Linzz

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    1,703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,184 Excellent

About Linzz

  • Rank
    Super Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,949 profile views
  1. I think this is offensive; smashing up shops and university property, beatings and mob violence ,torching cars and disallowing free speech, is what is also happening and from the left, not from the right.
  2. I wasn't defending Trump and I am not interested in debating whether he is an "oxygen thief" or any other subjectivity. . I am simply trying to decide the merits between the difference residing in 2 methods of interpreting law that seems to conflict and what is allowable under law. Sorry I am not a lawyer as I previously said so my terminology is probably shaky, but there seems to be 2 schools of thought on this issue: One being that law can only be applied within it's own boundaries i.e.according to the letter of set law, or two, rulings on intent that can embrace subjective interpretations of historically related data. My concern is how far outside the letter of the law can rulings travel to allow politically motivated decisions. I would expect that the nomination and confirmation of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court being an originalist would also mean a greater protection of the Constitution which in the end would make it harder for Trump to act outside of the law in any dictatorial sense. I am happy for Waywardwind who I think said he was lawyer also said "The protections of the Constitution will always control when examining any law, regulation, executive order, etc."
  3. Good. But it's the law as you laid out that has to be followed and applied within the 4 corners of the executive order, anything outside of this that Trump or others have said on the campaign trail should be inadmissible I would have thought.The amendment in itself should be enough to carry the day and thus the determination is purely an application of law.
  4. I really hope and pray that nuclear weapons aren't thrown about as a show of strength as has been suggested here. That would make the US the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons in anger (for the 2nd time). Hard call telling Iran and others that they cannot develop them.
  5. Thanks for this. But does 1152 contradict 212 ? I'm not a Constitutional lawyer ( but don't rub it in!). If the President doesn't have the right "to suspend entry of all or any class of aliens...as he may deem appropriate" because of a later amendment "no person.....be discriminated against....because of ....place of birth or place of residence" then it has to be clear that his executive order is invalid. If the latter cancels the former statute then he is not getting very good advice especially if the former cannot override the latter amendment. How does this work? Any bigger brains than mine here?
  6. Take it easy. Not sure how you arrive at your conclusion when I spoke about the NIMBY effect in Hollywood despite the fact they are busy acting out hypercritical outrage. I agree that the US (and the UK) has largely caused a humanitarian crisis in countries like Yemen by supplying $ billions in arms to SA a sad legacy of the previous administration which I hope will now change but probably will be disappointed. Also I never said I agreed with the travel ban although I will not call it a muslim ban since muslims are admitted into the US every day from Europe and other countries.Extreme vetting is enough. However judges are again ruling politically based on what Trump said as a candidate rather than what is worded in the document. They can't rule by their opinion of intent.
  7. Indeed it is a bit like all the Hollywood celebrities behind their mansion walls and gated communities. Plenty of outrage but will they open their doors?
  8. Extreme vetting should be enough and avoids all these legal wrangles.
  9. Well it's another "could have" "some think" "sources say" speculation without facts to fit the narrative. Like maybe it was the RUSSIANS who released the documents...I'm surprised that hasn't been thrown into the mix already
  10. What an absolute anticlimax from rabid left wing ideologue Rachel Madcow Maddow. "Breaking news" build up over 20 minutes of baited breath rant on the story of the century only to find at the end, 2 pages of 10 year old tax returns which showed Trump paid 25% tax, a higher rate than Obama or Bernie Sanders. Trump should sack his accountant. Now the conspiracy theorists are out and because of the disappointing non news say it was a Trump plant. Well if he scammed her then she fell for it because you would think in her enthusiasm to bring down Trump with her silver bullet, she would have actually read the transcripts beforehand! So much for impartial and independent journalism, think it's died.
  11. I agree that his staff have a hard time scrambling to find explanations when he blindsides them all in a surprise tweet. They must wake up smacking their foreheads at his unpredictability. He hits back and changes the hot topic of the day with another which is his style, as in business someone would sue him he would turn around and sue them back and everything would get tangled up in legal cobwebs and disappear. But as a non politician I will give him credit at not being 2 faced or trying to be all things to all men. Certainly not a chameleon, what you see is what you get (like it or not) which is not your usual politician. Also unusual for a politician is carrying out what he promised in his election campaign, (putting aside the merits of or otherwise).
  12. Totally agree Boomer about the tax returns. It's just nuts to have to wait this long for the revelation. However now the media are horrified that Trump should tweet without evidence yet we have had 6 months of the Russia narrative without a shred of evidence but this looks more a convenient bogey man to trot out in a new era of Mccarthyism. Of course I don't know the truth but nor do they but they act as if accepted fact. As far as Wikileaks goes revealing the extent of surveillance under the last administration I would not be surprised if Trump Tower has been tapped.None of wikileaks revelations despite who is behind it have been denied as non factual. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/7/we-live-in-truly-terrifying-times/
  13. Unpredictability can also be an asset when it comes to enemies of the US too
  14. You're a bit ahead of yourself JT. It's a "MAJOR scandal" when things are proven and so far there is only anecdotal evidence and lots of maybes or could haves or allegedly speaks hysteria, which all makes good copy. Sessions met the ambassador in company in his office, not behind a tree in a park. It should be relatively easy to clear. All power to an investigation and let's get it done, Prove or disprove but until then it's very expedient to have a bogey man world wide when things don't go the way they "should" election wise. To say this is "not like anything we've seen in modern American history" is nonsense. What about when Obama whispered supposedly out of hearing to the Russian ambassador to tell Vlad that he would be very flexible after the election? Was that a communication with an ambassador pre election or not? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9167332/Barack-Obama-microphone-gaffe-Ill-have-more-flexibility-after-election.html And what of Senator Edward Kennedy's liaison with the KGB to deal with Reagan? http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html "Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election." "When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov" “The media,” Kengor says, “ignored the revelation.” And this was at a time when the Soviets were Communist. Was the Left pro Russian then but now anti Russian? So "historically speaking" this was a great deal worse than anything today (it so far seems) with no consequences which were treasonable breaches to me.
  15. Send the bill to the Democrats from Obama down who encouraged street protest which morphed into violence and rioting. The mobs would have smashed up Trump Tower whether he was there or in the Whitehouse.