Donald Trump 2018

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Yeah, I assumed Hillary would be Cersei

You’re not going to like this but I’d put Hillary in the Dany category.  She was part of the old establishment and despite her and her family being vanquished, those in power are still after her with their assassins.  She wants the throne so fucking bad because she thinks she’s entitled but she keeps making mistakes and getting derailed by the GOP slave masters. 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

['stache 21928]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian Fantana 6724]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You’re not going to like this but I’d put Hillary in the Dany category.  She was part of the old establishment and despite her and her family being vanquished, those in power are still after her with their assassins.  She wants the throne so fucking bad because she thinks she’s entitled but she keeps making mistakes and getting derailed by the GOP slave masters. 

That makes more sense.

[ChiTownDoc 21256]

It's like GoT but imagine the characters have Down's syndrome.  It makes a lot more sense like that...

[bad_teammate 13344]

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Grrr.  News is saying in DACA suit in NY judge denied MTD but no article is linking the order.  Evidently judge said Trumps repeated racial epithets gave inference there was racial animus to the acts.  

 

Anyone have the order?  Reading judges coolly call out his stupidity sustains my life force. 

[retread 2951]

 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by retread

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Chad Fuck 17901]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But she likes Trump now and grabbing pussy is probably ok if it’s her own.

[Chad Fuck 17901]

Grrr.  News is saying in DACA suit in NY judge denied MTD but no article is linking the order.  Evidently judge said Trumps repeated racial epithets gave inference there was racial animus to the acts.  
 
Anyone have the order?  Reading judges coolly call out his stupidity sustains my life force. 

It’s why the judiciary, and judicial appointments, are so damn important. And why politicization of the judiciary is so harmful.

You’d think this wouldn’t have to be pointed out, but in these times...

[Eskimohorn 5658]

 

Something as simple as a photo op cant be done with this Presidency. In this case, he wanted to continue to creep.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I’m sure Trump loves the new Time cover

 

 

It was a good run for Sessions.

[VRHorn 721]

It's almost like Sessions is begging to be fired. Unpopular decision and the cover of Time - yikes.

[Francisco 2.0 32442]

2 minutes ago, VRHorn said:

It's almost like Sessions is begging to be fired. Unpopular decision and the cover of Time - yikes.

That's probably the trigger.  Sessions getting on Time.

 

 

[staboner 5017]

sessions is a beady eyed devil who worked his whole life to get to this point so he can take hacks against the rest of humanity. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

9 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Grrr.  News is saying in DACA suit in NY judge denied MTD but no article is linking the order.  Evidently judge said Trumps repeated racial epithets gave inference there was racial animus to the acts.  

 

Anyone have the order?  Reading judges coolly call out his stupidity sustains my life force. 

Just pulled it.

Quote

To establish discriminatory purpose, Plaintiffs identify a disheartening number of
statements made by President Donald Trump that allegedly suggest that he is prejudiced against
Latinos and, in particular, Mexicans. (BV TAC 89-99; State Pis. Am. Compl. Iff 57-77.)
These comments include (1) then-candidate Trump's assertions that Mexican immigrants are not
Mexico's "best," but are "people that have lots of problems," "the bad ones," "criminals, drug
dealers, [and] rapists" (BV TAC 91-93; State Pis. Am. Compl. TIK 58-59); (2) Trump's
characterization of individuals who protested outside a campaign rally as "thugs who were flying
the Mexican flag" (State Pis. Am. Compl. ^ 61); (3) Trump's statements that a U.S.-bom federal
judge of Mexican descent could not fairly preside over a lawsuit against Trump's for-profit
educational company because the judge was "Mexican" and Trump intended to build a wall
along the Mexican border (BV TAC ^ 96; State Pis. Am. Compl. 62); and (4) pre- and post-
Inauguration characterizations of Latino/a immigrants as criminals, "animals," and "bad
hombres" (BV TAC HI 97, 99; State Pis. Am. Compl. HH 65-66, 70).

Accepting Plaintiffs' non-conclusory allegations as true and reading all reasonable
inferences in their favor, the court concludes that these allegations are sufficiently racially
charged, recurring, and troubling as to raise a plausible inference that the decision to end the
DACA program was substantially motivated by discriminatory animus. Although the use of
racial slurs, epithets, or other racially charged language does not violate equal protection per se.
it can be evidence that official action was motivated by unlawful discriminatory purposes. See,
e.g.. Williams v. Bramer. 180 F.3d 699, 706 (5th Cir. 1999); Smith v. Thomburg. 136 F.3d 1070,

1089-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Freeman v. Arpaio. 125 F.3d 732, 738 n.6 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in
part on other grounds bv Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008); All v.
Connick. 136 F. Supp. 3d 270,279-80 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (collecting cases). The court is aware of
no authority holding that this rule does not apply simply because the speaker is, or is running to
be, the President of the United States. The court expresses no view as to whether these
statements (which as Defendants note, are not directly connected to the DACA rescission) would
ultimately suffice to provide that the rescission was motivated by discriminatory animus; that is a
question for summary judgment or trial. The court concludes only that Plaintiffs have alleged
sufficient facts to raise a plausible inference that the DACA rescission violated equal protection,
and thus to withstand a motion to dismiss.^

Defendants do not defend the President's comments but argue instead that the court
should simply ignore them. First, Defendants suggest that because the President's statements
were "almost all made before he took the oath of office and [were not] made in connection with
the [DACA rescission]," these comments "do not tend to show the existence of both
discriminatory intent and discriminatory effect." (State MTD at 33.) Defendants cite no
authority for the proposition that, to state an equal-protection claim, a plaintiff must point to
some evidence that simultaneously demonstrates both discriminatory intent and discriminatory
effect, or that evinces discriminatory bias directly in connection with the challenged official
action. To the contrary, Arlington Heights states that courts may consider the background of

facially neutral decisions to smoke out whether they were covertly motivated by discriminatory
purposes. 429 U.S. at 267.

The court recognizes that searching for evidence of discriminatory motivation in
campaign-trail statements is potentially fraught. Old statements may say little about what lay
behind a later decision. Statements made in the throes of a heated race may be "contradictory or
inflammatory," and considering them may indeed incentivize litigants in future cases to embark
on an "evidentiary snark hunt" in search of past comments indicative of some sort of bias.
Washington v. Trump, 858 F.3d 1168, 1173-74 (9th Cir. 2017) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from
denial of reh'g en banc); ^ Regents nrbUb") Order. 2018 WL 401177, at *7 (recognizing that
consideration of campaign statements "can readily lead to mischief in challenging the policies of
a new administration"). Moreover, an equal-protection claim brought against the President raises
difficult questions of whether—and, if so, for how long—^any Executive action
disproportionately affecting a group the President has slandered may be considered
constitutionally suspect.
While these are all good reasons to tread lightly, the court does not see why it must or
should bury its head in the sand when faced with overt expressions of prejudice. Arlington
Heights calls for a "sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as
may be available," and campaign-trail statements by the official allegedly responsible for a
challenged policy would seem to fall squarely within this inquiry. Ct IntT Refugee Assistance
Project V. Trump. 883 F.3d 233, 266 (4th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (declining to consider pre-election
statements while noting that they "certainly provide relevant context when examining the
purpose" of a challenged Presidential proclamation suspending entry of individuals from
specified countries), pet, for cert, docketed. No. 17-1270. At the very least, one might

reasonably infer that a candidate who makes overtly bigoted statements on the campaign trail
might be more likely to engage in similarly bigoted action once in office.
Defendants' attempts to pass the buck to Acting Secretary Duke are no more persuasive.
Defendants argue that the President's statements are legally irrelevant because Acting Secretary
Duke "was the only official vested with authority... to make the decision at issue," and
Plaintiffs do not point to similarly objectionable statements by her. (BV MTD at 22; State MTD
at 34.) To the extent Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have insufficiently alleged racial animus on
the part of Acting Secretary Duke or the Attorney General, the court is inclined to agree:
Plaintiffs have not identified statements by Acting Secretary Duke or the Attorney General that
would give rise to an inference of discriminatory motive. Although the Batalla Vidal Plaintiffs
insinuate that the Attorney General referred to immigrants as "filth" (BV TAG H 100; BV Pis.
Opp'n at 20), his prepared remarks make clear that this term was used only to refer to
international drug-trafficking cartels and the gang MS-13 (Dep't of Justice, Press Release,
Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks Announcing the Department of Justice's
Renewed Commitment to Criminal Immigration Enforcement (Apr. 11, 2017),
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attomey-general-jeff-sessions-delivers-remarks-announcingdepartment-
justice-s-renewed). This comment therefore does not support a plausible inference
that the Attomey General was motivated by racial discrimination when he advised that Acting
Secretary Duke end the DACA program.
The court rejects, however. Defendants' remarkable argument that the President
apparently cannot be liable for rescinding the DACA program because only Acting Secretary
Duke had the legal authority to end that program. (State MTD at 34.) Our Constitution vests
"executive Power" in the President, not in the Secretary of DHS, who reports to the President

and is removable by him at will. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 1. This position appears to be at
odds with the stated position of the President himself, who tweeted that if Congress were unable
to "legalize DACA," he would "revisit this issue," implying that he (correctly) understands that
he has ultimate authority over the program. (Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump),
Twitter.com (Sept. 5,2017 7:38 PM),
https://twitter.eom/realdonaldtrump/status/905228667336499200.) If, as Plaintiffs allege.
President Trump himself directed the end of the DACA program (e.g.. State Pis. Am. Compl.
16), it would be surprising if his "discriminatory intent [could] effectively be laundered by
being implemented by an agency under his control" (BV Pis. Opp'n at 18). As courts have
recognized in far more mundane contexts, liability for discrimination will lie when a biased
individual manipulates a non-biased decision-maker into taking discriminatory action. Cf.
Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Serv.. Inc.. 835 F.3d 267,272-73 (2d Cir. 2016) (discussing
"cat's paw" liability, under which an organization may be held liable for employment
discrimination when a prejudiced subordinate manipulates an unbiased superior into taking
adverse employment action); Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107,
126 & n. 18 (2d Cir. 2004) (applying cat's-paw theory to equal-protection claim).
Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' equal-protection claims is
DENIED.

(footnote 8)

® Because the comments identified above are sufficient to raise a plausible inference of discriminatory purpose, the
court need not decide whether Plaintiffs' remaining allegations support an inference of discriminatory purpose. For
example, Plaintiffs allege or argue in their briefs that the President decided to pardon former Maricopa County,
Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio (BV TAG ^ 98; State Pis. Am. Compl. 67-69), that he has made offensive statements
about Muslims, Native Americans, transgender individuals, and "shithole countries" (BV Pis. Opp'n at 19-20), and
that, during the campaign, then candidate Trump retweeted a post apparently criticizing former Florida governor Jeb
Bush for speaking "Mexican" (BV TAG If 95). The court observes, however, that these allegations would seem to
offer only weak support, at best, for the notion that the President's alleged decision to end the DAGA program was
motivated by desire to harm Latinos and especially Mexicans.

 

We are being governed by some absolute ace quality people.  I cannot imagine being a lawyer having to go in front of a federal judge, knowing that I'll be seeing him for the next couple of decades of my career, and knowing my signature will forever be on these pleadings, having to take these positions and advocate in the face of this evidence.

[retread 2951]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28852]

Maybe they'll bring back leaded gasoline and chlorofluorocarbons.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-new-york-emissions/epa-poised-to-announce-rejection-of-obama-vehicle-fuel-efficiency-rules-idUSKBN1H5346

EPA poised to announce rejection of Obama vehicle fuel efficiency rules

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to use a Virginia car dealership on Tuesday as the setting to tout its rejection of the Obama administration’s landmark vehicle fuel efficiency rules, a move that could put automakers in the middle of a battle between the Trump administration and California.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt plans to sign a declaration by Sunday that the Obama administration’s vehicle efficiency rules for 2022 through 2025 are “not appropriate” and must be revised, Reuters reported last week. 

Pruitt is expected to speak at an event at a Chevrolet dealership in suburban Washington and will joined by groups representing dealers and automakers, according to people familiar with the plans. 

 

The state of California, which has the power to effectively create its own fuel economy standards, several allied states and environmental groups are gearing up for a legal and political fight over the rules, aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks.

[Brisketexan 105700]

2 minutes ago, retread said:

 

In Austin, KEYE is Sinclair-owned.  So, I don't watch KEYE news anymore.  The only answer is to hit Sinclair stations in the pocketbook.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Seems like there would be some dormant commerce clause issues with CA effectively requiring different nationwide emission standards for cars.  

[Biff Tannen 45786]

12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Maybe they'll bring back leaded gasoline and chlorofluorocarbons.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-new-york-emissions/epa-poised-to-announce-rejection-of-obama-vehicle-fuel-efficiency-rules-idUSKBN1H5346

 

 

People who support this should be locked in a garage for a while with a running vehicle.

[SubliminalHorn 6845]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In Austin, KEYE is Sinclair-owned.  So, I don't watch KEYE news anymore.  The only answer is to hit Sinclair stations in the pocketbook.

Thanks, I did not know this. No more views or clicks from me and I’ll be spreading the word to all of my libtard friends. 

[Lurch 5942]

Maybe they'll bring back leaded gasoline and chlorofluorocarbons.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-new-york-emissions/epa-poised-to-announce-rejection-of-obama-vehicle-fuel-efficiency-rules-idUSKBN1H5346

EPA poised to announce rejection of Obama vehicle fuel efficiency rules
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to use a Virginia car dealership on Tuesday as the setting to tout its rejection of the Obama administration’s landmark vehicle fuel efficiency rules, a move that could put automakers in the middle of a battle between the Trump administration and California.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt plans to sign a declaration by Sunday that the Obama administration’s vehicle efficiency rules for 2022 through 2025 are “not appropriate” and must be revised, Reuters reported last week. 

Pruitt is expected to speak at an event at a Chevrolet dealership in suburban Washington and will joined by groups representing dealers and automakers, according to people familiar with the plans. 

 

The state of California, which has the power to effectively create its own fuel economy standards, several allied states and environmental groups are gearing up for a legal and political fight over the rules, aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks.

Just more liberal overreaching. Government has no place regulating air quality. If people want cleaner air, someone can sell it to them.

USA.

[Disco Strangler 1895]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m sure Trump loves the new Time cover

 

 

It was a good run for Sessions.

How long until that magazine is rolled up and used for spanking?.

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

3 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

 

Just more liberal overreaching. Government has no place regulating air quality. If people want cleaner air, someone can sell it to them.

USA.

 

 

[ChiTownDoc 21256]

1 hour ago, staboner said:

sessions is a beady eyed devil who worked his whole life to get to this point so he can take hacks against the rest of humanity. 

Luckily he mistakenly lumps Trump in with the rest of humanity.  

[Eskimohorn 5658]

How long until that magazine is rolled up and used for spanking?.

Thank you for that

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Seems like there would be some dormant commerce clause issues with CA effectively requiring different nationwide emission standards for cars.  

The Clean Air Act specifically gives states a waiver to have stronger standards.  Pruitt and the new Environmental Destruction Agency can't do anything about it. Congress would need to pass a law amending the Clean Air Act.

[joe dirt 285]

1 hour ago, Disco Strangler said:

How long until that magazine is rolled up and used for spanking?.

well done, sir. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[TheFlyingBoat 913]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Mostly due to how bad his other appointments had been, appointing Dennis Rodman as the first US Ambassador to North Korea may be in his top 10 appointments.

[Gil Bang 26121]

5 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Seems like there would be some dormant commerce clause issues with CA effectively requiring different nationwide emission standards for cars.  

CA has been leading the way on emission standards since it required "PCV" valves in 1961.  The rest of the country did so a few years later.  Just about every advance in smog-control technology was due to CA requirements. 

[Brisketexan 105700]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

CA has been leading the way on emission standards since it required "PCV" valves in 1961.  The rest of the country did so a few years later.  Just about every advance in smog-control technology was due to CA requirements. 

I know about this because when I was home sick in grade school, watching The Price is Right at 11:00 am, all the cars ("A NEW CAR!") had "California emission."

I learned a lot from The Price is Right.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Brisketexan

[TahoeHorn 107]

11 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

CA has been leading the way on emission standards since it required "PCV" valves in 1961.  The rest of the country did so a few years later.  Just about every advance in smog-control technology was due to CA requirements. 

Nope.  The Japanese produced cars that didn't need those ridiculous devices.

 

Smog control technology didn't evolve from catalytic converters.  It evolved from engines which worked more efficiently because they were produced more precisely.

[Gil Bang 26121]

15 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Nope.  The Japanese produced cars that didn't need those ridiculous devices.

 

Smog control technology didn't evolve from catalytic converters.  It evolved from engines which worked more efficiently because they were produced more precisely.

You're not a car guy, are you?  

What I wrote was, and is, 100% accurate.  Japanese cars barely existed in the U.S.  in the early 60's, when smog control technology started to pick up, and CA was, with very few exceptions, on the cutting edge and the other states followed, time and again. 

And, what exactly is "ridiculous" about devices that reduce exhaust emissions?     Those of us that don't live in bumfuck like to breathe cleaner air.

And do you really believe that Jap engines were/are "produced more precisely"?   Please elaborate?  Do japanese engines use closer tolerances than US engines?  Go ahead and tell us all about it. 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Gil Bang

[Gil Bang 26121]

And please tell me which Japanese models post 1975 don't use catalytic converters or positive crankcase ventilation?  

[ndawg 1242]

The Japanese had Deming. Advantage: Toyota.

[Eskimohorn 5658]

I know about this because when I was home sick in grade school, watching The Price is Right at 11:00 am, all the cars ("A NEW CAR!") had "California emission."
I learned a lot from The Price is Right.

Did you get your dog spayed or neutered?

[Brisketexan 105700]

6 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

 

Did you get your dog spayed or neutered?

 

I did indeed.

But Bob had so much more to teach us....

[DDD Dad 14400]

59 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Nope.  The Japanese produced cars that didn't need those ridiculous devices.

 

Smog control technology didn't evolve from catalytic converters.  It evolved from engines which worked more efficiently because they were produced more precisely.

That (not which).

[HenryJames 66368]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I did indeed.

But Bob had so much more to teach us....

2,1,x,3.

Always had a thing for Holly.

[TahoeHorn 107]

Biased, perhaps right, perhaps wrong, but worth reading:

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/jay-sekulow-michael-cohen-and-the-rest-of-trumps-legal-team-are-no-match-for-robert-mueller.html

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Meet the White House interns.

Thoughts and prayers to them.

[ChiTownDoc 21256]

Lol.  Dude’s name reporting on CNN right now:  Boris Sanchez

Trump’s pea sized brain might explode trying to figure this one out.  

[Dr. Teeth 5863]

Two brown kids on the left.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

Two brown kids on the left.

Probably wanted to be as far away from Trump as possible.  

 

Smart

[retread 2951]

Did the Kush get the ME figured out?

 

Team Dian

[Blotto 23755]

I wonder what the selection process for WH intern is. Is it always that ....uh, white?

[Eskimohorn 5658]

Probably wanted to be as far away from Trump as possible.  
 
Smart

Opposite is true

Another former Trump employee told the New Yorker that black staff were hidden from Trump when he visited the casino with his wife. “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” said Kip Brown.