192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Builder
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 06:00 pm
@revelette3,
Quote:
Disgraceful and predictably vindictive.


Describes Pelosi and Schiff to a T.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 06:08 pm
And then this operative claims not to be a tory/conservative. Here he is, puking up a specific Republican party line.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 06:14 pm
Quote:
BREAKING: Trump Administration Removes Alexander Vindman’s Brother, Yevgeny Vindman

My wish came true.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-administration-fires-alexander-vindmans-brother-yevgeny-vindman
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 06:18 pm
@Setanta,
.
Quote:
Here he is, puking up a specific Republican party line.

What makes you an expert on Australians? Or the Republican party line for that matter? And an operative, c'mon. Laughing Laughing Laughing
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 06:49 pm
More good news.
Quote:
Breaking: Impeachment witness Gordon Sondland is fired too

https://therightscoop.com/breaking-impeachment-witness-gordon-sondland-is-fired-too/
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 06:56 pm
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
I will not read the Washington Times. In any case, threatening to issue executive privilege is not actually asserting executive privilege. In the letter, they refused point-blank to cooperate with the House oversight committee and its subpoenas.

The following is a pdf of the response to Trump's lawyer letter to the House. It lays out the case of subpoenas and the WH lack of cooperation and how unlike previous administrations including Nixon and Clinton it was.

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-10-04.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20to%20Mulvaney-WH%20re%20Subpoena.pdf

This was because they wanted a full floor vote. The House did have a full floor vote, it still wasn't good enough. Never once did they assert executive privilege.

The executive branch is under no obligation whatever to follow orders given to it by the legislative branch. The principle is known as separation of powers. The president doesn't have to use magic words in his response. He is not subordinate to them. If the president commanded the congress to do something, would they have to say "separation of powers" to refuse, or else be law breakers? Of course not. The president has no power to command them to do anything and they could refuse any way they want.

The president cannot be impeached for refusing to do something that he under no legal obligation to do in the first place.
Builder
 
  -1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 07:11 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
And an operative, c'mon...


Where's my payrise? LOL.
Setanta
 
  3  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 07:15 pm
@Brandon9000,
You really don't understand the constitution. The president is the head of the executive branch, That means that he or she is to execute the laws enacted by Congress. Congress has a mechanism for removing members of the executive branch, up to an including the president. No one in the executive branch has such power over members of Congress.

It is just pathetic how conservatives warp the meaning of the constitution in order to support whatever moron they have most recently installed.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 07:19 pm
@Builder,

Quote:
Where's my payrise? LOL.

Crikey, I don't know. Ask the guy who accused you.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 07:23 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
No one in the executive branch has such power over members of Congress.

Now reverse that and you will understand the separation of powers. Congress has no such power over members of the executive branch. They both have powers that when in dispute go to the courts. Civics is not that tough. Look for an online course.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 08:29 pm
Quote:
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Donald Trump's job approval rating has risen to 49%, his highest in Gallup polling since he took office in 2017.
Quote:
Trump's approval rating has risen because of higher ratings among both Republicans and independents. His 94% approval rating among Republicans is up six percentage points from early January and is three points higher than his previous best among his fellow partisans. The 42% approval rating among independents is up five points, and ties three other polls as his best among that group.
Quote:
As Trump's job approval rating has improved, so has the image of the Republican Party. Now, 51% of Americans view the Republican Party favorably, up from 43% in September. It is the first time GOP favorability has exceeded 50% since 2005.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/trump-job-approval-personal-best.aspx
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Sat 8 Feb, 2020 12:48 am
@coldjoint,
So it is clear that the executive branch obstructed the right and power of investigation specifically given to congress in the constitution. No way around the fact that that is indeed obstruction of congress. absolutely no need to have that adjudicated since thsat is what it is.
Builder
 
  1  
Sat 8 Feb, 2020 12:56 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
So it is clear that the executive branch obstructed the right and power of investigation specifically given to congress in the constitution.


Clear to whom?

The obstruction the rest of us witnessed was done by Schiff in the House hearings.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Sat 8 Feb, 2020 01:02 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
obstructed the right and power of investigation specifically given to congress in the constitution.

That is over-site. This was impeachment, different rules unknown to fools.
oralloy
 
  1  
Sat 8 Feb, 2020 01:04 am
@MontereyJack,
No. "Disagreeing with progressives about the extent of their authority and leaving it to the courts to decide" isn't obstruction.

If Mr. Trump were actually defying court rulings that would be one thing. But he isn't.
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Sat 8 Feb, 2020 08:28 am
@coldjoint,
wtf is "over-site"? do you by chance mean "oversight"? Investigate means investigate. I see no exception in the constitution that puts investigation that results in impeachment in a different csategory. Trump obstructed them in the lawful carrying out of their duties and powers. He's equally as guilty as Nixon was in trying to coverup Watergate. Sic semper tyrannis.
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Sat 8 Feb, 2020 08:33 am
@oralloy,
You're imposing imaginary conditions again. He obstructed them, don't need to wait four years for all the delays trump would use to block and buy justice as he always does.
revelette3
 
  4  
Sat 8 Feb, 2020 09:15 am
How Trump's three years of job gains compares with Obama's

Quote:
President Donald Trump says he is particularly pleased with the jobs created during his three years in office.

"We're producing jobs like you have never seen before in this country," he said during a recent speech in Michigan.

But you don't have to go back far to find three years of better job growth. Just to back to the previous three years under Barack Obama.

During Trump's first 36 months in office, the US economy has gained 6.6 million jobs. But during a comparable 36-month period at the end of Obama's tenure, employers added 8.1 million jobs, or 23% more than what has been added since Trump took office.

The average monthly gain so far under Trump is 182,000 jobs. During the last 36 months under Obama, employers were adding an average of 224,000 jobs a month.

On Friday, the Labor Department reported that employers added a fairly robust 225,000 jobs in January. But it also made some revisions to past data, which lowered many previous job growth estimates. While some of the revisions go all the way back to the last century, most of the changes to data took place during 2018 and 2019. So the revisions reduced the gains during Obama's final three years by 47,000 jobs, but it reduced the gains during Trump's tenure by a total of 354,000 jobs.

The job record under Trump is far better than the job record during Obama's first 35 months in office, when the economy lost 805,000 jobs. But Obama took office in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. In the final job reading before Obama took office, the economy lost 784,000 jobs in that month alone. And it continued to lose jobs throughout the rest of 2009 as Obama's economic policies went into effect.

By comparison, Trump took office with the labor market in relatively good shape, with unemployment at 4.7%, and a string of 76 straight months of job gains. The labor market has clearly continued to improve. Unemployment of 3.6% in January is nearly at a 50-year low now. But it is a continuation of an improving job market, not the turnaround that occurred in the early years of the Obama administration.

And Trump's job record is not unique. A gain of more than 6.6 million jobs during a 35-month period has been common during the 80 years that the Labor Department has counted jobs. There are hundreds of overlapping 36-month periods of better growth on record.

At this point in his first and only term, Jimmy Carter had enjoyed a gain of about 10.1 million jobs. Employers added 8.5 million jobs during the first 36 months of Bill Clinton's term and 7.8 million jobs during the first 36 months of Lyndon Johnson's tenure, even though the labor force at that time was less than half the size of what it is today.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Sat 8 Feb, 2020 10:16 am
@revelette3,
Ask the workers at Pontiac how good Obama was for their jobs.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Sat 8 Feb, 2020 10:19 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
You're imposing imaginary conditions again.

Reality is not imaginary. Our courts and our legal system are not imaginary.


MontereyJack wrote:
He obstructed them,

That is incorrect. The Senate cleared him of all charges. They understand that people sometimes disagree over Constitutional issues, and that we have a system of courts to resolve such disagreements.


MontereyJack wrote:
don't need to wait four years for all the delays trump would use to block and buy justice as he always does.

The Senate says otherwise.

The Senate says that it was perfectly reasonable for Mr. Trump to disagree with progressives over the extent of their authority and leave it to the courts to decide.

The Senate looked to see if you had any evidence of Mr. Trump actually defying court orders, and saw that you had no such evidence.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.48 seconds on 04/04/2025 at 05:53:06