• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Trump Presidency (Act V - The One Where Everybody Dies)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps people area avoiding saying that it violated the law because it didn't and that's not the point.

Congress voted 98-2 to impose sanctions.

He ignored it. Its not violating the law, it's ignoring that Congress felt it was imperative that this law be created. Enough with your retarded semantics bob. You know damn well what happened.

Why are you OK with it?
 
NoahFence said:
Perhaps people area avoiding saying that it violated the law because it didn't and that's not the point.

Congress voted 98-2 to impose sanctions.

He ignored it. Its not violating the law, it's ignoring that Congress felt it was imperative that this law be created. Enough with your retarded semantics bob. You know damn well what happened.

Why are you OK with it?
Click to expand...

If they wanted to impose sanctions, they would have voted to impose sanctions. Instead, they voted for a law that doesn't impose sanctions to impose sanctions? Is this like the Iraq vote again?


I sure haven't seen many arguments for impeaching presidents for complying with the law. I may have jumped the gun in thinking people calling for impeachment thought he broke the law.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
I have already read multiple articles on it this morning. Some have straight up avoided stating if it violated the law. People arguing that it violated the law are saying that without evidence.

Quote the law.
Click to expand...

It is quite well documented that Trump has been crapping on the law ever since he started working.

Here are few examples that immediately come to my mind ....

- When Trump first started working with father, both him and his father got into trouble for racial discrimination.
- When Trump is involved in his various construction projects, he has hired illegal aliens and he has refused to pay people what he was supposed to pay.
- Trump has used his funds from his charity foundation to pay his own personal bills.
- Trump has improperly handled highly classified data since the start of his presidency.

And so on.

Of course, you still believe that torture is constitutional even though it has been clearly been shown that this is not at all true.
 
NoahFence said:
Perhaps people area avoiding saying that it violated the law because it didn't and that's not the point.

Congress voted 98-2 to impose sanctions.

He ignored it. Its not violating the law, it's ignoring that Congress felt it was imperative that this law be created. Enough with your retarded semantics bob. You know damn well what happened.

Why are you OK with it?
Click to expand...

Look if congress wanted it enforced they they shouldn't have left that up to the executive. Now Russian sanctions, that would be a crazy thing for him to get impeached on
 
Crossbow said:
It is quite well documented that Trump has been crapping on the law ever since he started working.

Here are few examples that immediately come to my mind ....

- When Trump first started working with father, both him and his father got into trouble for racial discrimination.
- When Trump is involved in his various construction projects, he has hired illegal aliens and he has refused to pay people what he was supposed to pay.
- Trump has used his funds from his charity foundation to pay his own personal bills.
- Trump has improperly handled highly classified data since the start of his presidency.

And so on.

Of course, you still believe that torture is constitutional even though it has been clearly been shown that this is not at all true.
Click to expand...

Do you think Trump violated the sanctions law?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
A Bill passed by Congress is being ignored by the President.
Click to expand...
BobTheCoward said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...
NoahFence said:
Perhaps people area avoiding saying that it violated the law because it didn't and that's not the point.

Congress voted 98-2 to impose sanctions.

He ignored it. Its not violating the law, it's ignoring that Congress felt it was imperative that this law be created. Enough with your retarded semantics bob. You know damn well what happened.

Why are you OK with it?
Click to expand...
BobTheCoward said:
If they wanted to impose sanctions, they would have voted to impose sanctions.
Click to expand...

It seems like you're moving the goalposts some, Bob. The claim is that a bill passed by Congress is being disregarded or ignored by the president. You said "prove it" even though that doesn't seem to be in question, and are now suggesting that Congress should have passed something different.

But you haven't really answered the question.

Assuming you aren't debating that Congress passed a bill and that the president is ignoring it, the question is: are you fine with that?

The follow-up questions are obvious things like: are you fine if that trend continues? Where do you draw the line? Would you be fine with some other president (let's say Obama) doing the same? If not, what's the difference?
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
https://www.snopes.com/2018/01/29/trump-administration-no-russia-sanctions/

ETA: Sorry. A late on the draw, there, but all these links clearly demonstrate that "A Bill passed by Congress is being ignored by the President."
Click to expand...

Can you please explain what you mean by ignore? I'm getting a lot of mixed messages if people mean "not complied" or "complied but not okay" and if that should be grounds for impeachment.

I have been reading ignored as "not complied." Granted, I can ignore what the speed limit is but still drive that limit. I'm just not sure that is what you mean.
 
NoahFence said:
Perhaps people area avoiding saying that it violated the law because it didn't and that's not the point.

Congress voted 98-2 to impose sanctions.

He ignored it.
Click to expand...

The case being made by the administration is that sanctions have been imposed since the bill was passed, and those should count.

I’m not making that case, just putting it out there. It may not be as black-and-white as some are making it out to be.
 
SOdhner said:
It seems like you're moving the goalposts some, Bob. The claim is that a bill passed by Congress is being disregarded or ignored by the president. You said "prove it" even though that doesn't seem to be in question, and are now suggesting that Congress should have passed something different.

But you haven't really answered the question.

Assuming you aren't debating that Congress passed a bill and that the president is ignoring it, the question is: are you fine with that?

The follow-up questions are obvious things like: are you fine if that trend continues? Where do you draw the line? Would you be fine with some other president (let's say Obama) doing the same? If not, what's the difference?
Click to expand...

I'm not agreeing that meeting the deadline and carrying out the law as written is ignoring it.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
The case being made by the administration is that sanctions have been imposed since the bill was passed, and those should count.

I’m not making that case, just putting it out there. It may not be as black-and-white as some are making it out to be.
Click to expand...

The case was also made that his inauguration crowd was the biggest ever. They have proven to not have the most credible grasp of basic facts.
 
For a $35 campaign contribution to Trump you can have your name shown on the screen during the livestream of the SOTU speech on his website.

He found a way to make money out of it!
 
Captain_Swoop said:
For a $35 campaign contribution to Trump you can have your name shown on the screen during the livestream of the SOTU speech on his website.

He found a way to make money out of it!
Click to expand...
Who would have guessed Trump had so many cousins named "Impeach?"
 
I get the sense that Paul Ryan has made those statements just to deflect criticism away from the GOP. The Republicans will do whatever they can to save face in the middle of this disaster named Trump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom