@clevfan4life said:

And your point of view stems from the fact that you're ignoring the concrete outcomes of him putting out data that his opponents feel the need to correct.

@mld-woody said:

I'm saying good at his job as in doing what's best for the country. Moving us forward, not fucking shit up, etc.

I realize this is, unfortunately, a small part of being a politician. A good politician makes their base happy, makes their special interests and lobbiests happy, and most importantly, gets elected.

I really don't care about any of that shit.

Though I still think this "Trump master 4 D chess savage" BS is bolstered a lot by the complete trash put up as his opposition.

Renegotiating NAFTA isn't best for the country? Backing out of the TPP isn't best for the country?

Look at what happened when NAFTA passed, our GDP went up, but we all know what happened to the Rust Belt. If we're going to do a trade deal that sends jobs out of the country, then we need to go all in on it like the Dutch did when joining the EU. They implemented extensive social safety nets to train all the newly unemployed. That type of program is something I doubt I'll ever see in the US, we certainly didn't see it when Clinton signed NAFTA, and all the people who lost jobs were hung out to dry. It took decades for the cities to recover, and I'd argue that Detroit still hasn't. Until the country is ready to implement a social safety net, TPP would be a disaster for the country and especially the working class.

@mld-woody said:

No challenge is to great, woody.

I realize this is, unfortunately, a small part of being a politician. A good politician makes their base happy, makes their special interests and lobbiests happy, and most importantly, gets elected.

I really don't care about any of that shit.

Though I still think this "Trump master 4 D chess savage" BS is bolstered a lot by the complete trash put up as his opposition.

@vaportrail said:

Probably not, that's why they are supreme court justices and not just constitutional scholars.

@mld-woody said:

If you don't see how that makes him a formidable politician, then there isn't much more I can say.

@osiris said:

Allen Dershowitz's opinion is clouded by his anti-Muslim biases. And there are at least nine constitutional scholars who disagree with him:

"Central to the fallout is the question of the constitutionality of Trumps recent order. In interviews with the News, nine law professors from Yale and beyond refuted Trumps argument for national security and seven called the order at least partially unconstitutional.

What happened is mean and inhumane, said Peter Edelman, law professor at Georgetown Law School who served in the secretary of health and human services under the Clinton administration. Adding bad intentions to gross incompetence produced havoc. Along with the grave constitutional and other legal questions, the utterly arbitrary detention this past weekend reminds one of Korematsu. We thought we had said never again.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a prominent scholar in constitutional law and dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, said the order is illegal because it runs afoul of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which abolished the quota system for citizenship based on national origins. And in a Saturday email to the News, former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh called the order motivated by discrimination based on national origin and religion."

yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/02/01/legal-scholars-question-immigration-ban/

There are 3 Jewish justices appointed by Democrats on the Supreme Court. I wonder if their opinions will be clouded by anti-Muslim biases.

Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin expressed his dismay with the Ninth Circuit and its decision to rule against President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration. On his radio program Thursday evening, Levin objected to the quashing of the White House executive order that put a temporarily hold on citizens from seven terror-tied, Muslim-majority countries entering the United States. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/levin-9th-circuit-ruling-by-clowns-in-black-robes#sthash.5PrDbkmg.dpufevin, a constitutional expert and president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has often litigated with government agencies.

"They're not citizens, they're not permanent legal residents," Levin said of the individuals affected by the individual travel ban. "They have a visa. That's it! And the government can yank the visa whenever the hell it wants to!"

"That's what happens when you have a bunch of clowns in a black robe, with a couple of law clerks who sit there thinking this is a debating society!" Levin added.

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/levin-9th-circuit-ruling-by-clowns-in-black-robes#sthash.5PrDbkmg.dpuf

https://soundcloud.com/conservativereview/levin-takes-on-9th-circuit-ruling

@vaportrail said:

Oh, I can agree with that. Establishment Democrats AND Republicans absolutely despise him. All the more reason for me to be happy I voted him in.

I'm not really sure how you can argue that he has no idea what he's doing. Guy won the presidency in a landslide while spending considerably less than his opponents while being attacked by the media - the map hasn't looked like this for the GOP since Reagan. Arguably the worst move of his presidency so far, has been the EO on immigration, and only because it was poorly written. However, the 9th circuit's ruling was poorly argued - using Trump's campaign promises instead of the actual lawbased more on politics than constitutionality. It's going to get overturned when Trump either A - raises it to SCOTUS after appointing a new judge, or B - writes a new EO to circumvent the 9th circuit's argument.

The first part of your argument for why he's a good President has to do with him winning the ejection. I don't see how that has any bearing on his ability as president.

You're describing the "worst move of his presidency so far", which has been a couple months. Throw in all of his Twitter bullshit too.

We'll see how it goes, I just don't think it's been a great start.

@vaportrail said:

Yes, I do think there's a better chance of it going the other way. The EO was a weakly written EO, but the reasoning for the 9th Circuit's ruling was even worse. It resorted to Trump's statements made on the campaign to get to their ruling rather than the wording of the EO. I'm no constitutional scholar, but Dershowitz is, and here are his thoughts.

"Central to the fallout is the question of the constitutionality of Trumps recent order. In interviews with the News, nine law professors from Yale and beyond refuted Trumps argument for national security and seven called the order at least partially unconstitutional.

What happened is mean and inhumane, said Peter Edelman, law professor at Georgetown Law School who served in the secretary of health and human services under the Clinton administration. Adding bad intentions to gross incompetence produced havoc. Along with the grave constitutional and other legal questions, the utterly arbitrary detention this past weekend reminds one of Korematsu. We thought we had said never again.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a prominent scholar in constitutional law and dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, said the order is illegal because it runs afoul of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which abolished the quota system for citizenship based on national origins. And in a Saturday email to the News, former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh called the order motivated by discrimination based on national origin and religion."

yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/02/01/legal-scholars-question-immigration-ban/

@osiris said:

Yes, I do think there's a better chance of it going the other way. The EO was a weakly written EO, but the reasoning for the 9th Circuit's ruling was even worse. It resorted to Trump's statements made on the campaign to get to their ruling rather than the wording of the EO. I'm no constitutional scholar, but Dershowitz is, and here are his thoughts.

“I do not believe that this order constitutes a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution,” the Harvard Law School professor emeritus told “Newsmax Prime” host J.D. Hayworth. “The fact that they picked seven Muslim states, those are the states that have high levels of terrorism. We’re talking about Islamic terrorism. When you focus on real victims or real perpetrators — and the impact is heavily on one particular religion, that doesn’t create a constitutional problem.

“So, I think that the Trump administration will ultimately win on that issue, at least as it relates to people who have never been in the United States,” Dershowitz concluded.

“The case will go to the Supreme Court,” the professor emeritus said. “It may split 4-4 — and that will be interesting, because we also have a case in Massachusetts where you have a liberal judge who went in favor of the Trump administration, even though generally he’s regarded as quite liberal in his views.”

@vaportrail said:

Oh, I can agree with that. Establishment Democrats AND Republicans absolutely despise him. All the more reason for me to be happy I voted him in.

I'm not really sure how you can argue that he has no idea what he's doing. Guy won the presidency in a landslide while spending considerably less than his opponents - the map hasn't looked like this for the GOP since Reagan. Arguably the worst move of his presidency so far, has been the EO on immigration, and only because it was poorly written. However, the 9th circuit's ruling was poorly argued - using Trump's campaign promises instead of the actual lawbased more on politics than constitutionality. It's going to get overturned when Trump either A - raises it to SCOTUS after appointing a new judge, or B - writes a new EO to circumvent the 9th circuit's argument.

Not only that, but Kennedy sided with the liberal judges in a case involving the rights of enemy combatants to be heard before a judge. if he thought enemy combatants had a right to a fair trial, do you really think he is going to rule for Trumps ban of civilians?

the type that keep electing fools like McCain, and others.

Conservatives and independents, and dems who are sick of the years of politicians

playing the game to just continue getting their benefits.....

they talk good to certain groups, but in the end they won't/don't solve anything.

It's time to drain the swamp, shake it up and start fixing things. Like terrorists getting an

easy ride into our country. Like our debt. Like trade deals that leave us with

chinese crap in all of our stores, job/industry losses, entitlements skyrocketing...

etc etc etc etc. Those are the folks who elected Trump. We saved America.

@mld-woody said:

Oh, I can agree with that. Establishment Democrats AND Republicans absolutely despise him. All the more reason for me to be happy I voted him in.

@mld-woody said:

It's great we finally voted for the non paid for, speaks their mind, non politician. It just also happened to be a guy that really has no idea what he's doing, and not acting like a president at all. Here's hoping that it all works out.

I'm not really sure how you can argue that he has no idea what he's doing. Guy won the presidency in a landslide while spending considerably less than his opponents while being attacked by the media - the map hasn't looked like this for the GOP since Reagan. Arguably the worst move of his presidency so far, has been the EO on immigration, and only because it was poorly written. However, the 9th circuit's ruling was poorly argued - using Trump's campaign promises instead of the actual lawbased more on politics than constitutionality. It's going to get overturned when Trump either A - raises it to SCOTUS after appointing a new judge, or B - writes a new EO to circumvent the 9th circuit's argument.

@vaportrail said:

Eggsfreakinzactly !

It's great we finally voted for the non paid for, speaks their mind, non politician. It just also happened to be a guy that really has no idea what he's doing, and not acting like a president at all. Here's hoping that it all works out.

@osiris said:

I don't care if he's alienating Europe, they've relied on us for military force projection far too much. They've got the economy to field an army, so they can defend themselves.

The immigration EO was poorly written, but the 9th circuit's decision will probably be overturned when raised to a higher court, per Alan Dershowitz, who is no fan of Trump.

Don't really care about his approval rating so long as things get changed. NAFTA and TPP are changes, but you're welcome to ignore them all you like. Please explain to me why better relations between the US and Russia is a bad thing.

Muslim Brotherhood crap. And not one court deemed his TEMPORARY

HALT as unConsititutional They deemed it not politically acceptable.

Rationalized, that's what they did.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-09/court-appeals-rules-against-reinstating-trumps-immigration-executive-order

@vaportrail said:

Stance and action on TPP/NAFTA and LGBTQ issues makes your claim demonstrably false.

Not really. Trump has brought with him lots of terrible "changes." Immigration ban was poorly conceived, judged unconstitutional by several courts and poorly executed. The man is alienating every other democratic country on the planet. Is anyone surprised his best friends are Putin and Sisi? Both authoritarian dictators who want to solidify their authority through silencing critics instead of putting forth good policy. Sounds familiar. His approval rating is currently 41%. That's worse than at anytime in Obama's presidency. Sounds like most people see him as a Pontiac Aztek, making my claim demonstrably accurate. Nice try though.

Except, Os was a whole lot closer to being all totally soaked in Egypt.

@osiris said:

God save us from foreigners logic.

@osiris said:

Stance and action on TPP/NAFTA and LGBTQ issues makes your claim demonstrably false.