63000 mental health workers say that Donald Trump is too dangerous to be President

[pat34lee]

Apparently it was done by someone on their last day of employment. It was not an official thing by Twitter, but my best guess was that it was malicious on the part of the employee.

After the left has spent the last year or two demonizing him
every day, it's no wonder the brain damaged ones are willing
to break the law to spite or hurt him. I don't think the media
will be happy until they convince someone to try and kill him.

 

[Open Heart]

After the left has spent the last year or two demonizing him
every day, it's no wonder the brain damaged ones are willing
to break the law to spite or hurt him. I don't think the media
will be happy until they convince someone to try and kill him.

I'm not sure, but I get the impression that millennials in general are willing to break laws if they feel hurt or taken advantage of. They feel entitled as a generation.

 

[Open Heart]

The courts have no jurisdiction over the President's powers
concerning immigration.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over ALL laws, so far as interpreting whether they are constitutional.

 

[pat34lee]

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over ALL laws, so far as interpreting whether they are constitutional.

Nope. The court gave itself that power. Does that sound legal?

"The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)."
About the Supreme Court

"If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please."
~ Thomas Jefferson
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/04/thomas-jefferson-on-judicial-tyranny/

 

[Go Braves]

The courts have no jurisdiction over the President's powers
concerning immigration. The law is not unclear or uncertain.
Blocking his lawful orders is sedition or subversion.
Treasonous Hawaiian Judge Does It AGAIN–Insists Constitution Prevents Trump From Blocking Immigration From Terrorstan | VDARE - premier news outlet for patriotic immigration reform

Well, not unsurprisingly most folks who have actual law degrees disagree with the idiotic headlines of alt-right hate sites.

 

[Almost there]

Even if it means a world war?

Like I said. Life is risk. It always "could" mean a world war if we don't just hand the bully our lunch money. This is why we don't elect precious snowflakes as presidents. At least, not any more.

 

[Almost there]

You try not to risk what you can't afford to lose. Some risks are just foolish, wouldn't you agree? Even a non-nuclear world war is too great a price to pay for a President to play quien es mas macho.

When arguing from an armchair I completely agree with you. This is one reason the people of the US did not want to enter WWII. Imagine how that would have gone if we had joined the fray the day Poland was attacked. For starters, we may never have had a Pacific theater to speak of.

 

[Open Heart]

When arguing from an armchair I completely agree with you. This is one reason the people of the US did not want to enter WWII. Imagine how that would have gone if we had joined the fray the day Poland was attacked. For starters, we may never have had a Pacific theater to speak of.

I don't think the two scenarios are comparable. Both Germany and Japan were taking over other countries. N. Korea and Iran are not.

 

[Almost there]

I don't think the two scenarios are comparable. Both Germany and Japan were taking over other countries. N. Korea and Iran are not.

And we are not attacking either.

 

[Open Heart]

And we are not attacking either.

But we are goading N. Korea.

 

[pat34lee]

Well, not unsurprisingly most folks who have actual law degrees disagree with the idiotic headlines of alt-right hate sites.

The problem is that the law is supposed to be about legalities,
not majorities, which are often wrong.

You want an ex-judge's opinion?
Watch: Napolitano: Courts Interfering With Trump’s Powers? | Matzav.com

Another?
Pirro: The Intolerant Left is 'Changing the Rules' on Law and Ethics

My opinion? Treason. They hate Trump so much, they will
throw law out the window in order to spite him.

 

[Go Braves]

The problem is that the law is supposed to be about legalities,
not majorities, which are often wrong.

You want an ex-judge's opinion?
Watch: Napolitano: Courts Interfering With Trump’s Powers? | Matzav.com

Another?
Pirro: The Intolerant Left is 'Changing the Rules' on Law and Ethics

My opinion? Treason. They hate Trump so much, they will
throw law out the window in order to spite him.

Napolitano, the nut who is into conspiracy theories. Nah, I'll pass. He was too cray cray even for Fox News to just give him a pass.

It's just about as childish as you can be to say that this was about hating Trump & wanting to throw the law out the window in order to spite him. No, it was about acting in accordance with the law.

 

[pat34lee]

Napolitano, the nut who is into conspiracy theories. Nah, I'll pass. He was too cray cray even for Fox News to just give him a pass.

It's just about as childish as you can be to say that this was about hating Trump & wanting to throw the law out the window in order to spite him. No, it was about acting in accordance with the law.

Then name the law he broke. Specifics.

 

[Radagast]

But we are goading N. Korea.

By "goading," you mean, complaining about their launching ballistic missiles at people?

 

[ralliann]

By "goading," you mean, complaining about their launching ballistic missiles at people?

LOL, amazing how people see things huh?

 

[ralliann]

LOL, amazing how people see things huh?

I wonder if Israel is goading terrorists that threaten them?

 

[Go Braves]

Then name the law he broke. Specifics.

Watson wrote that the executive order “plainly discriminates based on nationality” in a way that is opposed to federal law and “the founding principles of this Nation.”

 

[Open Heart]

By "goading," you mean, complaining about their launching ballistic missiles at people?

No, I mean making threats in return.

 

[visionary]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/good-news-for-the-president-in-latest-trump-scoreboard-2017-11-03

 

[pat34lee]

Watson wrote that the executive order “plainly discriminates based on nationality” in a way that is opposed to federal law and “the founding principles of this Nation.”

Not illegal or unconstitutional.

He can write an EO banning Catholics.
He can ban immigration from any country that speaks French.
As long as he decides it is necessary, it's his decision.
The Constitution does not apply to other countries or their citizens.