Right, I'm telling val that that's why they won't back him.

the donald has the pro-"extreme vetting" % at 65 right now with everyone saying IM SURPRISED ITS NOT EVEN HIGHER

"IM SURE ITS HIGHER, #SILENTMAJORITY"

lol

I just saw a CBP recruitment ad, which I think is a first since the agency was renamed.

Just real briefly, beyond the odd slur, to a racist Muslim is the prime identity, Canadian is the adjective.

The bizarre linguistics person is just the newest version of the Game Theory guy, come on with this FSB bull****, it's just some rando trolling for attention, like ~all of the other "rogue" government accounts.

Actual rogue employees do **** like this:

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/...e-office-here/

Cite for this confident claim? That is a lot of >>>'s!

http://time.com/money/4639544/trump-...et-budget-cut/

I'm sure Awval in Barbados will explain how this is all good.

Dan. We have talked about this.

Shadow gov. at work? Rogue Capitol Hill aides?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...s-order-234392

You get called a racist because you occasionally say something that some people think racists also say. That's not fair you might say because most people who sometimes say stuff that happen to be similar to what a racist might say shouldn't have that description put on them as they are not in fact racists. And the people who call them that should know better. So you would usually have my sympathy. Except everything I just said applies equally, if not moreso to the word "madman".

Mike Flynn, Trump's national security adviser, deletes Twitter account

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2613419/

With one exception. If a voter qualification test winnowed out that 70 to the point where those still allowed to vote stopped things like a Muslim ban, it would still be wrong to administer it.

Replace "voter qualification test" with "gerrymandering and voter id laws," and reverse the thesis and conclusion, and you have the current state of affairs and an explanation for why we are where we are right now.

I'm thinking if Sessions is not approved tomorrow Trump will fire Yates at the end of the day. He'd probably have done it tonight, but he won't just yet given Sessions hearing is tomorrow.

I'm confused about the grounds on which the ban is unlawful. Once you exclude green card holders, what kind of protections do aliens have?

Its based on the fact they're claiming its religious, but its really not.

Ditto. I'm pretty pissed that Soros didn't pay for my subway fare. I guess I missed the memo.

There's a pretty compelling argument that the ban violates the establishments clause. This argument is given more weight because Trump is a dumbass who bragged on the air that he was doing it to give preference to Christian refugees over Muslim ones. At least one federal judge has already found a substantial likelihood that that violates the establishment clause in issuing a TRO.

Edit: There's also a statute that curtails the president's power to regulate immigration by preventing a president from discriminating based upon, amongst other things, religion or national origin.

As a rule of thumb. If Starbucks can join the protest then you are doing it wrong.

They were punished for Flynn Jr tweeting the hashtag #MuslimBan

Trump literally has a severe case of a disorder that is in the DSM-5. Whether this qualifies as being a "madman" is a semantic issue. Its extremely plain at this point that Trumps disorder is affecting his ability to execute his duties.

He did do it tonight.



https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/stat...53283002040320

what a **** show

Well, he's now at and beyond Nixon levels in so many respects, why not this one as well.

From the ACLU's application for a stay:

FIFTH AMENDMENT – PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
DENIAL OF RIGHT TO APPLY FOR ASYLUM
57. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
58. Procedural due process requires that the government be constrained before it acts in a way that deprives individuals of liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
59. The United States government is obligated by United States and international law to hear the asylum claims of noncitizens presenting themselves at United States borders and ports of entry. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that “[a]ny alien who is physically present
in the United States or who arrives in the United States. . . irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1); see also id. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii).
60. Consistent with these United States statutory and international law obligations, individuals arriving at United States ports of entry must afforded an opportunity to apply for asylum or other forms of humanitarian protection and be promptly received and processed by United States authorities.
61. Having presented themselves at a United States port of entry, Petitioners are entitled to apply for asylum and to be received and processed by United States authorities.
62. Respondents’ actions in denying Petitioners the opportunity to apply for asylum, taken pursuant to the EO, violate the procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

COUNT TWO
FIFTH AMENDMENT – PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
DENIAL OF RIGHT TO WITHHOLDING/CAT PROTECTION
63. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
64. Under United States law as well as human rights conventions, the United States may not return (“refoul”) a noncitizen to a country where she may face torture or persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b); United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), implemented in the Foreign Affairs Reform and RestrucTturing Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), Pub. L. No. 105-277, div.
G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified as Note to 8 U.S.C. § 1231).
65. Respondents’ actions in seeking to return Petitioners to Iraq, taken pursuant to the EO, deprive Petitioners of their rights under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b) and the Convention Against Torture without due process of law.

COUNT THREE
THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, THE CONVENTION AGAINST
TORTURE, THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS REFORM AND RESTRUCTURING ACT OF
1998, IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS
66. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
67. The Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations, including 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) (expedited removal), 8 C.F.R. §§ 235.3(b)(4), 208.30, and 1003.42; 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (asylum), and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (withholding of removal), and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), implemented in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), Pub.L. No. 105-277, div. G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat.
2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note), entitle Petitioners to an opportunity to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. These provisions also entitle Petitioners to a grant of withholding of removal and CAT relief upon a showing that they meet the applicable legal standards. Respondents’ actions in seeking to return Petitioners to Iraq, taken pursuant to the EO, deprive Petitioners of their statutory and regulatory rights.

COUNT FOUR
FIFTH AMENDMENT – EQUAL PROTECTION
68. Petitioners repeat and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
69. The EO discriminates against Petitioners on the basis of their country of origin, and without sufficient justification, and therefore violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
70. Additionally, the EO was substantially motivated by animus toward—and has a disparate effect on—Muslims, which also violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

COUNT FIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
71. Petitioners repeat and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
72. The INA forbids discrimination in issuance of visas based on a person's race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).
73. Respondents’ detention and mistreatment of Petitioners and the members of the proposed class pursuant to the January 27 EO, as set forth above, is not authorized by the INA.
74. Respondents’ actions in detaining and mistreating Petitioners and other members of the proposed class as set forth above were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).

Does that clear it up for you?

Trump has the patience of a 2 year old. Couldn't even wait for tomorrow to get rid of Sally Yates:



https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/stat...53953759399936