There's millions of published pages on WikiLeaks and Assange's statements about them that suggest he's telling the truth. So there's that.
Or someone with access to the NSA's tools, or the hackers who broke into Sony, or the hackers who broke into thousands or millions of machines this past week.
You might want to temper your gloating, they only allowed part of it to be implemented prior to their consideration of the order. They haven't actually ruled on the executive order yet. barfo
Yeah, the major part Unanimous. It looks as if this crew reads the Constitution and rules. Perhaps Trump will replace those on the left courts that pull feel good jingles out their arse.
So, he screwed up the first order completely and caused chaos at airports, stranded lots of people. Rewrote the ban, but still not well enough to be implemented. Finally after several months part of the order is allowed to go forward - but most people traveling from those 6 countries won't be kept out. So much winning. You must be getting sick of winning. barfo
I wrote before that Trump has the right/power to implement his ban. Obama did the same under the same right/power. But I don't agree with the ban. On the other hand, the talking heads on TV are claiming the ban isn't needed because nobody from those countries have effected an attack in the US (but they do overseas). Well, duh, the Obama bans did their job.
We agree on this. Please throw your graphs and statistics towards this instead of apologizing for Trump/blaming Obama.
And that is totally fine. I'm just requesting you give us examples of your "truths" when you disagree with him too.
When the news is about things I disagree with him, I still post the facts and my opinion about disagreement. I don't agree with the wall. The wall isn't in the news much. You want me to post "I'm against the wall" daily or something?
I've also posted that he should stick to his job and let the special investigator do his job. That Mueller hiring partisans is fine - even ideal. If they can't find anything, there really isn't anything there. Nothing to fear by Trump if he's got nothing to hide. That bashing the special prosecutor is a democrat ploy (remember how Ken Starr was treated?), and we don't need to do that, no matter who the investigator is. I've posted that I didn't care if Comey stayed or was fired. It's Trump's right to fire him. &c
Fox news or MSM? I've read the OT forum for a while and I haven't seen that as much as you are claiming. Unless you finally are admitting that you are a Trump supporter. I do appreciate your facts and opinions, to be completely honest. I'm sure you have the ability to create a bot that does that. I suggest you tend to the BGD bot first though.
I don't watch Fox News except on rare occasions. MSNBC and CNN and WWW sites like NYTimes and WaPost. HuffPost and some conservative sites for balance.
We honestly aren't far apart I suppose. I'm not going to sit here and try to persuade someone whose "never lost a case" that they should see it from my perspective. I'm just elaborating on how you come across sometimes; an opinion. I don't remember ever bashing (or even bringing up) the special prosecutor. I remember Ken Starr but not how he was treated through the media, as I am a bit younger. If that makes my opinion of recent events invalid, then OK. No disagreement with the Comey firing here either.
Ken Starr was relentlessly ridiculed by the media and the Clinton administration and his apologists. The man (Starr) is/was highly qualified: a Supreme Court candidate, was solicitor general who argued cases at the Supreme Court on behalf of the United States (the US is often the defendant in cases), and a judge.
Sound familiar? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123653000 Starr, Gormley says, "did as good a job as he could do [during Whitewater]. Certainly there were others around him eager to find wrongdoing and came together to produce a witch hunt. But I don't think Ken Starr was out to bring down Clinton." Clinton, however, saw otherwise. "President Clinton believed from the start that this was nothing but a political witch hunt," Gormley says. "In his mind, they were out to get him because they wanted a regime change and were willing to go for broke."
