monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

Impeachment is supposed to be for officials who have done something wrong.

Exactly-like expressing a desire to the head of the FBI that they drop an investigation into a national security advisor who lied about his ties to America's nuclear enemy because Trump likes him.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

This bore repeating

Quote:

Conservatives who pretend they can't see the difference in importance between the two must not care about the survival of this nation. Mistresses won't bring the US down, but Russia just might, especially with when they presently have a Quisling living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

They crow so righteously about Clinton lying about a blowjob, but pretend all the activity with Russians by Trump's people means nothing. They wanted to put Hillary under the jail for her sloppy handling of classified material, but they shrug and change the subject when you point out that Trump gave away classified material to Russians in the oval office.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

Conservatives who pretend they can't see the difference in importance between the two must not care about the survival of this nation. Mistresses won't bring the US down, but Russia just might, especially with when they presently have a Quisling living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

As Snood didn't quite say, This bears repeating.

How incredibly paranoid are you Americans? Here we are in 2017 and you are still milking the Commie threat.

Haven't you heard? There's a new meme - it's TERRORISTS!

Check regularly under your beds!

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

...they [the Russians] presently have a Quisling living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Hahahaha. Like Cammie with his 9/11 nonsense, you cheese-eaters seem to think that if you scream out your insane fantasies loud enough and long enough it will somehow change all the facts.

Nice try, cheese-eater.

Dream on. Trump aint gunna be impeached, and Bush isn't going to be indicted for plotting the destruction of the WTC towers either.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Based on Trumps tweets... Courts ruling on EO/EA's due to what is said on social media. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

social media postings have been used in court decisions for over a decade now

it doesn't matter whether or not we like that. it's reality.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

They should be ashamed of themselves for the WAY in which they have tried to use them, if nothing else.

If I fire a muslim for stealing from me, and then say "I never liked muslims anyway," that changes nothing. I had just and valid cause for firing the guy. My personal preferences have nothing to do with it.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

All of which had to do with an issue of the President having a mistress, a relationship many Presidents, if not a majority of them, have had since the beginning of the Republic and was considered business as usual. All, except for Clinton, continued these relationships unmolested by firebreathing fanatics of the opposition.

How far does this silly notion that "it is OK to commit felonies to cover up sex" go?

Is it OK to murder people to cover up sex?

Blickers wrote:

The investigations Trump tried to stop had to do with lying about senior government officials meeting with officials of Russia, a nuclear enemy the United States has kept from conquering even more territory than it took after WWII and holding them hostage for half a century. It would have been longer except the nuclear enemy went so broke, they weren't able to pay their army.

Conservatives who pretend they can't see the difference in importance between the two must not care about the survival of this nation. Mistresses won't bring the US down, but Russia just might, especially with when they presently have a Quisling living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

The Democrats pretending that they care about Russia is silly.

During the Cold War, when the Soviets were an actual threat to the world, the Democrats repeatedly tried to help the Communists defeat western democracy.

That's why the Democrats always try to scrap critical weapon systems that the US needs to defend itself.

That's why the Democrats lynched Nixon. He was preventing the Communists from overrunning South Vietnam.

That's why the Democrats tried to lynch Reagan. He prevented the Communists from overrunning Central America.

Just recently when Mitt Romney said he still viewed Russia as a threat, the Democrats sneered openly at him.

As for Trump, it is perfectly reasonable for him to try to make peace with Russia. And as President he is 100% within his rights to try to do that.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Impeachment is supposed to be for officials who have done something wrong. It isn't supposed to be for the Democrats to attack people who disagree with them.

Exactly-like expressing a desire to the head of the FBI that they drop an investigation into a national security advisor who lied about his ties to America's nuclear enemy because Trump likes him.

No. An official exercising their discretion over whether to pursue a given case is not in any way wrongdoing.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

This bore repeating

Quote:
Conservatives who pretend they can't see the difference in importance between the two must not care about the survival of this nation. Mistresses won't bring the US down, but Russia just might, especially with when they presently have a Quisling living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

The Democrats pretending that they care about Russia is silly.

During the Cold War, when the Soviets were an actual threat to the world, the Democrats repeatedly tried to help the Communists defeat western democracy.

That's why the Democrats always try to scrap critical weapon systems that the US needs to defend itself.

That's why the Democrats lynched Nixon. He was preventing the Communists from overrunning South Vietnam.

That's why the Democrats tried to lynch Reagan. He prevented the Communists from overrunning Central America.

Just recently when Mitt Romney said he still viewed Russia as a threat, the Democrats sneered openly at him.

As for Trump, it is perfectly reasonable for him to try to make peace with Russia. And as President he is 100% within his rights to try to do that.

snood wrote:

They crow so righteously about Clinton lying about a blowjob,

Get your facts straight. Clinton committed perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice to cover up a blow job.

snood wrote:

but pretend all the activity with Russians by Trump's people means nothing.

The President has every right to have relations with foreign nations. If you don't like that reality, that doesn't make it pretend.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

social media postings have been used in court decisions for over a decade now

it doesn't matter whether or not we like that. it's reality.

The issue in question is not whether they can look at social media postings. The issue is whether it is legitimate for them to ignore the reality that this travel ban does not discriminate based on religion.

We'll see how the Supreme Court rules, but I'm guessing that they are not in favor of rulings that ignore reality.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

They should be ashamed of themselves for the WAY in which they have tried to use them, if nothing else.

If I fire a muslim for stealing from me, and then say "I never liked muslims anyway," that changes nothing. I had just and valid cause for firing the guy. My personal preferences have nothing to do with it.

Yes. That's it exactly.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Generally you need standing before you are able to sue.

These cretins will most likely claim that, coming from Washington DC and Maryland, they are within their rights to behave in a retarded manner.

At first blush you wouldn't think anybody could keep his face straight while claiming something like that but we are even now starting to read about Muslims claiming that rape is simply a part of their culture and getting by with that both in America and in Europe although the situation in Europe is much worse. There isn't much difference between that and people from Maryland or DC claiming a right to be retarded.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You ought to try facts once or twice, oralloy. You might get to like them.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Quote:

we are even now starting to read about Muslims claiming that rape is simply a part of their culture

It wasn't so long ago that rape was part of USA culture. Can you say Bill Cosby?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

These courts are trying to punish Trump for the way (they think) he thinks, and nothing else. I guess they never heard of the First Amendment, eh?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

An official exercising their discretion over whether to pursue a given case is not in any way wrongdoing.

You have it backwards. Trump was not in charge of pursuing the Flynn case and Russia investigation. The FBI was. Prosecutors decide not to pursue charges often because what the individual did was not too bad and could be hard to prove, so it wasn't worth the time and effort. However, if you are the President and you decide to try to get the head of the FBI to stop the pursuit of a case because he's a buddy of yours, that's obstruction of justice.

Remember, we are talking about a guy who lied about links to Russia, our nuclear enemy since the end of WWII. This is vital national security being protected by this investigation.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

I guess they never heard of the First Amendment, eh?

Says the guy who only respects the 1st for his own.

0 Replies

@nimh,

Strange... Rasmussen

Code:

12-Jun-17	46%

9-Jun-17	46%

8-Jun-17	46%

7-Jun-17	45%

6-Jun-17	46%

5-Jun-17	46%

2-Jun-17	44%

1-Jun-17	43%

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

You have it backwards. Trump was not in charge of pursuing the Flynn case and Russia investigation. The FBI was.

The Constitution says that the President is in charge of the entire executive branch. That includes the FBI.

Blickers wrote:

Prosecutors decide not to pursue charges often because what the individual did was not too bad and could be hard to prove, so it wasn't worth the time and effort. However, if you are the President and you decide to try to get the head of the FBI to stop the pursuit of a case because he's a buddy of yours, that's obstruction of justice.

No. Obstruction of justice is when you try to prevent an investigation from learning the truth.

An official exercising their discretion over whether or not to have an investigation isn't obstruction of justice.

Blickers wrote:

Remember, we are talking about a guy who lied about links to Russia, our nuclear enemy since the end of WWII. This is vital national security being protected by this investigation.

The Cold War is over. Russia is no longer trying to conquer the world.

And as President, Trump has every right to have contacts with Russia.

2 Replies

Justice Neil Gorsuch's first ruling shows strict use of language (USA Today Link)

Quote:

WASHINGTON — Newly installed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch followed the letter of the law in his first opinion Monday -- a ruling that dealt with whether collectors of debts are in all cases "debt collectors."

In a lively, 11-page unanimous ruling, Gorsuch said a law passed by Congress to guard against abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection methods doesn't apply to people trying to collect debts owed to themselves. . . .

Here is the U.S. Supreme Court link to Justice Gorsush's first written decision as a member of our country's highest court:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-349_c07d.pdf

Justice Gorsuch applied settled law on statutory interpretation to resolve the case (see snippet from page 9, below):

Quote:

And while it is of course our job to apply faithfully the law Congress has written, it is never our job to rewrite a constitutionally valid statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done had it faced a question that, on everyone’s account, it never faced. See Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U. S. 320, 334 (2010) (“We cannot replace the actual text with speculation as to Congress’ intent”).

And that's a question that has been swirling around in my mind with respect to Trump's executive orders that he now calls "travel bans". Is his motive relevant?

Congress, of course, consists of hundreds of individuals. Just because we can discern the intent or motive of some members of Congress, we cannot ascribe that intent or motive to all members of Congress. Therefore, we must rely on the language Congress placed in the text, and not so much the legislative history. But the President is one person and he has talked and tweeted on the matter.

Is Trump's intent or motive relevant? I'm still reading and mulling this over. Your thoughts?

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know