President vs Constitution
 

When commenting on why he dropped the Doral location over flack over the emoluments clause in the constitution, he said the president should be able to run the country without worrying about this crap.

Most of my posts on this board, regardless of what the blue font pontificator Mr. D might suggest, are in fact reactions to events or actions taken by this administration and I guess our POTUS believes some of the constitution is just plain crap.

I guess it’s time to do a re-write.

Regardless of your pontificating spin, I don't think Trump's "this" referred to the Constitution.

So you claim I constantly post things that aren’t true, yet you acknowledge personal take on things might differ, thanks for making my point. What I feel is true and what you feel is true can both be right based on point of view. I still feel in his opinion the clause in the constitution raising such a fuss on both sides was crap, because he wanted his property to host the event and he feels he as president should be allowed to govern as he feels fit. It’s his MO.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You may "feel" that the Clause, in his opinion, was the reason for the fuss, but what evidence do you have that he had that opinion. Was it that because the Clause existed, it in and of itself was crap and that crap was being used to make a fuss about his wanting to host the event on his property, or was it that the Clause was being erroneously used to needlessly stir up the fuss. His legal staff had counseled him re hosting the G7 at Doral, and they didn't think there would be a conflict. Were they right or wrong--that would have been a good question to argue in the courts.

And you're doing it again. You're blatantly just saying his MO is to feel as President he should be allowed to govern as he feels fit. As if you have some authority on how he feels.

No problem Trump is in the clear because the Emoluments Clause isn't real and George Washington had two desks and Obama inked a Netflix deal in 2018.
That’s what he said today in public, though perhaps he was exaggerating.
Just making sure I'm understanding how he feels correctly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh "crap" here we go again. He obviously meant that using the Emoluments Clause in the Doral case was phony, not that the Clause itself is. I mean, come on, it would make no sense to say that something that obviously, without a doubt, irrefutably exists doesn't exist. He obviously knows the Clause exists, he made reference to it (for Pete's sake). You guys refuse to accept Trumpspeak. It's the way he talks. Clipped statements that often skip the rest of the idea.

There isn't universal agreement that the Emoluments Clause means that all businesses of a President must stop while in office. Surprise, surprise--I agree with the following article that the there is an over expansive understanding of the Clause. And that what Trump said (OK, what he meant) is correct. It is an earlier article re another case, but the analysis applies to Doral:

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/h...luments-clause

In your America the law is kinda, sorta followed because ya know, Trump didn’t really mean that, he meant it’s good, sort of, like.
If you actually listen to him you’ll figure out that what Tillerson said is true.
Not kinda sorta.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In other words, you got nothin'.

Your something is his words don’t mean anything in English, but are in a special language that only his followers can comprehend.
I hear the Stable Genius was on Hannity last night, perhaps you will provide translation services for the linguistically challenged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he pontificates a lot....

:shocked:

=Trump has spent more taxpayer money at his own resorts than any prior President took in salary in 8 years.

I give him credit for getting up and going to work every day while suffering relentless, mindless attacks from unhinged lunatics everywhere from congress to the mainstream media to the sb political threads daily(or in pete's case...hourly) since the first hours of his presidency......

Fixed it for you

Why he's getting lynched.....and what is the translation of that?

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching. But we will WIN!
7:52 AM · Oct 22, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

he's an effective multi-takser

I thought he was trying for the black sympathy vote.

When your defense of the location is my "legal" staff said it's ok, you are already behind the 8-ball, look at his own personal lawyer.

Earlier on Tuesday, Russian military helicopters landed at the Tabqa airbase after US troops left, criticizing the use of inflammatory rhetoric. (Lynching) is of course seen by the Faithful as suffering relentless, mindless attacks from unhinged lunatics everywhere from congress to the mainstream media to the sb political threads..

COMPLETELY ignoring the person responsible for the headlines.... unless its a conspiracy theory the Right presents ..everything else is a Lie.. its sad to watch how well they play the victims but evryone else are Snowflakes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is nuttier than a trump tweet

"no controlling legal authority"

Trump claimed that he turned the Trump organization over to his sons, how is it that now it has become I and my resort?
Must be more of that Trump-speak with its vague and evolving interpretations
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Further demonstrating that you got nothin'.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Perhaps you communicate in a sort of Got-Stripers-Speak.

Even more got nothin's.

🍑
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Still nothin'.

We'll see

The DC Circuit court just scheduled arguments in congressional Democrats' emoluments clause case against Trump for Dec. 9. The en banc 4th Circuit is already set to hear arguments in the emoluments case brought by DC/MD later that week, on Dec. 12.

to use a Republican argument If Trump didn't do anything wrong with having the G7 meeting at His resort ... Why did he back out?

he's never cared what Dems or the media has said before

but he seems to care about this GOP lawmakers openly revolting against Trump’s ‘indefensible’ decision to hold G7 at his golf resort


but we know he is just getting picked on:smash:

Well . . . not "just" . . . and not merely picking.

Can’t even imagine how you see that choice of venues a smart move, but I really think I will find your explanation amusing. The optics alone make it clear to me, he needs some better people advising him, but for his entire term it’s just not his style to listen to experts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain what? Did I say that it was smart to choose Doral? And there you go again just saying stuff--"it's just not his style to listen to experts." From what little evidence there is on that, he always listens. Sometime he agrees. Sometimes he disagrees.

You seemed to think that his lawyers found Doral to be acceptable which I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Given the revolving door on Trump's more credible staff I'd say he doesn't listen to experts much at all, he thinks he's the expert.

I think the point is moot now for a number of reasons but a couple of things would rule out Doral
1. Right next to a major airport, while you might think easy air access is good the airspace over these meetings is restricted to no flights. Just how would that work for Miami airport?
2. Surrounding area population density is too high to have a meeting of the most high value targets in the world, security would cost a fortune
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well when diplomats tasked for years to understand the dynamics of Syria and the Middle East were asked if they were consulted prior to the US pull out, the answer was no, what about this pattern do you not understand?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More just saying stuff? If you say so, it must be true?

So you're saying that means he never listens to his experts?

Do I need to spell it out, it’s his style, flying solo based on his thought process and without any input. OMG could I be any clearer, I thought I only needed pictures for SD.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because only blacks were ever lynched. Because the word "lynch" can only be used as a reference to blacks. Because using the word "lynch" will make blacks vote for you--(Actually it would have the opposite effect).

Looked up the word "lynching"--"(of a mob) kill (someone), especially by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial." No mention of blacks being a basic or required part of the definition referentially or otherwise. Probably an outmoded definition that is no longer useful in the new age.

I guess the word "lynching" has been redefined by our Progressive language commissars and must join other words with new politically prescribed meaning--such as happened to the word "racist."

Oh, you're being very clear. You're stating your unverified opinion very clearly. And for you, you're saying so makes it true.

Well it’s well reported by People inside the White House he doesn’t trust or rely on intel, briefings or experts; it’s NOT my opinion I’m relaying to you. Do I agree with what I’ve read and has been reported in this regard, absolutely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device