Cont: The Trump Presidency 11: Insert something funny

Status
Not open for further replies.
That exchange between Manu Raju and Orrin hatch was worse than has been represented in these posts (although I can't access the Wapo article, so they may have mentioned this there).I paraphrase only slightly, and without changing any meaning, except where i quote:

Raju: Are you concerned about the allegations against Trump?
Hatch: “The Democrats will do anything to hurt this president.”
Raju: But this isn't the Democrats, it's the Southern District of New York...
Hatch: “Okay but I don’t care; all I can say is he’s doing a good job as President”
Raju: so do the allegations concern you?
Hatch: “No because I don’t think he was involved in crimes but even then, you know, you can make anything a crime under the current laws; if you want to you can blow it way out of proportion you can do a lot of things.”

It's a pity this kind of rank hypocrisy and lack of objectivity gets lost in the news maelstrom around trump.

On an aside, I was watching Theresa May answer questions in the House of Commons yesterday and wondering how trump would fare under such circumstances...
 
Darat said:
If Trump is impeached and is forced to leave office can he then stand again for President in 2020?
Click to expand...
Apparently that depends on the Senate:

"The Senate may subsequently vote on whether the impeached official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States. If this option is pursued, a simple majority vote is required."

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf
 
TofuFighter said:
That exchange between Manu Raju and Orrin hatch was worse than has been represented in these posts (although I can't access the Wapo article, so they may have mentioned this there).I paraphrase only slightly, and without changing any meaning, except where i quote:

Raju: Are you concerned about the allegations against Trump?
Hatch: “The Democrats will do anything to hurt this president.”
Raju: But this isn't the Democrats, it's the Southern District of New York...
Hatch: “Okay but I don’t care; all I can say is he’s doing a good job as President”
Raju: so do the allegations concern you?
Hatch: “No because I don’t think he was involved in crimes but even then, you know, you can make anything a crime under the current laws; if you want to you can blow it way out of proportion you can do a lot of things.”

It's a pity this kind of rank hypocrisy and lack of objectivity gets lost in the news maelstrom around trump.

On an aside, I was watching Theresa May answer questions in the House of Commons yesterday and wondering how trump would fare under such circumstances...
Click to expand...

The values party sold their values. And this is making America great again.
 
Last edited:
TofuFighter said:
It's a pity this kind of rank hypocrisy and lack of objectivity gets lost in the news maelstrom around trump.
Click to expand...

???

Lost? Wouldn't the question actually be more along the lines of, is it seriously newsworthy in the first place? The GOP's incredibly partisan hypocrisy has been remarkably consistent for many years now, has it not? As has been how much it's underplayed by the mainstream media in their attempt to manufacture a both sides narrative so that they can hide behind attempted non-partisanship, rather than uphold the actual values in question in a nonpartisan manner. Going a bit beyond that, for a fair few decades now, right-wingers make a huge deal about all kinds of nonsense and even small slights, while consistently dishing out absurdly worse. "It's perfectly fine for me to slander you as I falsely call you a ******* **** ***** while you're not allowed to call me anything even mildly unpleasant, no matter how true!" is sorta the par for the course attitude.

From that, you might be able to figure out my feelings on the "civility" calls from the right, recently, though. Hillary calls roughly a sixth of the country "deplorable" and that's outrageous. McConnell calls most of the country ******* idiots, Trump says all kinds of nasty BS slander about a heck of a lot more people constantly, and it gets lapped up.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
I'm not sure why having his base reject an electoral outcome is a better situation than his base reject an investigative outcome.

I'm for not letting what unreasonable people might do dictate what can or can't be done.
Click to expand...

This is the point I was also going to make. And also that based on recent elections a Republican President getting a minority of the vote has proven no bar to them getting the office. Why give them two more unopposed years to prepare.
 
TofuFighter said:
That exchange between Manu Raju and Orrin hatch was worse than has been represented in these posts (although I can't access the Wapo article, so they may have mentioned this there).I paraphrase only slightly, and without changing any meaning, except where i quote:

Raju: Are you concerned about the allegations against Trump?
Hatch: “The Democrats will do anything to hurt this president.”
Raju: But this isn't the Democrats, it's the Southern District of New York...
Hatch: “Okay but I don’t care; all I can say is he’s doing a good job as President”
Raju: so do the allegations concern you?
Hatch: “No because I don’t think he was involved in crimes but even then, you know, you can make anything a crime under the current laws; if you want to you can blow it way out of proportion you can do a lot of things.”
Click to expand...

Lets not forget that even if he intentionally and knowingly ordered his campaign to collude with the Russians to blacken and tarnish Clinton's name that's perfectly okay and even good. It kept that sick bitch from being elected President and antifa hordes from seizing everyone's guns! They were going to go for everyone's guns and he had to stop them!
 
I fully believe it's correct and prudent to indict a sitting President. Suppose he murdered all his staff. He'd be hauled off to jail and charged in a heartbeat. Or do some folk really think that even then he'd be immune from prosecution only until after first being impeached?

If something as serious as murder is accepted as requiring immediate charging, then why not any other crime?

As to his being immune from indictment while in office, then the statutes of limitations on any crimes must be "tolled", I believe is the term. In other words, the clock stops until he leaves office. It's appalling in the extreme to think that a President could win office by means criminal and enjoy the priveledge of watching the clock run out before his (potential) two terms end.

And being indicted while in office circumvents the scenario of being immediately pardoned by his successor. Ford got away with pardoning Nixon because the latter was not actually indicted.
 
Trump Tweets

Despite the large Caravans that WERE forming and heading to our Country, people have not been able to get through our newly built Walls, makeshift Walls & Fences, or Border Patrol Officers & Military. They are now staying in Mexico or going back to their original countries.......

....Ice, Border Patrol and our Military have done a FANTASTIC job of securing our Southern Border. A Great Wall would be, however, a far easier & less expensive solution. We have already built large new sections & fully renovated others, making them like new. The Democrats,.....

....however, for strictly political reasons and because they have been pulled so far left, do NOT want Border Security. They want Open Borders for anyone to come in. This brings large scale crime and disease. Our Southern Border is now Secure and will remain that way.......
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
Lets not forget that even if he intentionally and knowingly ordered his campaign to collude with the Russians to blacken and tarnish Clinton's name that's perfectly okay and even good. It kept that sick bitch from being elected President and antifa hordes from seizing everyone's guns! They were going to go for everyone's guns and he had to stop them!
Click to expand...

I wish that were hyperbole. Unfortunately, that is exactly the sentiment I've encountered from many online.
 
Good morning Captain_Swoop.
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Despite the large Caravans that WERE forming and heading to our Country, people have not been able to get through our newly built Walls, makeshift Walls & Fences, or Border Patrol Officers & Military. They are now staying in Mexico or going back to their original countries.......

....Ice, Border Patrol and our Military have done a FANTASTIC job of securing our Southern Border. A Great Wall would be, however, a far easier & less expensive solution. We have already built large new sections & fully renovated others, making them like new. The Democrats,.....

....however, for strictly political reasons and because they have been pulled so far left, do NOT want Border Security. They want Open Borders for anyone to come in. This brings large scale crime and disease. Our Southern Border is now Secure and will remain that way.......
Click to expand...

Those first two Tweets were 10 minutes apart. (It took him a long time to finish his, and I use this word loosely, thought.) In those 10 minutes, I suspect someone was banging on his door, got in, and explained that he still needs a wall.
 
Lurch said:
I fully believe it's correct and prudent to indict a sitting President. Suppose he murdered all his staff. He'd be hauled off to jail and charged in a heartbeat. Or do some folk really think that even then he'd be immune from prosecution only until after first being impeached?
Click to expand...

Yes they do. How the president can be indicted, prosecuted or arrested is simply not addressed in the constitution. I could see indictment being ok but the others not so much. The only thing that removes the power of the presidency from them is impeachment however. So with out that I could see any prosecution being delayed until he is no longer in office.
 
Lurch said:
I fully believe it's correct and prudent to indict a sitting President. Suppose he murdered all his staff. He'd be hauled off to jail and charged in a heartbeat. Or do some folk really think that even then he'd be immune from prosecution only until after first being impeached?

If something as serious as murder is accepted as requiring immediate charging, then why not any other crime?

As to his being immune from indictment while in office, then the statutes of limitations on any crimes must be "tolled", I believe is the term. In other words, the clock stops until he leaves office. It's appalling in the extreme to think that a President could win office by means criminal and enjoy the priveledge of watching the clock run out before his (potential) two terms end.

And being indicted while in office circumvents the scenario of being immediately pardoned by his successor. Ford got away with pardoning Nixon because the latter was not actually indicted.
Click to expand...

You can be pardoned at any stage of the legal process. Youvan be pardoned for crimes no one knows about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom