically facially neutral, but because of prior campaign speeches, Trump poisoned it (the Animus Doctrine).

Basically, feth what the law says... I hate Trump because he's a meanie.

Oh... it's not an anti-muslim law.

Perhaps elected officials should think about what they say and how they say it before they propose policy if they want it to survive court challenges where intent can be taken into account?

It says something when the people who make McRib call something "disgusting"...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/mcdonalds-removes-tweet-criticizing-donald-trump/ar-BBycxvg?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

On a brighter note...ONLY ONE WEEK UNTIL ADEPTICON!!!!!!

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well another loss for Trump. Judge froze at least for now the new anti-muslim law by Trump.

Which was totally bs.

The Judge said it was basically facially neutral, but because of prior campaign speeches, Trump poisoned it (the Animus Doctrine).

Basically, feth what the law says... I hate Trump because he's a meanie.

Oh... it's not an anti-muslim law.

Perhaps elected officials should think about what they say and how they say it before they propose policy if they want it to survive court challenges where intent can be taken into account?

In that case... Obama promised I can keep my plan... I can keep my doctor... lower my premium pmt by $2500... that it's not a tax... none of that happened. So, the argument is that a judge could overturn any law based on politician's campaign statement?

What about the first Bush's "Read my lips... no new taxes"? Could a judge overturn the Bush I era of tax laws???

What about every Gun Control Law that says "X will reduce X", which has been proven incorrect... a judge can overturn those laws that works contrary to previous politician's intent??

I don't think they want this barn door to open...

How about the judges read the damn text?

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well another loss for Trump. Judge froze at least for now the new anti-muslim law by Trump.

Which was totally bs.

The Judge said it was basically facially neutral, but because of prior campaign speeches, Trump poisoned it (the Animus Doctrine).

Basically, feth what the law says... I hate Trump because he's a meanie.

Oh... it's not an anti-muslim law.

Perhaps elected officials should think about what they say and how they say it before they propose policy if they want it to survive court challenges where intent can be taken into account?

In that case... Obama promised I can keep my plan... I can keep my doctor... lower my premium pmt by $2500... that it's not a tax... none of that happened. So, the argument is that a judge could overturn any law based on politician's campaign statement?

What about the first Bush's "Read my lips... no new taxes"? Could a judge overturn the Bush I era of tax laws???

What about every Gun Control Law that says "X will reduce X", which has been proven incorrect... a judge can overturn those laws that works contrary to previous politician's intent??

I don't think they want this barn door to open...

How about the judges read the damn text?

The judge in question was from Hawaii. Maybe Trump should ask to see his birth certificate.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well another loss for Trump. Judge froze at least for now the new anti-muslim law by Trump.

Which was totally bs.

The Judge said it was basically facially neutral, but because of prior campaign speeches, Trump poisoned it (the Animus Doctrine).

Basically, feth what the law says... I hate Trump because he's a meanie.

Oh... it's not an anti-muslim law.

Perhaps elected officials should think about what they say and how they say it before they propose policy if they want it to survive court challenges where intent can be taken into account?

In that case... Obama promised I can keep my plan... I can keep my doctor... lower my premium pmt by $2500... that it's not a tax... none of that happened. So, the argument is that a judge could overturn any law based on politician's campaign statement?

Thats a nonsensical analogy. Trump's ban was taken to court on the grounds that it was discriminatory and his own discriminatory statements were used as reasoning to stay implementation on the grounds that it is intended to be discriminatory.

There's no trick of logic here. Yes candidates say things all the time that dont turn out to be true, but when you say you're gonna implement a muslim ban and then issue an EO on preventing people from majority muslim nations from entering the US, then it's probably going to be seen as discriminating by a court.

Same way if you make a big deal about wanting to ban headscarves and turbans and then issue generic clothing guidelines that say no headcoverings of any kind can be worn, it'll probably wont pass muster either.

When it comes to the law, intent matters as is taken into account. To use another analogy, the ATF is gonna make me face 10 years if I put a SigBrace on an AR pistol and tell people I bought and installed it to use it as a stock to circumvent NFA restrictions, but if I buy it and install it as an arm brace they're not going to come after me. The weapon is the same in either case, the ultimate act identical, but the intent is the difference between 10 years in club fed and me being left alone.

Double posted, can't find a delete button.
Sorry folks.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well another loss for Trump. Judge froze at least for now the new anti-muslim law by Trump.

Which was totally bs.

The Judge said it was basically facially neutral, but because of prior campaign speeches, Trump poisoned it (the Animus Doctrine).

Basically, feth what the law says... I hate Trump because he's a meanie.

Oh... it's not an anti-muslim law.

Perhaps elected officials should think about what they say and how they say it before they propose policy if they want it to survive court challenges where intent can be taken into account?

In that case... Obama promised I can keep my plan... I can keep my doctor... lower my premium pmt by $2500... that it's not a tax... none of that happened. So, the argument is that a judge could overturn any law based on politician's campaign statement?

Thats a nonsensical analogy. Trump's ban was taken to court on the grounds that it was discriminatory and his own discriminatory statements were used as reasoning to stay implementation on the grounds that it is intended to be discriminatory.

I'm going to stop you here. This is that statute in question:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

This gives the president at-will and absolute power to shut off any immigrant and non-immigrant visa category for any period of time if he determines — subject to nobody else’s review — that it’s in the national interests. Essentially the POTUS has plenary powah in this regard.

Even THIS judge said that the EO is legal... but chose to knock it down because of what Trump said.

Think about that for a bit.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well another loss for Trump. Judge froze at least for now the new anti-muslim law by Trump.

Which was totally bs.

The Judge said it was basically facially neutral, but because of prior campaign speeches, Trump poisoned it (the Animus Doctrine).

Basically, feth what the law says... I hate Trump because he's a meanie.

Oh... it's not an anti-muslim law.

Perhaps elected officials should think about what they say and how they say it before they propose policy if they want it to survive court challenges where intent can be taken into account?

In that case... Obama promised I can keep my plan... I can keep my doctor... lower my premium pmt by $2500... that it's not a tax... none of that happened. So, the argument is that a judge could overturn any law based on politician's campaign statement?

Thats a nonsensical analogy. Trump's ban was taken to court on the grounds that it was discriminatory and his own discriminatory statements were used as reasoning to stay implementation on the grounds that it is intended to be discriminatory.

I'm going to stop you here. This is that statute in question:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

This gives the president at-will and absolute power to shut off any immigrant and non-immigrant visa category for any period of time if he determines — subject to nobody else’s review — that it’s in the national interests. Essentially the POTUS has plenary powah in this regard.

Even THIS judge said that the EO is legal... but chose to knock it down because of what Trump said.

Think about that for a bit.

Trump said, essentially, "I'm gonna ban all Muslims". He issued an EO banning Muslim-majority countries. How is this not crystal clear to you?

#JustTeamRedThings

But laws now trump the constitution according to Team Red, so bye bye guns.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well another loss for Trump. Judge froze at least for now the new anti-muslim law by Trump.

Which was totally bs.

The Judge said it was basically facially neutral, but because of prior campaign speeches, Trump poisoned it (the Animus Doctrine).

Basically, feth what the law says... I hate Trump because he's a meanie.

Oh... it's not an anti-muslim law.

Perhaps elected officials should think about what they say and how they say it before they propose policy if they want it to survive court challenges where intent can be taken into account?

In that case... Obama promised I can keep my plan... I can keep my doctor... lower my premium pmt by $2500... that it's not a tax... none of that happened. So, the argument is that a judge could overturn any law based on politician's campaign statement?

Thats a nonsensical analogy. Trump's ban was taken to court on the grounds that it was discriminatory and his own discriminatory statements were used as reasoning to stay implementation on the grounds that it is intended to be discriminatory.

I'm going to stop you here. This is that statute in question:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

This gives the president at-will and absolute power to shut off any immigrant and non-immigrant visa category for any period of time if he determines — subject to nobody else’s review — that it’s in the national interests. Essentially the POTUS has plenary powah in this regard.

Even THIS judge said that the EO is legal... but chose to knock it down because of what Trump said.

Think about that for a bit.

Trump said, essentially, "I'm gonna ban all Muslims". He issued an EO banning Muslim-majority countries. How is this not crystal clear to you?

A) Over 90% of Muslims are unaffected... ergo, not a muslim ban.

B) POTUS has the power to discriminate ANY immigrant for ANY criteria. See here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
#JustTeamRedThings

But laws now trump the constitution according to Team Red, so bye bye guns.

Wut?

You're not making any sense.

Implying you are making any with the whiplash you have giving us on this forum with your constant pivoting to defend team red

No, it's not a de facto Muslim ban. But it is bigot signalling to his deplorables. "I hear your irrational fear of Islam and I'm on your side". It's pandering to the stupid and easily led.

The judge sees this and is saying, "I don't think so. Homie don't play that", and beat-socking it down.

 feeder wrote:
No, it's not a de facto Muslim ban. But it is bigot signalling to his deplorables. "I hear your irrational fear of Islam and I'm on your side". It's pandering to the stupid and easily led.

Irrevalent.

The judge sees this and is saying, "I don't think so. Homie don't play that", and beat-socking it down.

Will be overturned.

Otherwise, see more of stuff like this:

-plantiff:“Your Honor, the President said if you like your plan you can keep it. Clearly, many can’t. Strike down the law.”
-judge: “So ordered.”

 feeder wrote:
No, it's not a de facto Muslim ban. But it is bigot signalling to his deplorables. "I hear your irrational fear of Islam and I'm on your side". It's pandering to the stupid and easily led.

The judge sees this and is saying, "I don't think so. Homie don't play that", and beat-socking it down.

In the context of his foam at the mouth raging it can be seen as a defacto muslim ban

 Ustrello wrote:

 feeder wrote:
No, it's not a de facto Muslim ban. But it is bigot signalling to his deplorables. "I hear your irrational fear of Islam and I'm on your side". It's pandering to the stupid and easily led.

The judge sees this and is saying, "I don't think so. Homie don't play that", and beat-socking it down.

In the context of his foam at the mouth raging it can be seen as a defacto muslim ban

No, whembly has a point. Most of the Muslim world can still (try) to enter the US. What the EO is, is the Gakheel-in-Chief bigot signalling to his deplorables.

Trump says: I'm banning all Muslims.
Writes executive order banning Muslims.
His staff and advisors go on TV and say "Trump asked me how to make a legal Muslim ban."
Ban gets stuck down.
New executive order gets written banning Muslims.
Advisors go back on TV and say "we changed some text and details, but it's still the same policy."
Ban gets struck down again.

Team Red now says that you can discriminate based on religion as long as congress says it's okay to discriminate, and courts can't make sure that's constitutional*.

(*Constituional limits on religion still applies to congressional laws and executive actions when affecting Christians. Offer now valid in all US States and territories. Minimum donation to pro-Trump and/or Russian charities apply. Terms subject to change at a Tweets notice. Must be 18 or older to play.)

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

The judge sees this and is saying, "I don't think so. Homie don't play that", and beat-socking it down.

Will be overturned.

Otherwise, see more of stuff like this:

-plantiff:“Your Honor, the President said if you like your plan you can keep it. Clearly, many can’t. Strike down the law.”
-judge: “So ordered.”

I thought slippery slope fallacy was for the gun control thread?

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

The judge sees this and is saying, "I don't think so. Homie don't play that", and beat-socking it down.

Will be overturned.

Otherwise, see more of stuff like this:

-plantiff:“Your Honor, the President said if you like your plan you can keep it. Clearly, many can’t. Strike down the law.”
-judge: “So ordered.”

I thought slippery slope fallacy was for the gun control thread?

This is my point. It *is* a slippery slope.

This judge's reasoning is asinine, just as it's asinine to try to get judges to ruled that the Obama-era HSS mandate forcing nuns to pay for birth control and abortifacients against their religious will by arging that it was motivated by President Barack Obama’s religious animus... afterall, he had made campaign derogatory comments about people bitterly clinging to God.

It does sound like a rather forced argument from the judge actually. At least without actually reading verdict myself.

Anyone got a link to the actual verdict/decision (whatever the correct term is in this situation)

 Zywus wrote:
It does sound like a rather forced argument from the judge actually. At least without actually reading verdict myself.

Anyone got a link to the actual verdict/decision (whatever the correct term is in this situation)

Right here:
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-d421-db68-a97b-d5e934210000