well who does Trump Trust? I don't think he trusts any one...he's paranoid... tweets: in caps SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE! oh please! tis so obvious....
Yeah, those tactics worked so well for Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam. Trump's base may be there, but most Americans are not.
May be someone will tweet in response: THE GREATEST THREAT TO OUR NATIONS SECURITY IS A PARANOID PRESIDENT
The greatest weapon ISIL ( Daesh) had/has is generating mass hysteria fear. Trump is just one of it's many high profile victims.. All persons who threaten ISIL show similar symptoms...Tony Abbot ex Australian PM was one of them...IMO
If this was a situation in one of the forces and you Commander gave you a order you don't have the luxury of ' wait while I check it out ' which the lawyers bringing action against the Order seem to think You follow the legal order or find yourself in the brig Put them in the brig (chant chant)
You have a circular argument there in that you have assumed it was a legal order. Where are the judges that agree with you? The best you have is the Boston judge who opined that certain individuals didn't have the right to ask the court that question. Also you ignore the power of the federal courts who were asked to make that call. Also you ignore the damage done by an order which was never vetted by people who knew the laws, policies and procedures of this land. It states right in the body of the EO that the President and his staff don't have a clue. Also you ignore that Congress has the duty to create a uniform immigration rule and when they delegated powers to the President, they required him to establish findings of fact — findings that were wholly missing when the court asked for them.
Well here is the thing this isn't that situation: not even close. We aren't soldiers, and he isn't our commander, and the issue here is the legality of his orders. Unfortunately for you and your comrades we are a nation of laws where the rule of law is upheld. We aren't a banana republic.
I think it was old Willy the conqueror 1040ad that started the old " no one is above the law" principle. Not sure but.... Edit: wrong ... Aristotle. ?
If the POTUS does not have the support of the Judiciary he has no power. It is after all the role of the judiciary to enforce the law.
If the Pope is forwarding charity and open borders as government policy, then yes, that entails the threat of penalty to enforce. Since "hard" doesn't mean impossible and "perfect" is not required, and I've already given ample examples of Biblical capitalism, you don't seem to have much of a point. Source? Paranoid delusion.
Nope. Only 22% of Americans follow the Pope at all. So you're generality about Christians doesn't apply in the US. You either don't live here, or you're an atheist, cluelessly talking about things you don't know anything about. Whether Republicans represent Christian ideals or not, Christians are still majority Republican. A Pope has been named in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover up molestations before (granted immunity by the Department of State). A Pope has accepted the resignation of an Archbishop who covered up molestations, but kept him on with the church, in an administrative position. A Pope has overseen moving accused priests out of the accusing country only to have them again working in contact with children. So certainly some culpability after the fact. Individual Christians may very well welcome refugees, but nowhere does that impute to their nation, as a matter of policy. No nation can do what you suggest without forced taxation to accomplish it, hence forcing charity...never mentioned in the Bible. Funny how atheists all think they're experts on a religion they think is a fairytale. But guess what. Without capitalism, America wouldn't be in the position to help anyone. Bankrupting it removes any ability to help anyone else.
Nooooo No such assumption When the Order was taken to court (remember it is the Order was taken to court not the contents) in order to judge if the Order was legal The judges steped away from that to rule on the contents (if the contents are good or bad etc) Implication was a shambles yes That does not negate the legal power to issue the order The damage done by the poor implementation is the size of a ant to a elephant compared to the damage the challenge and poor judgement from the bench is continuing to inflict Oh sorry I thought he has a title of Commander in Chief Who do you consider is your Commander? Sorry I do not have any Comrades Or bananas Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
" no one is above the law" principle. Some lawyers are below their principles Michael circ 2017 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually it is a doctrine and not just a principle Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
