Great post my friend!

impeach

nice clown you got there

Make sure to write an impassioned letter to Macaroni so he can yell at Trump on your behalf at the next G7 summit.

as I was saying in that thread, I think you'd find 75% of people agree with prosecuting every case of illegal border crossing and 75% of people disagree with separating families. People like to have their cake and eat it too. And nobody was arguing in favor of separating families as a policy, nor was that the policy, its the consequence of the policy of prosecuting that 100% of cases. But the law as written and court precedents made it impossible to prosecute those people without separating them. Well, Trump's EO is him trying to have his cake and eat it too, by simply stating that he's doing the impossible and prosecuting people by keeping them together, but giving it the extremely ambiguous contingencies and conditions of saying 'to the extent the law allows' and instructing the DoJ to try to overturn the court precedents in some undefined manner and all while assuring that this measure is just to preempt the legislation he's 'sure is coming soon' from congress.

To that regard, I think its important to examine it both through the political and practical lenses. In practical terms, as far as I can tell Trump's EO would either serve as a temporary measure until its knocked down or the 20 day timer on families expires and create a showdown where either the law gets broken or we return to Obama's free passes -or- in the political terms, he's seizing the high ground and painting himself as the man solving the crisis while punting the actual solution over to congress and forcing democrats to either sign onto Ted Cruz's bill or give Trump fodder to claim its their fault if/when his EO breaks down. At the same time, there's a risk for Trump that if the law becomes untenable and leaves us back to Obama's status quo, then he's already capitulated and the democrats have no motive to sign a new bill. If that winds up being the case, than this is borrowed time not a masterstroke.

that's a fine fucking line my dude. Kelly straight up argued for it's merits, before the ZT policy was put in place iirc.

i guess we need to get real specific about "intended purpose" and "expected and accepted consequence".

does this nullify the executive order? separation is pretty central to this issue and it’s misspelling may render it void

or will the alcu attempt to nullify it in court since it will be deemed “not enough”
or will maddow argue to nullify it because she cried too much and suffered from dehydration as a result

This post was edited by excellence on Jun 20 2018 04:19pm

In Hindsight I'm sure that Megan Mullally (very Liberal despite her character on Will n Grace) no longer accepts that cheek kiss at the end, and now classifies it as rape. I expect a #metoo article within the week, and impeachment to follow!