• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
marplots said:
Maybe. If they find something to report, then I'll listen like anyone else who catches the news. It's just that I don't expect people (Hillary, Donald, or me) to just give up the incriminating evidence on a platter. Let some investigative journalist dig it up. Or not. If their shenanigans don't rise to the level of getting caught without the hidden documents, then they weren't shenaniganing enough to get caught.

ETA: Hillary is a lawyer. Trump hires lawyers. Presumably they know what they can legally get away with. What we are actually talking about is offenses in the court of public opinion. I think a lot of us are tired of the back-and-forth slander and allegations. Wake me up when someone is on their way to jail.
Click to expand...

What is legal for a private businessman to "get away with" is entirely different from what a public official can do, legally, ethically and morally. The biggest criticism of Clinton -- never proven -- was that she was using her position as SecState to solicit contributions to her family foundation. As a private citizen raising charity money is no problem for anybody. Trump has extensive business deals around the world, most of which involve licensing the use of his name. Again, as a private citizen it might not be anybody's business. But as President, we are entitled to know whether he owes money to Russian gangsters or whether he will trade favors to foreign governments for business concessions. Suppose the owner of some Trump-branded hotel gets in trouble with his government. Does the U.S. exert its influence, maybe even force, to protect Trump Plaza? The very fact of his election boosts the value of his brand. When someone runs for President they give up a zone of privacy. They are asking us to trust them with our lives -- literally -- and we are entitled to know everything we can.
 
President Trump has been signing a bunch of executive orders to progress repealing ACA and TPP. Weren't executive orders "unconstitutional", or at least an abuse of power when the last chap (sparingly) used them ?:confused:
 
The Don said:
President Trump has been signing a bunch of executive orders to progress repealing ACA and TPP. Weren't executive orders "unconstitutional", or at least an abuse of power when the last chap (sparingly) used them ?:confused:
Click to expand...

Please, you know the rules.

Democrats doing something is bad, Republicans doing the same thing is good.
 
The Don said:
President Trump has been signing a bunch of executive orders to progress repealing ACA and TPP. Weren't executive orders "unconstitutional", or at least an abuse of power when the last chap (sparingly) used them ?:confused:
Click to expand...
Obama issued 277, pretty much middle of the pack historically. They're not holding up very well, just too easy to overturn. Trump may experience the same thing with the next Democratic President.
 
It's not the number of executive orders that matters. It's what they do. Obama has tried several times to co-opt Congress' legislative power using executive orders. That is not what they are for. They are for laying out the terms and rules as to how the executive branch will enforce the laws that Congress has written. You can't just compare absolute numbers. Well, you can, but it's not at all meaningful.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's not the number of executive orders that matters. It's what they do. Obama has tried several times to co-opt Congress' legislative power using executive orders. That is not what they are for. They are for laying out the terms and rules as to how the executive branch will enforce the laws that Congress has written. You can't just compare absolute numbers. Well, you can, but it's not at all meaningful.
Click to expand...

So POTUS shouldn't do things like declare that NAFTA will be renegotiated?
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's not the number of executive orders that matters. It's what they do. Obama has tried several times to co-opt Congress' legislative power using executive orders. That is not what they are for. They are for laying out the terms and rules as to how the executive branch will enforce the laws that Congress has written. You can't just compare absolute numbers. Well, you can, but it's not at all meaningful.
Click to expand...

But that was only after Obama wasted many years trying to compromise with Republicans who had taken a vow of obstinance, regardless of what he proposed. Obama came to office with a promise to try to bring the country together with bipartisanship. A Republican Congress that only wanted to see him fail saw one obvious way to make a failure of that promise: no bipartisanship allowed.
 
SQiOD6D.jpg

https://twitter.com/deptofdefense/status/823515639302262784

America's descent into a banana republic is at least going to provide plenty of lols. That person at DOD, I love you.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
It's not the number of executive orders that matters. It's what they do. Obama has tried several times to co-opt Congress' legislative power using executive orders. That is not what they are for. They are for laying out the terms and rules as to how the executive branch will enforce the laws that Congress has written. You can't just compare absolute numbers. Well, you can, but it's not at all meaningful.
Click to expand...

So you think Trump overstepped his authority by signing the executive order that the ACA will not be enforced?

That is the job of congress to change the law.
 
The Don said:
President Trump has been signing a bunch of executive orders to progress repealing ACA and TPP. Weren't executive orders "unconstitutional", or at least an abuse of power when the last chap (sparingly) used them ?:confused:
Click to expand...

You'll have to confirm that with the local sycophants, but I do believe you're correct. I think Obama's last EO was to allow presidential EO's for the next administration.

It may have been in the note that Obama left on the desk.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's not the number of executive orders that matters. It's what they do. Obama has tried several times to co-opt Congress' legislative power using executive orders. That is not what they are for. They are for laying out the terms and rules as to how the executive branch will enforce the laws that Congress has written. You can't just compare absolute numbers. Well, you can, but it's not at all meaningful.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if Congress wasn't too busy worrying about Obama presidenting while black, and if they actually did their *********** jobs, it co-oping them wouldn't be such a sticking point. Amirite?
 
NoahFence said:
Perhaps if Congress wasn't too busy worrying about Obama presidenting while black, and if they actually did their *********** jobs, it co-oping them wouldn't be such a sticking point. Amirite?
Click to expand...

But their number one priority was making sure that Obama was a one term president.

After they failed at that they needed to make sure he couldn't get anything done.
 
Sideroxylon said:
“I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet,” Trump told “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush in a conversation that was caught on a hot mic in 2005.

“I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” he said. “Grab ‘em by the pussy.”

What does Trump not wait for?
Click to expand...

The least possible sign of consent, which he is not interested in.
 
Stacko said:
He had a claque in the audience for his CIA speech per CBS. That was who you heard applauding.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats...s-to-cia-visit.html?via=mobile&source=copyurl
....
Click to expand...

From the link:
U.S. officials confirmed to CBS News that Donald Trump’s team brought supporters to his speech at the CIA headquarters on Saturday to sit in the first few rows. These 40-or-so individuals were reportedly cheering while Trump spoke, which the initial perception was that CIA employees listening to the speech were doing so.
Click to expand...

In general, this is a despicable practice, but how is it even possible at the CIA? Everybody in the building is supposed to have a security clearance. Or is anybody traveling with the Pres just presumed to be okay?
 
Bob001 said:
From the link:


In general, this is a despicable practice, but how is it even possible at the CIA? Everybody in the building is supposed to have a security clearance. Or is anybody traveling with the Pres just presumed to be okay?
Click to expand...

I thought that room was considered non-secure and it has a separate entrance, but I could be wrong.
 
trustbutverify said:
Canned applause. Perfect.
Click to expand...

Don't laugh. It's worked for him since day one of his campaign. Why would he stop now?

ETA: I hope he doesn't see this:
Despite claims from the administration that some were waiting to get inside the room, the network reported that just 400 employees RSVP’d. “Thousands” were reportedly invited.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
From the link:


In general, this is a despicable practice, but how is it even possible at the CIA? Everybody in the building is supposed to have a security clearance. Or is anybody traveling with the Pres just presumed to be okay?
Click to expand...

I visited the building a couple of times as a contractor. I didn't need a security clearance, just a photo ID, but I had an escort at all times, even to go to the Mens room.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom