I'll accept that, if you're sincere. (Only you'd know that though) but I'll have to accept that you are.
(I used that description because Yates is firmly on the Left and she is an admitted Radical Feminist)
Interesting question about Gen. Flynn's firing....
- Thread starter RichardPeterJohnson
- Start date
I'll accept that, if you're sincere. (Only you'd know that though) but I'll have to accept that you are.
(I used that description because Yates is firmly on the Left and she is an admitted Radical Feminist)
And then you go and call them "disgusting women"?
Are they disgusting because they disagree with your opinions?
Are they disgusting because they attacked Trump for being misogynist?
Are they disgusting because they stand up for their rights?
I'm not going to beat this countryroads89 (I didn't see this post before your 'apology') but if I'm a misogynist for calling those Babes what they called themselves, what does it say about what they think of other Women?
I'd never call a Babe that...as I said I used that term referring to Sally Yates because she's an admitted Radical Feminist and that's what they called themselves during that March they claimed to represent ALL Women.
I respect and admire Women (moreso than Men 'cause most Women are Sexy) but also because I think most Women are special gifts. They do bear Children and propagate our species. We all have Moms.
You accused me of turning every debate into Abortion, (not true) however isn't that the whole point of the entire Radical Feminist movement? What other "rights" do they think Trump is threatening to take away from them except for their right to kill their innocent offspring? What were all those signs about besides that countryroads89?
So it's beyond me how any Woman Blessed with that gift (Birth) can imagine killing her Child?
What is more special being a Woman? What is more precious and innocent than a little Baby countryroads89?
My God countryroads89, have you no Soul?
Last edited:
I'll admit countryroads89 that calling her a "radical Feminist" might be a little too strong. I'm familiar with her since she's from Atlanta and worked here serving as U.S. Attorney. However, she is firmly on the Left, and certainly sympathizes with Left leaning policies. So it's not hard for me to understand why she chose to stand up to Trump philosophically at least if not politically over his immigration EO.
http://www.myajc.com/news/local/sal...left-pariah-the-right/62BmgecLskTpCvRuwz3yWL/
Last edited:
No countryroads89, it's none of that. I call what they refer to themselves as and their public behavior as "disgusting".
What's your apt description of their behavior and those signs countryroads89? Are you proud of that?
Why didn't the Media show any of those signs? That's a common reference to Female genitals? You'd call other Females that?
Last edited:
Those signs about this p grabs back were in response to the comment allegedly made by Trump about how he could get away with assaulting women. I think it's pretty clear that they are standing against sexual predators, at least the ones with those signs. I have no idea what the babies are useless people were protesting.
If that's true (sexual assault) those Babes have nothing to worry about. Trump is not proposing to allow Men to assault Women, and those Babes have nothing to worry about anyway.
Many of the alleged "assaults" Trump is accused of by forcing himself on Women were false, most of his alleged trysts were consensual, and those Babes all 100% supported Hillary Clinton who not only enabled her husband to sexually abuse women, she actually tried to destroy the Women who accused him!
That sign those two protesters held up that you mentioned, as well as most of those other Feminist Radicals were fighting for one "right" they fear Trump wants to take away from them....
To kill their innocent unwanted Children.
It turns out that she was correct. The EO was overturned. She tried to give Trump sound legal advice. She did her job.
Trump was wrong, again.
No countryroads89 you are. FYI there is a new EO quite similar to the first one now in effect. The 1st one hasn't been challenged yet in a higher court (it will be) and the EO wasn't "overturned"...it was placed on a temporary restriction by a court that didn't even rule on its essential question...the President's ability to restrict any Foreign nationals from entering the country if they are considered a threat to national security.
It wasn't her job to challenge the President's authority on this matter, and she was wrong to do so. If she disagreed with her orders to follow the EO, she should have just resigned instead of making a political show of her opposition to Trump.
Again as I mentioned earlier in this thread, she's a Leftist so it is understandable why she placed her politics above her legal duty to execute orders from her boss as the chief deputy U.S. Law enforcement attorney.
He's still President and she's sending out her resume.
The first one won't be challenged by a higher court. The Administration gave up on it. That is why they developed the second one.
The first one was overturned....by the very first challenge, the state of Washington. There were other states in line waiting their turn to challenge it as well.
This second one will meet the same fate.
It IS her job to provide legal advice to the President. It is not the "legal duty to execute orders by the President" (by the AG's office). No offense, but I really am surprised at your lack of understanding of how the process works and at your lack of understanding of the role of the AG's office. You do realize that one of the standing questions by the US Senate for an AG nominee is essentially "if you found disagreement with the President over the constitutionality of a policy, would you hesitate to disagree with him and advise him against that policy or advise him to make changes"?
Trump was wrong. He lost.
"See you in court". "We did and we won".
Countryroads89 the AG's office enforces U.S. Laws as our chief Law enforcement agency. Their job is to enforce U.S. Laws, which Constitutionally they are sworn to uphold. Trump didn't ask Yates to violate U.S. Law, she was asked to execute a standing EO, which was lawfully issued by the President.
The Washington court placed a stay on execution of Trump's EO, and as far as I know the final decision to challenge that stay in higher courts has not been settled yet. However a new EO is now proposed and set to take effect in a few days which has many of the same provisions of the 1st one.
In cases of dispute with the Executive Office over the legality of an Executive order, it is the White House Counsel's Office where the proper forum to dispute or question the validity of that order should be carried out, not the public media show Yates preferred to voice her opposition to Trump's order.
The White House Counsel's Office said Trump's EO was both legal and within his Constitutional authority to issue. The subsequent EO will not be challenged or overthrown in court as you predict.
So you are wrong, and Trump is right.