Now that Donald Trump has Won


It seems the site has changed since I last checked it. There was an article there before. Not sure what happened with it.


@hmtksteve Being dismissed by the President is a big deal, regardless of the length of service. Standing up to power is a big deal, regardless of what one stands to lose. If you choose not to value these things, then so be it. However, whether you think her act was/wasn’t a big deal, I think you can see that the argumentative and petty reaction of the Trump Administration is a big deal.

JUST IN: White House appoints Dana Boente as acting attorney general, says Sally Yates "has betrayed the Department of Justice"

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) January 31, 2017


@Kate_Monster yes. Both sides reacted poorly. However, Trump LOVES being the underdog. He derives power from having foes (real or imagined) up against him. If Yates had written a clearly worded dissent pointing out to how the EO was unconstitutional or illegal then she would have held the high ground. By basing her decision on political grounds and hearsay she ends up looking like someone who acted based on Dem vs Repub reasons rather than a person acting based on a question of law.

The Trump administration is pushing an Us vs Them narrative. The actions of Yates help his narrative. Trump is not a politician. What has worked in the past does not work on him. He’s a political Nilbog, if you get the reference.


@hmtksteve She issued her order and provided her reasoning. It was clearly worded. Where are you getting this stuff?


Some awful subreddit I assume. Or else a misspelled email.

#308 for one. It displays a good analysis of where she went wrong in her statement.

From the same site: gives a good legal breakdown for why the EO is likely unconstitutional.

If she had stuck to legal reasons and left out the hearsay arguments she would be on solid ground. By including those references she allowed herself to fall into a political trap that allows her stand to be portrayed as partisan rather than principled.


I completely understand HMTKsteve’s line of argument, people who work in government point out the same stuff, in fact what she should have done was lodged her complaint and resigned immediately. (that’s the usual way)

However as someone who wanted to make an activist point and go down in a blaze of glory, she did what she had to do.


@hmtksteve Quite frankly, she would have been painted as partisan either way. Moreover, she had limited time to act and formed her decision on of the moment information. While your single sourced review of the order makes a few points well, it also has the benefit or hindsight. The President’s order was unusual and it prompted an unusual response. His order was abruptly enacted, incredibly vague, did not name six of the impacted countries, and was being interpreted by Bannon who instructed how it should be executed by word of mouth. This is rather unprecedented.

Quite frankly, you seem eager to paint the administration and Yates as equally “wrong” in this situation, which does not actually fit the events or their roles. You don’t like the way she handled it, fine. However, her actions did not result in an ineffective, inefficient, and inhumane security measure that is partially being used to cover Trump’s NSC bungling buggery.


@Kate_Monster no, I paint the responses as equally wrong. Yates was wrong to make her statement public and political and the Whitehouse was wrong to make its statement on her firing hyperbolic and inflammatory. Period, full stop.

The discussion on the EO itself is a different matter. Its rollout was a complete clusterfuck. Its impact on green card holders never should have happened. The impact on visa holders in transit and refugee families already approved for relocation is a tragedy. Whether it will have its stated effect is dubious. Whether the President has the authority to do what is in the Executive Order will be up to the judicial branch to decide as I have read legal pieces that both defend and refute the order based on different readings of the same statute.


@hmtksteve I disagree that the reactions were “equally wrong.” I am not certain that further discussion on this topic will yield much more than our repeated statements of disagreement on that point.

As to the EO, we largely agree except that I would use stronger language and no equivocation about its efficacy.


This is petty. Yates did nothing wrong. The White House’s response was frighteningly phrased but not really wrong. Resignation in protest is something I’ve been wanting to be brought back for some time, and Yates has brought it back, if through a slightly different execution. I don’t understand this argument.


@Greg I agree that this is largely petty except that the wording of the Trump Administration’s condemnation in context with its near dictatorial nature to date are actually frightening. It stops just short of calling her actions treasonous. That is concerning.


Norway isn’t a member of the EU, but Sweden is. Italian citizenship should at least guarantee you the right to work in Sweden.


“‘We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues,’ said Senate Finance Committee chair Orrin Hatch.”

I want to punch this man very very hard.



I feel like I’d also like a “how to avoid being charged with assault, battery and of course Title 18” as a result of “How To Make A Fist: THE CORRECT WAY”


What we should do is convince Trump that the only way to prove he’s not a fascist is to legalize the punching of fascists.


Unfortunately, it’s a good thing for civic society that the punching of people for speech alone is illegal. It’s our civic duty to punch fascists, but also to accept that doing so has potential consequences.


So what you’re saying is that Trump should adopt Putin’s strategy of continuously calling out his detractors as “fascists” in order to distract from his own fascistic tendencies?


I have no words. Does this lead to impeachment?