Cont: The Trump Presidency VI

[Andy_Ross]

It doesn’t support the oppressive sharia law

Where a religious rule contradicts the law then the law wins. That already applies to all religions.

How would you enforce a ban on a religion?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Agreed, and Trumps problem is he isn’t doing the vetting correctly or thoroughly. He’s seeing people he thinks can get it done but doesn’t realize in government they have to be squeaky clean.

Why doesn't he realise this? He's been in the job for over a year. It shouldn't take a very stable genius to figure out.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Specifically which meetings? And how do you know they discussed sanctions or other policy matters. And you seem to be referring to the incredibly out dated Logan act. Are you going to impeach a president over that?

You think the Logan Act is "outdated" and should be changed, yet you think the Constitution - ratified in the same year - is sacrosanct and should be interpreted as the founders intended. On what criteria are you basing your judgements?

BTW, the Logan Act was last amended in 1994, so not all that outdated.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. Wanting a SC Justice who interprets the constitution as the founders intended isn't extreme, and it doesn't make someone a partisan extremist.

Which is why Thomas never votes a full vote only 60% of one. A real traditionalist him.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do you really believe that? I mean honestly, it's an extreme exaggeration, right? Certainly you cannot claim pols like Warren, Obama, Biden, Feinstein, and on and on and on "hate" their country.

I'd like a straight answer without any BS attached. Are you serious when you say, "The left hates this country..."

Honestly, that's not even the part of his statement that anyone should be focusing on. The claim that "change" is a symptom of hate is far more bizarre and extreme.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Dr. Ronny Jackson is out as VA head.

 

[TofuFighter]

Honestly, that's not even the part of his statement that anyone should be focusing on. The claim that "change" is a symptom of hate is far more bizarre and extreme.

"Should be focusing on". There is no wisdom in trying to grab handfuls of a shifting dune.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

"Should be focusing on". There is no wisdom in trying to grab handfuls of a shifting dune.

Fair point.

 

[The Don]

Dr. Ronny Jackson is out as VA head.

Obstructionist Dems destroying an honorable military hero with their #FakeNews


....or something

 

[BobTheCoward]

It doesn't matter what "liberals" have asserted.

It matters more than anything else.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You think the Logan Act is "outdated" and should be changed, yet you think the Constitution - ratified in the same year - is sacrosanct and should be interpreted as the founders intended. On what criteria are you basing your judgements?

BTW, the Logan Act was last amended in 1994, so not all that outdated.

The two were a decade apart.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Geez, you found me out! Of course I don’t look at my side as partisan extremists. All I want them to do is interpret the constitution as our founders intended.

Do you think that is extreme?

Yes. Which is why both Scalia and Thomas oppose that sort of thinking. Original intent is a surprisingly liberal position for you to take.

 

[alfaniner]

Wow, insane rant from The PDJT on Fox & Friends today. Even the panelists looked a bit alarmed.

 

[beren]

The two were a decade apart.

You are correct, but I'm not sure that 10 years significantly impacts the argument being made.

1799- Old! Out of date! Not possibly relevant to today's world because things have changed to much! IGNORE!

1789- Sacred! We must focus on exactly what they meant then!!

 

[BobTheCoward]

You are correct, but I'm not sure that 10 years significantly impacts the argument being made.

1799- Old! Out of date! Not possibly relevant to today's world because things have changed to much! IGNORE!

1789- Sacred! We must focus on exactly what they meant then!!

Logger said intended, not meant. Big difference.

 

[beren]

Logger said intended, not meant. Big difference.

I'm sure you can make semantic argument about the difference between what the founders "meant" and what they "intended to mean" but I don't consider it significant.

 

[Brainiac]

Wow, insane rant from The PDJT on Fox & Friends today. Even the panelists looked a bit alarmed.

I didn't see it, but I did hear part of it on XM radio as I was driving to work. Trump just wouldn't shut up. He went on and on and seemed very excited. Sounded like he had way too much coffee (or whatever drugs Ronny Jackson gave him).

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm sure you can make semantic argument about the difference between what the founders "meant" and what they "intended to mean" but I don't consider it significant.

They are two very different philosophies of constitutional interpretation.

 

[beren]

They are two very different philosophies of constitutional interpretation.

... and this affects the comparison to the Logan act how?

 

[BobTheCoward]

... and this affects the comparison to the Logan act how?

I didn't say it does. You don't have a license to be wrong if it isn't critical to your argument. You will be called out on it.