Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/u...port-says.html

The date of the above Report: 28/1/2016. This happened under Obama’s era! Oh and the pics in this report, those holding centres, suspiciously look like “cages” holding kids to me... So kids who turned up at border, with no adult, thousands separated from their parents....were placed in cages before Trump was elected President, infact he hadn’t been nominated yet as the Republican Primaries Nominee!

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

How? If the kids weren't detained they would simply disappear, as they do in the UK. If you quickly release the parents they they would simply cross the border again.

Are theses "cages" merely a temporary measure in the immediate aftermath of being caught? They are TEMPORARY processing centres.

Their confinement will be a heck of a lot more comfortable than their journey. They didn't fly into the US travelling first class.

There is NO other option, unless you're suggesting the kids are handed over to Mexico.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Surely one option is not to separate children from their parents?

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

And how would that work?

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

The way they did it before?:rolleyes:

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Which was? Apart from letting them go and then disappearing.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Well for one nothing Damien - I have already indicated, in an earlier post, I have not agreed with locking up any kids, for any reason.

But at the same time - I do not agree with people smuggling and illegal immigration. The law is the law, whether you are 12, going on 45.

I believe the President met with GOP Politicians last night to ramp up an Immigration Bill that would end separations but the Bill will include changes that would end Chain migration, Lottery, Catch and release and Trump wants $25 Billion for his wall, on the Southern border. This would require bipartisan approach, but the Democrats aren't interested, they rebuked the efforts last night. The Democrats say Trump could end this with an Executive Order, Trump says he can't.

Despite complaints on both sides of the House, politics from both sides is still in play. They are not interested in coming to together for the sake of the children. Republicans and Democrats are as bad as each other and I did not see many complaints from the Democrats and the Media, when children were being locked up in "cages", at these border centres when President Obama was in the White House.

The Immigration laws in America have been problematic for decades and because there is this persistent "Stalemate" on passing laws in Congress, is why it's a mess. It was a mess under Obama and it is still a mess now. Border crossings just keep on happening, there is/was no deterrent.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

The difference is that the previous children were unaccompanied - the current ones are being separated from their parents.

Big difference.

And as for Trump's latest initiative, he's basically saying "give me the money for the Wall and the kids get released" - there's a term for that...

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Before the parents who came with kids were simply released("catch and release" policy), never to be seen again. IE they get away with it, thereby encouraging more to come illegally.

No different to locking up parents for any other crime. Happens in the UK on the rare occasions a woman is sent to prison.

You have to lock up the parents, so what are you expected to do with any children? You can't let them loose, you can't lock them up with adults, so what then?

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Fake outrage? Jeez ...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8407161.html



---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 ----------

Interesting article on the weekly Bible Study Group held in the White House:

The White House Bible Study group that influenced Trump’s family separation policy

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

BREAKING: President Trump to sign Executive Order ending Separation of families when in detention at the border. Source: Associated Press: https://apnews.com/1dafadd6fee4447cadd4a0179553026e?

Meanwhile, Hollywood celeb's just keep losing their minds... A backlash is growing as Actor Peter Fonda has this afternoon, tweeted and suggested; U.S President's youngest son, Barron Trump, aged just 11, should be ripped from his mothers arms and placed in a cage with a pedophile....

If you are going to hate the President and what he does, that's fine but to suggest harm should come to his children at the hands of a pedophile, is utterly disgusting. :td:

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Why are you quoting some wacko? We can all find idiots to provide a sound bite but what matters is the consensus and that was that Trump was wrong .. as he now concedes.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

He doesn't have to sign "something" - Sessions just needs to rescind the policy he issued on the 4th June 2018.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

You're right but Chuck Schumer, Democrat Senate Minority leader disagrees with you. He offered to lend Trump his pen yesterday, in a Press conference... ;)

Because it's currently trending on Twitter.... Had this been Obama and some nut job Oscar nominated actor threatening to rape one of his daughters, it too would be pretty big news. As I type this, I am seeing reports, First Lady Melania Trump has Notified the U.S Secret Service of the Hollywood Pedophile Threat to Her Son.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Trump has just signed an Executive Order to end the family separation policy that he created and that he himself spent the last month claiming only Congress could end.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...y-separation/?

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Oh dear, that might not end well . . . could it possibly be inferred that a 'mistake' was made, and families will now be queuing up for massive compensation handouts?

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Congress still has to change the immigration laws. The Executive Order he signed today gets around a Consent Decree from 1997, known as Flores settlement that prohibits children being detained in immigration detention centres by the Federal government, even if they are with their parents - for more than 20 days.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Good to see that Trump was able to think more laterally.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Yes family man and all round good guy well done the Donald .

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

EU will respond tomorrow to the tariffs: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44549712

If you want American jeans/whisky get it now.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Why would i want American whisky when Scotland is next door;)

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

And so many of them...

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Think Melania could have been a bit cleverer with her attire when visiting the children separated from their parents.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8410866.html

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Her team say there was no hidden message, it's just a jacket.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...nt-kids-661977

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Link
Reunite the mother with her other 3 kids by sending her back to Honduras.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

A jacket with a message on it.
It could well be the case that she wasn't intending to say anything with that jacket, but it's a bit of an own goal.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Bravo, that was hilarious.

*Applauds*

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

EU tariffs drive Harley-Davidson to move production out of America.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-business-live

This is what you get when you get protectionism and trade wars.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Bingo...trade wars never ever work.

The whole exercise is one of complete futility. Nobody will win and the entire consumer base will lose. (All around the world).

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

As I understand it they already have manufacturing plants in a few other countries and will simply be using them for sales to EU countries, to avoid the tariffs.

Trump really is making a mess of the markets and his petty behaviour is not going to end well for many companies.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Did you see it when trump told BMW to make the cars in America, they already do, more than they import there to I'd imagine. I'm starting to grow tired of his act, he kept my attention longer than bozo admittedly but I think the children in cages was the final straw for me

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

They've been making Harleys in Spain for years.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

You're mistaken. Their factories are all outside Europe.
USA, Missouri, Kansas City
USA, Pennsylvannia, York
USA, Wisconsin, Menomonee Falls
USA, Wisconsin, Tomahawk
Australia, Adelaide
Brazil, Manaus
India, Bawal
Thailand, Rayong
https://www.harley-davidson.com/us/e...locations.html

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Yet strangely the U.S Economy is ecstatically booming.... fancy that... :erm:

Recent CNBC POLL indicates 51% of Americans Approve of Trump's policies on the economy since taking office where only 36% disapprove. Everyone knows my views on polls but I thought it is 'interesting' polling, given this is a CNBC poll.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

It's been booming before the trade war. If this continues you can expect the economy to take a hit.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

How is borrowing doing? Has the booming economy compensated for the tax cuts?

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

So you don't like opinion polls but you like ones that you agree with and accentuate your beliefs.;)

---------- Post added at 05:24 ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 ----------

Indeed in trades wars there are no winners but only losers in my view.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Indeed, Den. Another case of having your cake and eating it. ;)

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

It was not booming to the degree it is now. Millions of jobs added, record job increases for blacks and Hispanics and women. Lots of Obama era policies reversed that stifled industries that are now seeing revival in the Rust belt.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

I meant the current growth of the economy has been prior to any trade war and if one were to occur then it might be impacted.

However the economy is growing about the same as before. It's been between 2-3% for several years now. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...=US&start=2000

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Which is anemic by US standards - annualized growth should be at 4% or higher and it just hasn't gotten that high since the Bush years - Obama and Trump just do not know how to grow an economy with stability.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/one-...-happened.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ancial-markets

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

This might be an example of Fake news but according to WaPO, Trump is now threatening HD with taxes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8d37d315a9cc

Now it was obvious that they will leave their production line in the US behind...you start imposing tariffs on nations who supply your parts then it is kind of a given that they will leave and go elsewhere, you kind of factor that in. That is what I was saying about "putting your money where your mouth is" and Trump never seems to be able to do that. No surprise given how full it usually is. (Of shit).

Here though, is an example of Fake News:

This is what WaPo said:

They editorialized and ad libbed this tweet:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...al-collapse%2F

This what the tweet said:

What he clearly meant (to anyone who has half a brain cell) is that is they moved, HD would lose their aura and be taxed like never before by the authority of the nation that they moved to! ...that is not difficult to work out.

Trump can't do anything to them if they do move, even if Congress acted upon levying taxes on them, it would be a BOA, which is unconstitutional, even under the taxing provision of the IRS.

WaPo is screwing this up.

Not be outdone though, Trump is making an even bigger mess of it:

Now, using Fatca the US government can tax Americans on overseas income using OIT but not below a certain amount, and that is only ever at the individual and not corporate rate. WaPo corrected that:

He muddled up tax and tariff, the former of which would be impossible to enact without Congress getting involved (which they won't) and the latter is unilaterally retaliatory from the receiving party.

So WaPo reported incorrectly on what Trump meant, Trump then followed it up with more inaccuracies which they corrected him on, or at least second guessed what he meant and he then retaliated against them for the incompetence which they are yet to rectify / correct etc.

What a fiasco...this level of incompetence and inaccuracy (in both reporting, and policy) must be making Theresa May orgasm.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

How is it fake news if Trump did indeed threaten taxes?

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

He didn't threaten the tax though, did he?

He said:

He never said that the Aura would be gone and that he would tax them like never before, did he?

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Actually fair enough although I read it as they'll be taxed on the import of the goods into America than the country they're moving too.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Hmmm, you might be correct - that again is a tariff though, so Trump is making a mess of it.

FYI the SC did force a "reconsider" at the state level on Christian objections on religious grounds to gay wedding services so I will reply to that post later on.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

I see Supreme Court rejects challenges to Trumps Travel Bans for the 6 main Muslim majority countries. Some have been removed from the list since the challenge, for improving identity checks. The 5-4 ruling says the travel bans were Constitutional arguing that the president has substantial power to regulate immigration.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Bloomberg considering running as a Democrat in 2020: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/06/...sidential-run/

Not a surprise but the confirmation that if he were to run, and he probably will, it will be for the Democratic nomination.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Okay Damien I have been thinking all day of how to write this response, and it is tough.

First off, I wanted to say, that in absolutely no way is this an "I told you so post" - I am not gloating.

Secondly, some of the tone / language of this message may seem tough / crude. In no way is that aimed at you.

So...Monday the SC ruled that it was declining to hear another case involving a gay couple at a wedding wishing service from those who have a religious exemption:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.f5e7704dca33

So at first, it may seem like the Justices just went ahead and let the lower court ruling stand....

Not quite:

There was one part of the ruling before that was "narrow" in scope that the Supremes ruled ; that this was the one and only time that they will ever have to say as much: religious liberty (deeply held beliefs) will trump all else - the high court will not have to say it again in regards to this issue.

They are as good as telling WA's SC that stare decisis is now in effect which means it was not narrow in scope at all - not one bit. It is precedent setting and every other ruling will have to abide by that.

This is as black and white as it gets:

You do not get to break the will of Jesus Christ in a person here on Earth...simple as that.

They told the WA state SC that not only do they not get to do that but the high court will break the gay whoring (for lack of a better term) of the WA state SC. Not only will they rule against it though, they are going to make Olympia rule it themselves. Washington isn't going to get over ruled on this, they are going to have to climb down on the issue with all the humiliation that comes with it. The message was pretty clear from the Justices.

They had 3 choices. They could have left the lower case ruling stand / dismissed the appeal, they could have over-ruled or they could have sent it back down to the lower courts and force them to correct themselves, and recognize every person's right to worship in the name of Jesus Christ.

I know that some of the language in this was crass but none of it was aimed at you ; States have messed with Christianity too long and Kennedy has both defended the belief that Christians have, and has protected state's rights from an overarching federal statute by dictating that the states must recognize the religious freedom of the land.

Do not mess with God was the loud and clear message here. Every state that now rules injudiciously (in accordance with the precedent set by the previous ruling) will now be open to punitive civil and criminal punishment. This was as decisive a ruling as you can get Damien.

Like you said, the majority of opinions on the original ruling may have thought otherwise but they were wrong. Woefully so. I knew that I was correct on the issue and I stand by it - religious freedom wins the day and the media opinions that ruled it a "narrow" opinion were wrong, plain and simple. It was not narrow in scope and it was not narrow in majority. The ruling stands, sets precedent an the media got it wrong plain and simple.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

I never gave my own opinion of the judgement since I am not an expert on American law. I was pointing out that the Washington Post did not mean 'narrow' in the sense of the vote but in the sense of the scope of the judgement which was the original objection you had. I then pointed out that they were not alone in that judgement.

Again, not a lawyer but we don't yet the know the outcome of the lower court. The lower court now has to the decide if the cake case does indeed set a precedent that applies in their case. If they come back with the same ruling then we're back to square one and the Supreme Court might have to hear it again or let it stands.

If this ruling was to be overturned and effectively said that it's legal to deny any service to people based on their sexuality then the entire purpose of anti-discrimination law would be challenged. In that case then yes the cake case would have set a huge precedent but I doubt that would be the last we would hear of it.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

CEO of Harley Davidson:

https://twitter.com/ironstowe/status...20919524564992

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

True words.

Not very professional of him though.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

I think you have got slightly carried away here? :)

I don't think so. The ability of someone to withdraw their labour or deny their business services to someone because their religion has a problem with the situation will always be contextual. You can not have an absolute here.

BTW, what on earth do you mean by "gay whoring"?

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:25 ----------

The irony here is that Harley Davidson is an iconic American brand, one that many a Trump supporter would purchase over an imported alternative.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Someone needed to say it.

Trump is indeed, a moron (and then some).

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

This may not have actually been said by the Harley CEO...


Does this include all religions, or only Christianity, and if only Christianity, which section?

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Tbh the quote was from Twitter so could well be bogus

---------- Post added at 19:42 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------

A seat on the Supreme Court has opened up: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8420186.html

And it was a Democrat appointment so the court is about to swing to the right.

Although last time a seat opened up the Republican senate thought a year and a half until the election was held was too close to appoint a new justice. So presumably with the mid-terms just a half a year away they'll wait until then.

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:42 ----------

Looks like Trump will get the votes he needs on the court for Roe vs Wade to be overturned. Depending on whose chosen. Given it's an election year there might be pressure on Republicans in moderate districts to select a judge that backs the right to choose.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Wooooooo!!!!


Moderate my ass...time to finally get rid of Roe! Wow this is outstanding...amd given that it is an election year then perhaps we should wait, until like after November when the GOP has a larger majority in the Senate?

God bless Harry Reid for breaking the filibuster!!!

This is the greatest day of the Trump Presidency!!! May God love us all, Roe will finally fall.

:D :D :D

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Has it always been the case that the Supreme Court can be manipulated by the Executive via political appointees? If so, what is the rationale of the Founding Fathers in coupling the Judiciary to the Executive?

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

This is probably a really complicated topic which serious academics study and debate. I can't really tell you.

Obviously the court is independent but the manipulation only occurs on appointment.

I guess the reason the President chooses is who else would? The President as at least accountable to both congress and the people. It allows the court to be independent without being entirely separate.

I think the whole justice system is nuts in America anyway. Far too much politics in the appointment of judges, I think some lower courts even have them elected which is madness. It seems to be a nation created by and for lawyers.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Oh absolutely all recognized religions...I mean you could hardly expect a Muslim or Jew to give service to a butcher selling pork, could you? Muslims do not drink as per their instructions from God ; if a wedding goes ahead and a couple ask for liquor I think a Muslim caterer is well within his or her rights, to say no. No?

No Muslim should be obliged to bake a cake or provide flowers for a gay wedding either, I might add.

(Damien I will reply to your message tonight btw - still on cloud 9 from the Kennedy retirement / won't meddle with Ianch99's question either as I am likely not objective right now).

To all the other questions in the thread I will answer later - for now it is time to go pop a crate of two of Bubbly.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

A Muslim can choose not to sell liquor at their restaurant. That's different to refusing to serve someone. Just as I cannot imagine there are many Muslims and Jews in the business of selling pork. I would expect a Muslim to give a service they did provide, say selling cars, to someone who was gay though.

The bakers didn't force someone who didn't sell cakes to sell them a cake. They asked for someone who was selling customised cakes to make them a customised cake.

I don't really mind that much.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

The Harley Davidson CEO quote posted earlier is bogus, if that was genuine it would be all over MSM.

It’s up to the President as per the Constitution, to nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices, they still have to be confirmed via the Senate. A president can appoint as many justices as he needs to, all 9 justices if they retired or died, the President can appoint all 9 and they have no term limits either. Justice Kennedy who is retiring, he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed in 1988. A 30 year tenure.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Yeah but he was asking why the President is given that right. I am not clear what the founders had in mind other than my assumption that someone has to pick them.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

The Legislative Branch, can’t both nominate and confirm a SCOTUS Justice, with absolutely no input from the Executive Branch, that breaks checks and balances of each other and SCOTUS itself cannot do same, for same reason.

Justice Kennedy may have been nominated by Republican President, but he routinely sided with the Liberal Justices. Neil Gorsuch, who Trump nominated last year also sided with a recent ruling that did not favour Trump.

That said, Trump being able to pick another Justice is a win win for him in that he can shape the Judiciary for decades to come, he has already picked and got confirmed many District court judges.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

I guess this is the thing that puzzles me. There seems no limit to the number of Judges the President can nominate so Trump is gets 2 in 2 years!

Having a Supreme Court making decisions that can be skewed by political allegiances seems a mistake from the Founding fathers. There are many countries where the SC is appointed with little or no interference from the Executive.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Well, he can only nominate them once the positions become vacant. Technically he could create new circuits in order to pack the court but that gets both controversial and complicated to explain and implement, too. FDR tried it and they subsequently even imposed term limits on the Presidency.

As for the latter it kind of goes back to a point that Damien and I were making about the ability to render a decision irrespective of political influence ; it should not stop you from impartially interpreting the law / upholding the constitution. Of course it does sometimes arise to the level of which there are conflicts of interest and when ethics arise you trust the justices to recuse wherever relevant.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Totally agree but you see this logic inexorably leads to the position that, if you expect the appointees to "impartially interpreting the law" as you put, it then negates the reason for the political appointment in the first place.

Either accept that the political appointed SC members will, by definition, side with the party that appointed them or you support a process that is decoupled as far as practical from the influence of the Executive.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

It's such a shame, as you get older, when your memory goes, and you can’t remember what you tweeted 3 days before...

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Could it be that Trump posted the first and his social media team the second one? Does not excuse but may explain the situation.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

To be honest it would not surprise me in the slightest if all of these messages were written by his staff.

It does lead to some confusion from time to time - my EA writes some of my replies through text or email, to nuisances that I have to deal with. Some of the women that I live near for example (whining brats). Then they will see me, and I don't know that my staff are dealing with them in real time ; so they are either thinking that I am Bi-polar / blow hot and cold or that I am just lying to them as my views contradict the more conciliatory nature of my staff who try keep the peace.

It is kind of standard procedure - especially when he is the President.

On this one, I would give him a free pass.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

But these are official statements by, or on behalf of, the President of the USA.

http://time.com/4808270/sean-spicer-...er-statements/

They all carry the authority of the Presidential office - is the world suppose to guess which ones are serious and which ones to ignore; seems a helluva way to run a country, on guesswork...

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

To be fair his first tweet is not pushing anybody to do anything, he said "They should", pushing someone to do something is saying "They must", he covers it at the end suggesting it's would be a waste putting it to a vote in the House and Senate with the obstructionist Democrats.

I can tell you, Democrats will lose big time in November Midterms, they're putting illegal immigrants first before their own citizens which is utterly sad, keep going on about separations which happened under President Obama as well and that tends to happen with criminals anyway, an American citizen that commits a crime, who is a parent does not take their child to jail.

Seeing lots of "#Walkaway" hashtags with stories of people abandoning the Democrats in droves.

Millennials are also turning the backs on the Democrats, a recent survey done back in April suggested, while 2 out of 3, said they were adamant about not liking President Trump, they had no issues looking to their local Republican Representatives.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I10YH

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

The Democrats have finally set a date for Civil War: Part Two:

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/loc...07/1.jpg:small

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Right, I mean they did so well in the first one, lol...

(Perhaps I need to put sarcasm tags around this post, lol).

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Indeed and I did not mean to imply that it was your own opinion but the opinion that you did receive (from the paper based editorials) were totally wrong. Even though they were the majority of said opinions on the subject, most did not even bother to opine on the issue. Because most did not need to say anything about the scope, the rest of us already knew the breadth of the decision.

They were not alone in the opinion, you are correct. They were just totally wrong, which the court has now affirmed, very fast - without even ruling on anything but rather forcing WA to do so.

They wouldn't nor should they re-rule the same way, the SC specifically said to reconsider in light of the CO ruling.

Now if the WA state SC were to refuse to do so, there are a number of remedies available. Again overturned on appeal but that is just the issue of this case.

WA state could impeach their SC justices who fail to follow existing case law though at the state level there are also procedural elements that could lead to ethicatory issues ; civil fines and judges disbarred for unruly behavior.

Depending on who authors the decision then personal and professional misconduct charges could also be levied against that court though it is difficult to do if the court itself rules rather than an individual. (I.e. not an individual but a panel / if it was an en banc hearing).

I am unsure on the grounds of impeachment simply because it is not a federal judge but WA state could impeach the justices, too. (Though that is usually reserved for issues of MT).

Charles Pickering was impeached due to insanity in 1804 and WHH in 1862 but that was on grounds of treason so when it comes down to legal decisions going awry all I can think of is Sam Chase in 1804:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history...l-samuel-chase

That again though, was the high court - I can't think of a case where lower courts just buck the SC - it would be judicial suicide. It just does not and cannot happen. Even Harry Pregerson, who said at his confirmation hearing (in front of Congressional committees) that he would follow his conscience if it conflicted with the law, simply avoided unfriendly precedents altogether. He never had the preposterous idea of re-ruling against a higher court's decision.

FYI some states allow for the public election of judges, even to the SSC. Like Florida for example. Now I can't remember which one WA is but it is not as purist a system because voters can recall judges, like in CA - the recent Stanford rape case comes to mind. (Kind of like "the people get a say") In this instance though, I am not sure if WA would even consider recall or just impeach straight away - whichever costs less and takes the lesser amount of time I suppose.

One instance where a judge did beat that kind of a rap was Anthony Kline where the CA commission recommended removal but he escaped punishment on a technicality. Usually most states have such complaints boards / commissions etc and they can or do recommend judicial / civil / legislative remedy etc (dependent on state / case / circumstance etc).

Any WA state SC justice who thinks it is a fun idea to buck the Supremes won't be in a job much longer - it won't happen. Even if they try to worm a way round it they will get smacked right back down.

Oh, sure - there will be whining every which way.

However sexual orientation has never been a PC under the CRA and never will be, religion is. The two cannot work in alignment, it will always have to be one or the other.

The store did not deny service btw, they just refused to participate in a specific ceremony.

The decision was not narrow, either in ruling or scope - the media messed up, big time. Both because they are clueless on legal proceeding and because their own bias / agenda clouded their (what should be) journalistic ability.

Btw none of that is aimed at you. What you said about not being an expert on American law is taken in good stride and I also accept that the people who wrote those inaccurate articles are not, either. The difference between you and them though, is that they thought that it was a good idea to run their mouths / opine on something that they knew jack shit about in the first place. You didn't - you asked, you listened and I commend you for it my dear. :)

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

BREAKING: District Court Judge Sullivan, is not satisfied with Special Counsel's Robert Mueller III's explanation for kicking the sentencing of General Flynn, down the road for the third time. Wants to see Flynn in court on July 10th for a Status hearing.

Judge Sullivan has requested an explanation from Mueller's team as to why he should diverge from his typical sentencing routine. Specifically, he asked why “the Court should expand the Probation Office’s resources and depart from the Court’s usual practice of ordering a pre-sentence report, scheduling a sentencing date, and establishing a sentencing briefing schedule at the same time. Source: AP.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

I'll have to re-read through the details but as I understand it there was not a specific refusal to allow entry into the store / service altogether. It was just for that very specific issue.

I am yet to reply to Damien's post but if I understand it correctly, the couple were welcome to receive any other goods or service that did not infringe upon the religious rights of the owner. (I'll re-read it and also reply to Damien's post) but they were not denied service / entry from what I know of the case.

Yeah, that is what I meant by:

And that line was the comment I was referring to - I have no other way that I can think of wording that...in fact to anyone if they can advise, I am all ears.

Basically if someone promotes a cause to such an extent that they are a political one trick pony they pretty much prostitute themselves for the cause...how would you word it? Like Farage was opposed to the EU all his life and still is, Ken Clarke is pro EU but I would never say that calling Clarke "a Eurowhore" is an acceptable turn of phrase, would I? In that instance euro based terms (skeptic and phillic) have been used as a phrase of term, correct?

I don't know how to describe someone that is so obsessed on the one issue that the central plank of their life becomes it but reasonable people can differ on the issue. If you are in favor, you could say that you are fighting for equality. Opposed you could say that you are fighting for religious liberty but when it gets to the obsession that say NARAL / PP have with abortion yet you encompass a broader (entire) political spectrum to it, what do you call it?

Again the language was confusing at best and had elements of vulgarity but I am at a loss to the words to use here, the outward behavior to try _____ for homosexuality - you fill in the blanks and we'll see where this leads?

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

When you said "religious liberty (deeply held beliefs) will trump all else" I assumed you meant in a broader sense. If you just meant it in relation to people's religious objections to do business with LGBT people, fair enough.

Just because someone is passionate about their rights doesn't make them a "whore". Expand to "gay whore" and do a web search for this and you enter a whole new realm :)

Your use of a derogatory term just deflects from your argument, bit of an own goal really ..

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

BREAKING: Disgraced FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who sent text messages to his mistress lover, who also worked for the FBI, that ‘We’ll stop him”, meaning Donald Trump from getting Elected - has been subpoenaed to testify publicly before a joint House Judiciary & GOPoversight hearing on Tuesday, July 10, at 10AM.

Also Just in: Associate Deputy Attorney General, Scott Schools who over sees Mueller probe with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, has Resigned.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

You really should open your own News Channel Mick - call it 'Taking the Mick news +1' or something.... :D

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

No I don't do parody, what I update the thread with, is factual, there is already a channel of such kind that takes the piss, it's called CNN.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Also Fox News.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...ssian-election

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Are they sure, they keep saying / arriving at the same thing?....

I’d like to know how when the actual DNC server has never been examined by FBI, still no evidence of any kind of any collusion, except by the Democrats and Hillary Clinton paying for Russian Dossier. A Second Special prosecutor is needed.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

A bit like a second referendum then? Yes, I know the current one is corrupt and inept and is not pursuing natural justice so we need a second one to get the right answer, the answer I want.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Well, since they use the word "unequivocally*", they’re sure....

*leaving no doubt; unambiguous

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Ha ha. Let's keep on appointing prosecutors till they tell us what we want to hear. ;)

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Breaking: Lavish-spending administrator steps down. Per Trump:

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

No, not like a Second Referendum. How a set of potential criminal actions has any bearing on a legitimate EU Referendum that has already took place, I will never know but stop bringing Brexit in to every thread for crying out loud.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

It's a legitimate comparison, Mick.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

No it's not and no where near it - now back on topic which is NOT Brexit.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

The ‘big baby Trump’ blimp won’t be blocked from being flown over London upon Trump’s visit.

https://news.sky.com/story/trump-ang...visit-11426665

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Saw that yesterday and laughed, the lefty morons who have organised this, really have lost their minds, very embarrassing for the U.K. Sadiq Khan is a disgrace as well for allowing it, worst London Mayor ever.

Hope someone has an air rifle or something and shoots the pathetic thing down.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Lefty morons??

It's a protest and got over 10,000 signatures and £16,000 donated to pay for it.

Freedom of speech and rights to protest mean they are allowed to show their dislike for Trump.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Democracy can have a strange meaning sometimes Stephen as one cannot preach democracy and then if its something they don't agree politically with then its not a democracy.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

In that case, I will support a Baby blimp for Sadiq Khan... over £8,000 raised so far... but seriously this is fecking childish, will see if London Assembly approves this baby blimp of the worst London Mayor ever....

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/giant-...ly-over-london

---------- Post added at 10:56 ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 ----------

It’s not Democratic to be allowed to insult the current leader of our Greatest ally... where were the baby blimps of the Sauda Arabia, China, Russia, with absolutely appalling Human rights records?

It’s yet again, Trump Derangement Syndrome affecting the mental health of a few lefties.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

If it's not a threat to public safety then it's questionable his authority to stop it. This isn't Turkey, China or a similar state where we ban political protest. :erm:

---------- Post added at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 ----------

Yes it is!

If you want to ban the insult of foreign leaders it's not democracy you want it's an authoritarian regime like Saudi Arabia and China.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

No it is not Democratic, it’s bloody childish and pathetic. Trust the U.K. to show it can only do school yard politics, it’s divisive and not very diplomatic!

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

You are saying we should ban UK citizens right to do this (peaceful!) process because it insults Trump. That is undemocratic.

What logic makes you think it is democratic to ban protest? Why is not insulting Trump of higher importance than U.K Citizens rights?

(Incidentally Kahn wanted to stop it but rightfully has pressured to back down)