BS: Executive orders?

Subject: BS: Executive orders?
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 11:45 AM

Can my US friends explain these? Can a President sign a limitless number without Congress or Senate having a chance to vote on them? Seems like a recipe for dictatorship.

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 11:48 AM

A President needs a certain amount of power to get things done sigh.
The President has a certain range of well defined powers which are understood by protocol but at this time of partisanship, we are dealing with the limits of language. I'm sure some of these will wind up in the Supreme Court.
And there is certainly more to come, both in number and range of power-grab.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 03:28 PM

The 7 Muslim country ban was poorly thought out and will eventually be struck down.

Why was this order so messed up? One shocking reason is that Trump has never before heard of the Geneva Convention. Why should he know it? no one in his family was military and by chance Donald never learned about it on TV. The advice Trump got from Bannon, a crypto Nazi, is another reason.

The Guardian paper interviewed Angela Merkle who to her great surprise discovered Trump never heard of the Geneva Convention.

He swore an oath to the Constitution in which he knows next to nothing.
Ignorance of the law is no defense.
Airports are in utter confusion as to who to detain, deport and arrest.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: peregrina
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 04:01 PM

It's already been struck down by 4 stays, with the judge in Brooklyn also saying he should desist from further unconstitutional activity

More than a dozen state AGs have condemned it

Senators McCain and Graham have issued a joint statement of condemnation

Merkel has phoned him to explain the International Convention

Impeachment cannot come too soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: keberoxu
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 04:09 PM

Here in Massachusetts, both the Massachusetts Governor and the Boston mayor are up in arms and making public statements at demonstrations.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 04:39 PM

A quick refresher of US government:

Our Instruction Book is the Constitution. (guys generally don't read the instructions)


We have 3 equal branches; the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court. (naturally the right likes their President more equal)


Both the Congress or President may propose new law. If Ratified by the Congress the president may sign it or veto it.

A Presidential order is like duct tape for quick fixes. It can be erased by a next President or Supreme Court.

The President gets the first word and the Court gets the last word.
Can all three get something wrong? It is possible

The President has been known to disband the congress and shut up.
That was Abraham Lincoln.

Can a dictator overcome all the safeguards provided by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution?

That is a good question.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: gillymor
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 05:20 PM

"The President has been known to disband the congress and shut up.
That was Abraham Lincoln."
If you're saying that Lincoln disbanded Congress it's new to me. He did suspend Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 05:56 PM

I remember Dave Barry at the Press Club talking about amending the Constitution:

"And I'm not talking about a lot of speeches or votes, just a magic marker!"

Remember the Lord Chancellor solved the main problem in Iolanthe by inserting a single word in the Fairy Charter: "don't"!

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 08:06 PM

Remember? I never heard of him but Dick Army did something similar in the dead of night with laws to be signed in the morning.

Lincoln did not order Congress closed but technically he went ahead and acted without Congress before they assembled and of course without the Confederate members. He also acted in contradiction of Supreme court rulings. When half the country is shooting the other half it was special circumstances. The Habeas Corpus thing is only part of Lincoln's departure from normal proceedings.

Keep me honest gillymor.
I have a tendency to abbreviate things into nonsense and then not proof read. But when you can't totally trust your own reading , you don't see the turd in the punchbowl.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 08:41 PM

Jaysus, I thought it was a cinnamon stick. 💩

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 08:47 PM

Executive Orders have to be carefully written in order to utilize the powers of the president without infringing on existing law or powers of Congress. I'm sure Obama's executive orders were drafted with extreme care, especially near the end, to make them more difficult to undo. And even folks like George W. Bush had the traditional statesmen/women and lawyers to cobble together his orders.

Trump and the gang he has brought into place have no experience in these jobs and apparently no understanding about how carefully those must be crafted. And Trump seems to think he's king and can just post a list of commands on the White House door.

We're all getting a fast lesson in American governance and what each of our roles are. The public has more power than many know, if they are consistent and keep making a fuss and contacting their representatives. And most of the courts will continue to act like responsible courts. I'm guessing we're only going to have eight on the Supreme Court for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 08:49 PM

Well someone had better slow him down, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 10:51 PM

For the most part, Executive Orders are rules issued by the President that give the procedures for executive agencies to implement authorities given to the President by law or by the constitution. I worked for a career under authority of the Atomic Energy Act and Executive Order 10450, which set forth the rules for conducting background investigations for security clearances. The order was renewed and revised many times over my career. Most of the specifics of my job were spelled out by executive order, not by law.
Executive orders cannot contradict the constitution or existing law, and they can be overruled by legislation passed by Congress or by court judgments. -Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 03:46 AM

Will put this up again here as I feel it has far reaching implications

"BBC News this morning has reported that the petition has been rejected by the Tory government"
I knew nothing of this petition - I assume this is a different petition I received this morning (message dated yesterday)

"Ian Saville 20 hrs ·
There is a petition asking that Trump not be invited for a state visit, which I have signed. However, I have also put up a petition saying he should not be invited for any sort of visit:
I've made a petition – will you sign it?
Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/…/spons…/yPupbe6AYDPTwro9b8Tq
My petition:
Donald Trump should be banned from visiting the United Kingdom.
Given Donald Trump's executive order barring citizens from 7 Muslim countries from entering the United States, his views on climate change, his attitude to women, his encouragement of violence and the authoritarian tone of his statements, it is not in the interests of the UK to allow him to visit.
It is clear that Donald Trump is an authoritarian President, whose views pose a grave danger to UK citizens and to the whole world. Allowing him to visit our country as though he were a normal leader will add to his authority and strengthen his power. He must not be treated as normal. He has already demonstrated that the rhetoric he spouted during his election campaign was not just bluster, and he is prepared to put extreme anti-humanitarian policies into practice. We must not give him credence.
Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/…/spons…/yPupbe6AYDPTwro9b8Tq
I attempted to sign it only to find that it has been blocked pending investigation
What the **** is happening?
This is totally unprecedented.
This is appalling - an open case of an attempt to block protest on behalf of an extremist right wing foreign leader.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 03:53 AM

Thanks, Joe, that's the clearest explanation of how they work.
RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Mr Red
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 04:41 AM

Is this how he bankrupted 5 corporations?

Be afraid America, be very afraid.

(Now how many months before the election did I say that?)

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 08:45 AM

Mr Red - 30 Jan 17 - 04:41 AM

Is this how he bankrupted 5 corporations?

Having looked "he" didn't bankrupt 5 corporations.

The number was 4 and they were placed in Chapter 11 insolvency which under US Law allows a company to be saved by restructuring it's debt in order to pay off debt as opposed to total liquidation. Chapter 11 allows people to retain their jobs and the business keeps going, liquidation crashes the whole enterprise. All four entities still operate, still employ people, still contribute.

Examination into those four instances also show that "he" was not the sole reason why those businesses got into difficulties in each instance there were other contributing factors outwith Trump's control.

This is no defence of Trump, but please Gents if you are going to introduce information at least take the trouble to make it as accurate, dispassionate and factual as possible?

Chapter 11 provisions have been used by many, the four instances involving Donald Trump's investments in scale are minute in terms of debt. I always believed that Donald Trump's wealth was all inherited and that the old joke about how do you become a billionaire? Start out by inheriting $2 billion applied. But research into the man's background reveals that this is not true. In Trumps case, he did inherited millions and turned those millions into billions.

The USA's top 11 Chapter 11 examples (Perspective Check: Trump Entertainment Resorts debts $1.7 bn):

1 Lehman Brothers - 2009 - debts $691 billion
2 Washington Mutual - 2008 - debts $327.9 billion
3 World Com* - 2002 - debts $103.9 billion
4 General Motors - 2009 - debts $91 billion
5 CIT - 2009 - debts $80.4 billion
6 Enron - 2001 - debts $65.5 billion
7 Conseco* - 2002 - debts $61.4 billion
8 MF Global - 2011 - debts $41 billion
9 Chrysler* - 2009 - debts $39.3 billion
10 Thornburg Mortgages - 2009 - $36.5 billion
11 Pacific Gas & Electric - 2001 - debts $36.15 billion

The above companies marked with an asterix were out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy within 2 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 09:27 AM

TRUMP'S BANKRUPCY HISTORY
Sorry it's from mere journalists and researchers - they obviously forgot to consult you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Mr Red
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 09:36 AM

I know about chapter 11 it is still referred to as bankruptcy even in America.
What it does allow is to defer the debts. The people get their money eventually if they haven't been driven to bankruptcy themselves by then. And there were a few of them. It gives him time to refuse to pay, and wait for them to go under in the process. The evidence is there!
Is this a holding loophole for businesses in difficult circumstances or is it used as a performance aid. Used to sale closer to the wind and the safety net will catch you. A tactic for the cavalier, a crutch for the bullies of this world. A steel toecap against those with enough money & staying power to actually call on those debts? A lever to crowbar a percentage on the dollar?
AFAIK some of those failed businesses were sold on.

And he didn't learn those tactics at his own university, which is where now?

Outwith Trump? He takes the credit when it works! He is responsible, as any control freak is, for what & who works for him.
If it has his name on, we put the hooks on HIM.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 11:19 AM

Typically Presidents who say they will shrink the bloated Federal government will have employees cut by shrinking agency budgets so the agencies have to decimate themselves. What is unusual are Trump orders to eliminate the most experienced people in the State dept.
We will all see why very soon. The answer will be regarding Russia.

Most of the agencies have been cut so many times many employees will tell you they are now doing 3 more jobs on top of their own.

When break downs occur it is served up as proof of the ineffectiveness of government.

In this light when Trump fails he wins and blames ineffective agencies.
When Trump wins on an issue based on real or alternative facts, he wins again. Even at current levels of funding many agencies already have a tenuous grasp on their workload.

Perhaps it is good rump is a germaphobe, in regards to the survival of the Institutes of Health and CDC.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 11:21 AM

So Mr Red does that mean you give him credit for saving the jobs of those who worked for him in those enterprises he put into Chapter 11 "protection"? Or perhaps you think it would have been better had they all lost their jobs and the have the businesses closed down?

As for what Chapter 11 is:

"Chapter 11 is a form of corporate bankruptcy in the United States that enables a company to reorganise a faltering business.

Under Chapter 11 a company's management usually stays in place to run the day-to-day business, although all major business decisions must be approved by a bankruptcy court.

The company will usually attempt to work out a plan to return to profitability while paying back creditors. It if can't, the company will be liquidated, with the assets sold to pay creditors.

The plan must be accepted by the creditors, bondholders, and stockholders, and confirmed by the bankruptcy court. However, even if creditors or stockholders reject the plan, the court can confirm the plan if it finds that the plan treats creditors and stockholders fairly.

If the company is quoted on a stock exchange, its stock and bonds may continue to trade in the securities markets. Since they still trade, the company must continue to file SEC reports with information about significant developments.

Source: SEC*

US Securities & Exchange Commission

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 01:15 PM

"Having looked "he" didn't bankrupt 5 corporations."
Only if you accept his "alternative facts"
In the real world, the number far exceeds the five
You really are not very good at this, are you ?
I was going to as if you were going for a hat-trick, but you've exceeded that too
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 02:09 PM

Chapter 11 is economic "rope-a-dope" with your creditors as the opponent. They can only do so much to you as you collect your resources.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 03:55 PM

This is a kind hearts and coronets scenario and similar to a net work TV show about all of Americas leaders blown to bits at a State of the Union address.

But if Donald is killed by a pen when he lurches forward inside his limo in London when a horse has a shoe nail go through his flesh and the horse wildly gets in front of the limo and Pence has a mishap in the shower that leaves him in a coma and Paul Ryan is dispatched by a rogue exercise machine and Orrin Hatch chokes to death on a Reeses Peanut Butter cup the President would be Thomas A Shannon Jr. appointed by Obama, schooled in Oxford and William and Mary.

That is Until Rex Tillerson is approved

come on lucky seven

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 07:59 PM

Apparently a lot of what the press are calling Executive Orders aren't, but only Presidential Memoranda, and there is a legal difference. Anybody know more?

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 10:25 PM

Trump Fires acting Attorney General Sally Yates.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Mr Red
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 04:31 AM

does that mean you give him credit for saving the jobs.......
give him credit for putting those jobs at risk, Chapter 11 was the result not the cause. If you like the man go work for him. I double dare you.
For Chapter 11, read performance aid.

He drives the business, he takes the credit - yea. Brickbats an all.

He still owes money in corporations he has not managed to fail, he just refuses to pay. Claims shoddy work, and even offers some a new contract. It is all there reported from people on the receiving end.
You don't have to hear his verbals, and assume, but they are consistent.

Be afraid America, be very afraid.
Now how long before the election did I say that? It was just after Brexit!

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 07:31 AM

Before we get full of ourselves, remember the Trump base is delighted.
His base forgives the form and love the function.

A businessman is used to nondisclosure contracts. This is what Trump does to keep everyone in the Government out of the loop.
He takes someone's staff member, swears the guy to secrecy and tells them to make up some orders to do such and such.



What no one is reading about now is that Putin is on the move in the Ukraine. I hide this here but you can bank on this!

Trump is going full diversion this week with firing the AG the Immigration director and selecting the Supreme court justice


Only political appointees may be fired by the President. But the Republicans have a law ready to go so that the President may fire all civil servants . Once that law is ever enacted it is game over for democracy at the core of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 07:38 AM

this was important stuff Mr Red

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: gillymor
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 08:43 AM

With the travel ban E.O. Herr Trump didn't want to tip over the cash cow that he no doubt considers his office to be.

N.Y. Times

From the article:

"After the election we often heard the phrase "to the victor belong the spoils." But there are ethical and constitutional limits to that maxim. In this case, an already suspect immigration ban is subject to yet more doubt because President Trump may be looking to his business interests at the same time as he makes decisions about human beings who want to come to America to study, earn a living, avoid persecution and in some instances, to survive."

They've given us "alternative facts" and now we've got "alternative ethics".

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 09:56 AM

America pays the highest prices for drugs in the World. Trump plans to raise prices to the rest of the world to stop the freeloading and drop some prices in the US. Tax cut and regulation cuts are expected for big Pharma

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 10:17 AM

Teribus is right! Trump is doing all the things he said he would do.

I have a root that extends into the Government. I do not work for the Government. I do become aware of unreported news but I do not leak from my root. I am only a citizen observer. But now If I should not ethically agree with the White House I am no longer disagreeing, I am now said to betray the White House.

Betrayal is the word Trump chooses.

THAT IS DANGEROUS.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 11:39 AM

What are the details of the immigration ban that has been put in place?

As reported over here:

1: The "ban" targets seven countries all previously identified by Barack Obama's administration. Now why were they identified by them? To what purpose?

2: The "ban" is TEMPORARY with, depending upon which report you read, immigration applications from seven specified countries being suspended for a period of either 90 days or 120 days.

3: The period of the "ban" is set to enable those counties and the US authorities to put in place procedures for vetting potential immigrants in order that immigration can be resumed. Considering what has been happening in those countries all of that seems fairly reasonable and sensible.

As far as I am aware none of the above infringes or contravenes the Constitution of the United States of America, or current US Law.

How many people are signing the petition on the incorrect MSM misinformation that Muslims have been banned from emigrating to the USA?

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 12:58 PM

Betrayal list, Enemies list--Is there a difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Mr Red
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 02:54 PM

Amazon, Google, Apple & Microsoft are weighing in with their financial muscle on the immigration ban. Rightly so, they do business world wide and more than 50% of Americans buy their product. And a high percentage of their brightest brains are from around the world.

Sergey Brin was a refugee.

None of which will frighten Twitler, but his support base may quake.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 05:16 PM

You can't "emigrate to" anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 06:17 PM

Just watched a desperately biased Emily Maitliss being roasted by member of Donal John's administration on newsnight.

he explained the recent Executive Orders simply and succinctly, also dealing with the hysteria of the protesters in the US and UK.

The obnoxious Miss Maitliss was left speechless.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: bobad
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 07:03 PM

Best tweet seen today from someone calling him/her self Arizona Democrat:

If there is a Muslim ban, refugees can call themselves Christians. You know, just like the Republicans do.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: robomatic
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 08:37 PM

Mr. Red:

"Twitler" A HA HA HA HA!

New one for me. I'll try to remember it.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Feb 17 - 06:49 PM

"Just watched a desperately biased Emily Maitliss 2
A fne gallant statement from someone who doesn't have the balls to stand up for what he supports
You people really are the pits
D'you think your mate in the WH willl try to gat an amnesty for your mate Breivik because he was "saying something worth listening to"?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 09:40 AM

There is a big difference between dissent and betray.
That Tromp sees dissent as a betrayal of America is a "with us or against us" concept which is quite Hitleresque.

The entire idea of an enemies list is paranoid and depraved. Trumps list is much longer than Nixon's. Stalin had his lists too.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: bobad
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 09:23 PM

From Facebook:

Robert Reich
21 mins ·

U.S. District Court Judge James Robart (and appointee of George W. Bush) has temporarily blocked Trump's Muslim travel ban – ruling in favor of the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota who sought to overturn the order.

This is a big deal, at least in the short term. Robart's ruling effectively stops the ban, for now. And it has nationwide effect (even though another federal judge in Boston has allowed the ban to proceed).

"Judge Robart's decision, effective immediately, effective now, puts a halt to President Trump's unconstitutional and unlawful executive order. It puts a stop to it immediately, nationwide," Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson told reporters. "What the judge announced today was nationwide; the president's executive order does not apply."

Kudos to Judge Robart. Kudos to the federal court system. Kudos to the attorneys general of Washington and Minnesota.

The Framers of the Constitution designed it – balance of power, checks and balances, federalism – with Donald Trump in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 10:02 PM

Teribus, Jan. 30: "he" was not the sole reason why those businesses got into difficulties in each instance there were other contributing factors"

Matters are rarely cut and dried. In the USA we say that if the American South had had more men, better equipment, more time and just a bit better luck, they would have won the Civil War.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 03:01 AM

Thanks Ebbie so we agree in fact, matters are rarely cut and dried and that in any situation there are always a number of contributing factors.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 04:39 AM

Well, I agree as well as long as we are clear about the difference between "not responsible' and "not solely responsible." That are very few things in the world that anyone is solely responsible for. That does not stop them being responsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 05:26 AM


1: The "ban" targets seven countries all previously identified by Barack Obama's administration. Now why were they identified by them? To what purpose?

(CNN)The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in President Trump's executive order on immigration were initially identified as "countries of concern" under the Obama administration.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Sunday pointed to the Obama administration's actions as the basis for their selection of the seven countries.

Was the previous administration guilty of discriminating against Muslims too?

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Mr Red
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 05:30 AM

Portrait of Twitler

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 06:45 AM

Obama did not ban people from seven countries. In fact, his properly-devised policy focused on visa applications from specific groups in Iraq. There was no banning and it is highly dishonest to compare his actions to Trump's ill-considered, bigoted and divisive executive order. If you do things properly people may still disagree with you. Jump right in without thinking and you risk fomenting big trouble. So-called judge? So-called president, more like.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 07:00 AM

Ah so Barack Obama's administration halting the processing of visa applications for six months is somehow different from Trump ordering the halting of processing visa applications for 90/120 days while new vetting arrangements are put in place - HOW?

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 07:04 AM

Just go back and find out properly what Obama did instead of bringing your Trump-defending ideology here. The comparison between the two actions is entirely inappropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Iains
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 07:37 AM

The linked article gives an interesting perspective on where we are now:-

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/02/01/war-ordinary-americans-paul-craig-roberts/

While much is made of the President's Executive order and the continued play over it's legality, I suspect there are far greater issues playing out behind the scenes. The real issue is who holds the reins of power.
How this plays out in the coming weeks will determine if the Presidency can regain legitimacy. Some would argue it was lost with the assassination Of President John F Kennedy.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 09:25 AM

There is a war on social justice. Social Justice is held in disdain by neo conservatives.

What is justice? It is the law. It is Presidential orders and Congressional decided law, it is Court consecrated.
Law is man's feeble attempt to set down the principles of decency.
The law is not a deal, an angle, a contract or a bullied hustle.

We know that the President and his advisor are not decent people.
They are rude crass and vulgar at the minimum.
Most of us don't want to know what they are at the worst.
Most Americans are decent people.

The values of Donald Tromp are self, greed and any means to an end which are usually lies. His ideas of law are perverse. They are indecent. So are many of the historic actions of the US.

So we must go ahead perversely and indecently to support our greatest ever President because it is the law.

But it is not the law. Not yet. With enough indecent laws we could be convicted of betrayal, disloyalty, treason and criminalized by the very instrument that was dedicated to the principles of decency.
To obey, to be loyal, to worship the leader who is exalted by law

We can believe the media and the courts are the enemy. We can demonize social justice and justice itself.

We can turn our back on decency and just follow orders.
Most people do.

I can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 10:37 AM

It always surprises me that some Americans don't appreciate the whole point of their system is to prevent any one person gaining too much power. If that happens it doesn't much mattwr whether you call thwm King, President or Kaiser. A lot of Trump's tweets are equating his view with the country's view. Another danger signal.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 10:50 AM

Breaking news MSNBC

Russian State Oil CEO offered 19% cut of huge oil deal if sanctions are lifted to Donald J Trump via Carter Page and Trump surrogates.

Proof is from Russian Memos.



This is a big deal.

It is Treason.


As the Russian deal is falling apart there is a death toll of Russian Intelligence officers in the know. 4 treason trials are schduled so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 11:08 AM

look here


Behind the curve
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/30/1627621/-19-5-of-Rosneft-Russia-s-State-Oil-Co-Sold-to-Unknown-Parties

Unknown my ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 12:18 PM

DMcG

Stop being surprised.

Did the media really do anything to know the big baby temperament of Trump? No. They merely post human interest fluff over outrageous insults or shocking rude crudeness.

The electoral college required changing the Construction with state by state campaigns at great cost. Once it was discovered the system actually accomplished the opposite of its intended effect of keeping undesirables out of the White House the country was referendum weary and did not undertake the arduous process of repealing the amendment.
The political parties instead used the electoral college to basically stuff the ballot box for only their guy.

The country grew bored with the electoral college.

The due diligence to examine Trump the man as well as ignoring the Russian collusion is also at fault.
After Nixon we promised to take a harder look at what kind of man or woman we make President. How hard a look did we take a look at Trump except for entertainment value. We are locked in a terrible system that produces presidents the public does not want.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Iains
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 12:20 PM

Accusations, but as yet no evidence. If true it could be a very short Presidency, but I suspect it is just slurs from poor losers. If there is any substance to the story it would be mainstream news worldwide. As yet, a deathly hush. The atory is at least a week old and has gained the flight characteristics of a penguin.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 12:29 PM

You speak falsehoods.

There is incontrovertible evidence.
The dossiers are Russian which have been paid for with Russian lives and were announced by the State Oil CEO.

You are on the wrong side of history to defend the greatest Trump 'deal' of all.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Iains
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM

Donuel, I am not going to argue with you. If you are correct proof will be shown and publicised. If not is is slurs and innuendoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 01:32 PM

Without argument much more of this story was known of this incident as early as July by US intelligence. It was classified. It is now partly declassified.

We are dependent on both sides of this deal to open it up more.

What this is about is a state owned oil corporation who suddenly says they gave away one fifth of state owned oil profits {perhaps sold) to an unknown entity. This was Russia
why, Who?

merica? Mexico? Mongolia? or maybe a multi billionaire.

We know about Trump's representative named Price and how all this coincides in space and time. Price became a hot potato and separated from the Trump campaign.

We now know who and how much this deal to remove sanctions is about.

There are CIA factions who consider themselves unbound by the Constitution and the business of America is business and want total classification. There are those that want to become transparent.

Trump wants them to shut up.

To put a fine point on this:

The deal now has proof of existence but there is no proof as to Trump's personal cut of the 19% of all Russian oil profits.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 05:54 PM

A healthy skepticism is our best defense against fake news but that's also when we can throw out the baby with the bath water.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 06:36 PM

Just in case Trump hasn't issued enough executive orders to suit you, or hasn't yet issued the one that really rings your bell, you can go to the Trump Executive Order Generator and create your own. You can issue a decree commissioning a monument to the victims of The Bowling Green Massacre, or whatever you like.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 06:45 PM

I thought the Daughters of the Confederacy had put up that monument some time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 05:05 AM

Dont worry, Donuel, the level of surprise is about that when you realise someone does not know something that you naively imagine everyone (in your culture knows), like finding wonderland down rabbit holes, or roughly where the capital of their own country is. When you meet someone who doesn't, it is a bit of a jolt.

In this case we are not even talking about Trump, but about the basic principles on which America was founded. You would hope Americans know that, so it is always a bit of a shock when you meet ones who don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:27 PM

The appeals court is deciding tonight if Trump should be overturned regarding the ban order.

It revolves around whether or not the order was rational. The administrations' lawyer is making it up as they go along. I think Trump loses this round and the case will go to a lower court.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Airymouse
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 05:05 PM

It is very unusual for an executive order that is unconstitutional to be upheld by the courts, but it has happened. FDR's executive order 9066 seized property of US citizens of Japanese decent and put them concentration camps. Executive orders don't get more unconstitutional than that, but the order was upheld by the Supreme Court.I'm guessing that the circuit court will uphold the stay granted to Washington State et al. and that the case will go to the Supreme Court. Since the court still has only eight justices, there is a chance: if the intent of the order is a muslim ban, that would violate our constitution (I think.) Remarks by Trump and Mayor Giuliani suggest that was Trump's intent, but it will be hard to prove.

Subject: RE: BS: Executive orders?
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 12:18 PM

If it ties at 4-4 it goes to the lower court.

Trump's Supreme pick will take a while.