The long nightmare has just begun: Inauguration of a fraud.

[Shasta]

Not exactly. I continued to use a connection on the point that I started with anna a bit ago. I don't think he's much like Roosevelt, but I think he fashions himself after the model. A lot of modern politicians have, one way or the other...and all of the populists. He was the first president to make substantive use of address aimed at the people on policy and against Congress. Before him, political speech making was mostly broad strokes for the people and particulars for the Hill.

Just did a Google out of curiosity. Teddy Roosevelt and Trump. Got a bit over half a million hits, including Forbes, Politico, and the National Review, some reacting to the former speaker, some looking at it with a squint. It's the use of media, populism and nationalism that ties them. Methodology and manifest destiny, so to speak. Substantively they're completely different.

Trump does not think or reflect on such matters. He likes to call the shots like TR because he is used to being in charge. TR had the same style because he was like that temperamentally. I don't think either man has/had a deep abiding respect for the Constitution which is why the Executive branch will continue to assume powers it does not have and erode our rights.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Trump does not think or reflect on such matters. He likes to call the shots like TR because he is used to being in charge. TR had the same style because he was like that temperamentally. I don't think either man has/had a deep abiding respect for the Constitution which is why the Executive branch will continue to assume powers it does not have and erode our rights.

So ummm..... the executive branch should have no executive power?

 

[ok doser]

So ummm..... the executive branch should have no executive power?

the left was fine with it as long as it was bammy :idunno:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

the left was fine with it as long as it was bammy :idunno:

Bammy's orders were aimed at eroding the Constitution and carried out covertly.

Trump's are established under the Constitution in the interest of the true general welfare of the country.

It's refreshing to see an honestly open Executive in charge.:thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

He's gone over and above what was legally required to separate himself from his business dealings while he's president.

Actually (and only arguably, see: current legal action * directed by suit over the emoluments clause) he's doing the bare minimum, which is a bit like his approach to taxes.

He wouldn't want to appear to do what Hillary's done her whole political career--pay to play. :sibbie: Am 8:5

Not a fan of her either.


*The lawsuit alleging that Trump violated the emoluments clause was filed by some of the nation’s foremost experts on constitutional law, corruption, and government ethics, including Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor of constitutional law who has also argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court; Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham University professor who studies corruption (and who has run for office twice in New York); and Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Irvine school of law. - From Vox, Policy and Politics section, January 24, 2017

 

[ok doser]

Actually (and only arguably, see: current legal action * directed by suit over the emoluments clause) he's doing the bare minimum, which is a bit like his approach to taxes.

*The lawsuit alleging that Trump violated the emoluments clause was filed by some of the nation’s foremost experts on constitutional law, corruption, and government ethics, including Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor of constitutional law who has also argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court; Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham University professor who studies corruption (and who has run for office twice in New York); and Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Irvine school of law. - From Vox, Policy and Politics section, January 24, 2017

well - looks like that's settled, then, eh?

Still, it has a high bar to clear in court. It’s not just a question of proving Trump violated the Constitution. The lawyers must prove their client, the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has been directly injured by what they argue are Trump’s unconstitutional actions. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit.../trump-lawsuit-emoluments-clause-constitution

oh, maybe not

 

[serpentdove]

...a bit like his approach to taxes.

He did not provide tax returns and he was elected president anyway. :greedy: Why are you still talking about his tax returns? :AMR: You're not getting them. Get over it.

The lawsuit alleging that Trump violated the emoluments clause was filed by some of the nation’s foremost experts on constitutional law, corruption, and government ethics, including Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor of constitutional law who has also argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court; Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham University professor who studies corruption (and who has run for office twice in New York); and Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Irvine school of law. - From Vox, Policy and Politics section, January 24, 2017

So. Anyone can sue anybody for anything. That's what keeps you all in business. It doesn't mean that it's news worthy.

 

[Town Heretic]

Continuing...Still, it has a high bar to clear in court. It’s not just a question of proving Trump violated the Constitution. The lawyers must prove their client, the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has been directly injured by what they argue are Trump’s unconstitutional actions.



A point that will be the most likely objection in response? What form might damage take?

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the plaintiff in the case, argues that it has standing because Trump’s conflicts of interest and his possible violation of the emoluments clause have been very time-consuming for their organization. The lawsuit describes CREW as besieged by questions from the media about Trump’s business interests.​

Answering those questions, according to the lawsuit, took time and resources away from the organization’s other work, including tracking potential violations of campaign finance law, filing comments on proposed regulations, and analyzing nonprofits’ tax forms.

The Supreme Court accepted this reasoning as standing enough to sue in a fair housing case in 1982, but some legal experts are skeptical. - Vox, supra​

 

[serpentdove]

...the lawsuit filed by a number of distinguished jurists. Arguably means the matter isn't settled...

Lawyers are hired to make an argument. Doesn't make them right. :dizzy:

 

[Town Heretic]

Lawyers are hired to make an argument. Doesn't make them right. :dizzy:

No, and in most legal actions there are lawyers on both sides, the winning and losing. And so, "arguably".

 

[serpentdove]

No, and in most legal actions there are lawyers on both sides, the winning and losing...

And often losers :loser: win. What's your point? Is 5:20

 

[serpentdove]

well - looks like that's settled, then, eh?

Still, it has a high bar to clear in court. It’s not just a question of proving Trump violated the Constitution. The lawyers must prove their client, the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has been directly injured by what they argue are Trump’s unconstitutional actions. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit.../trump-lawsuit-emoluments-clause-constitution

oh, maybe not

TH thinks he wants to be the next Hillary Clinton? :sibbie: Am 8:5 He's evil (Pr 8:36, Ex 20:14); :greedy: but, he's not stupid.

He's put distance between himself and his businesses while he attempts to lead the country.

 

[Shasta]

When did I say the executive branch should have "no power?"

 

[Town Heretic]

What's your point?

It was there at the end, the thing you omitted, all of three words.

 

[ok doser]

When did I say the executive branch should have "no power?"

right here:

...the executive branch should have "no power?"

 

[Danoh]

Bammy's orders were aimed at eroding the Constitution and carried out covertly.

Trump's are established under the Constitution in the interest of the true general welfare of the country.

It's refreshing to see an honestly open Executive in charge.:thumb:

I just love observing how you willfully blind fools continue to heap praises on a man who's life-long addiction to financial and political corruption in the service of his rampant narcissism you each continue to prove you are willfully clueless of.

Cracks me up to no end - enjoy your short ride :chuckle:

 

[Angel4Truth]

It cracks me up to no end to see all you special snowflakes melting and knowing that america is watching and is waking up finally.

 

[annabenedetti]

Federal Judge In L.A. Issues Restraining Order Against Trump Travel Ban

A federal judge in Los Angeles issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday night against the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order.

Judge André Birotte Jr. ruled that Trump’s immigration order posed a likelihood of “irreparable harm” against 28 plaintiffs, including both U.S. citizens and their relatives who had received visas to immigrate to the country, the Sacramento Bee noted. The order allows dozens of Yemeni travelers stuck in Djibouti to travel to the United States.

In his ruling, Birotte extended the restraining order to protect “any other person from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen with a valid immigrant visa” from U.S. officials tasked with enforcing Trump's order. ​

 

[fool]

I just love observing how you willfully blind fools continue to heap praises on a man who's life-long addiction to financial and political corruption in the service of his rampant narcissism you each continue to prove you are willfully clueless of.

You mean Hillary? She's a she not a he and she lost so you don't have to worry about her anymore.

Cracks me up to no end - enjoy your short ride :chuckle:

8 years is pretty short in global terms but at the rate He's going The Donald will have completed his agenda in his first term I expect.

 

[annabenedetti]

Steve Bannon’s Vision for a Holy War Is Coming into Focus

We've talked a lot about our 45th president, Steve Bannon, around here lately, and the reason is simple: He's basically a xenophobic war-monger who gives voice to neo-Nazis, and he happens to be running the country. Sure, Donald Trump was "elected" and "sworn in" and "is technically the president," but the truth seems to be that the real power in this country rests in the hands of the former Breitbart chairman, accused wife-beater, and propagandist, whom many can't decide whether to call a "white supremacist" or a "white supremacist sympathizer," as though one were better than the other. Now, typically when you have a shadowy figure pulling the strings, they have the decency to at least try to, well, stay in the shadows. Not Bannon. Here's an actual quote that he gave to The Hollywood Reporter after the election:

​

"Darkness is good... Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they" — I believe by "they" he means liberals and the media, already promoting calls for his ouster — "get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."
​