Danny Bateman Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Human cost to these policies. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Pretty cool you could go out last night Colo. Did your attorney friend say anything about the possibility of a wrongful termination suit in the even people are fired? Seems to me that people shouldn't be fired for following an order from one of our three branches of gov't aimed squarely at them. But I know no more law than anyone else here, for sure. Random: I heard someone refer to him as "Twitler" the other day. I rather like that. I like Twitler. The best I've seen is #Trumpsterfire It may have been here but the other I saw that I noted is "Trumper Tantrum" Link to comment
QMany Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Textbook "discriminatory intent." Link to comment
NM11046 Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 The fact that he is smirking his Giuliani smirk and she is laughing is enough for me to NOT watch this clip. Link to comment
ColoNoCoHusker Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 More or less they were told to enforce the EO regardless and only POTUS could direct otherwise This seems unconstitutional... That's a SIGNIFICANT -- but potentially quite temporary -- victory. Wow, well done to the ACLU. It's still significant, but when I posted this, I was under the impression that the EO had been eviscerated. Learning since that it's been almost untouched is sobering. I think it could be if say, one airport ignored the court order. If it was a verbal directive, there is too much wiggle room for misinterpretation. Ultimately control of enforcement powers could become an issue... Pretty cool you could go out last night Colo. Did your attorney friend say anything about the possibility of a wrongful termination suit in the even people are fired? Seems to me that people shouldn't be fired for following an order from one of our three branches of gov't aimed squarely at them. But I know no more law than anyone else here, for sure. Random: I heard someone refer to him as "Twitler" the other day. I rather like that. We didn't discuss it directly but if a Federal agency cleans house, there are way to do it and avoid most of the lawsuits. In a right to work state, not giving a reason for the release/termination is perfectly valid and creates a large burden on the former employee(s). Otherwise, they would just try to get the employees to quit. These agency's conduct policies could come into play and they are "temporarily" demoted while they are retrained. They could the transfer/informal demotion/etc card as well. If the culling targeted only management levels, that would help keep the numbers down. Waking up this morning, I am convinced this was a calculated "test run" by Trump's administration as much as anything else. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Good. I hope they get slapped with contempt. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 What threat are we fighting with this ban, anyway? Is there some imminent danger to America specified in that EO somewhere? Who is attacking us? Based on what intel? Link to comment
NM11046 Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Mr. Bannon said the brown guys might be bad. They make him nervous (as do the black guys, and white gals everybody except white & orange men) so they are dangerous. I am more sure each day that Don is indeed a puppet - for many masters. Link to comment
zoogs Posted January 29, 2017 Author Share Posted January 29, 2017 The terrorists. The perception of dire threats can and will be used to keep people in line. This was not successful in that aim. The next one may be more so. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Here's what I think will happen, and it doesn't have a happy ending. This is going to piss off a lot of Muslim citizens. Some of them who are now between the ages of 10 and 20 are going to want to do something about it. We might have more attacks than before, not less. If these happen while Trump is president he will say "I told you about those Muslims" and he will start trying to do things against Muslim citizens. Our only hope which I don't see as much of a hope is he's not re-elected in 2020 and this sh#t gets reversed. I feel like he's laying the ground work already, if he loses the electoral vote, to say that millions voted illegally. Maybe he'll just refuse to step down. Either that or, in the next 4 years, congress and/or the Supreme Court will make a bunch more voting laws or remove more voting protections that adversely affect populations that are more likely to vote Democrat. For instance they could require voter IDs nationwide, then Republican state leaders could jack up ID costs, since poor people vote Democrats in higher %. 4 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Something is going to happen to "justify" this ban. Someone from one of these countries is going to shoot up a church or blow up a market. Something will hit the news in the next week or so, so TrumpBannon can show us all that they were right. It may lead to an even greater tightening of control. This has happened before. 4 Link to comment
Landlord Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 The most tragic thing is that what knapp said is right, and it will be because of the ban. This makes America much more dangerous, not safer. The best possible thing for our country is to welcome the Muslim, welcome the poor, welcome the refugee, welcome the downtrodden, then learn, interact, love and grow together. Want to guarantee terrorists keep trying to attack our country with unrelenting radicalism? Paint the United States as being anti-muslim. That makes their recruitment and their propaganda indoctrination that much easier. That makes our country that much more at risk. Fortunately for Trump, that also gives him the ammo he needs to justify trying to literally destroy world peace. 2 Link to comment
commando Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 The most tragic thing is that what knapp said is right, and it will be because of the ban. This makes America much more dangerous, not safer. The best possible thing for our country is to welcome the Muslim, welcome the poor, welcome the refugee, welcome the downtrodden, then learn, interact, love and grow together. Want to guarantee terrorists keep trying to attack our country with unrelenting radicalism? Paint the United States as being anti-muslim. That makes their recruitment and their propaganda indoctrination that much easier. That makes our country that much more at risk. Fortunately for Trump, that also gives him the ammo he needs to justify trying to literally destroy world peace. the military-industrial complex would really hate that. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Agreed to all the above - this puts us at higher risk. McCain and Grahm just put out a statement that sums it up I think: "Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism." Link to comment
Recommended Posts