| |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
| Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
10-23-2019, 10:02 AM
|
#61
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Nice try.
I would never say anything a President does is "Presidential" bc that person is the President. I wouldn't make that stupid statement.
|
nice dodge....answer the question
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Don't forget as we have heard numerous times here, no matter what he does it is Presidential bc he is the President.
can you provide a link to prove where anyone has ever stated this other than you...... |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 10:15 AM
|
#62
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,302
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
nice dodge....answer the question
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Don't forget as we have heard numerous times here, no matter what he does it is Presidential bc he is the President.
can you provide a link to prove where anyone has ever stated this other than you......
|
If the search function worked here it would be easy to do but I'm not going to waste my time. It is a lot easier to put up a link to showing exactly what Hunter did that is corrupt when you are claiming that then finding what a poster said here (multiple times).
Why didn't you ask him to back up his claim when I originally asked or are you just trying to be a #^&#^&#^&#^& now? |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 10:32 AM
|
#63
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
If the search function worked here it would be easy to do but I'm not going to waste my time. It is a lot easier to put up a link to showing exactly what Hunter did that is corrupt when you are claiming that then finding what a poster said here (multiple times).
Why didn't you ask him to back up his claim when I originally asked or are you just trying to be a #^&#^&#^&#^& now?
|
This is a great answer Paul. You failed to substantiate your claims so Scott is a #^&#^&#^&#^&.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 10:37 AM
|
#64
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,302
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles
This is a great answer Paul. You failed to substantiate your claims so Scott is a #^&#^&#^&#^&.��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
He is being a #^&#^&#^&#^& today for asking me to do it only bc he knows I asked someone to post a link recently.
I certainly don't put him in your class of #^&#^&#^&#^&ness as we can see from your most recent round of posts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 10:51 AM
|
#65
|
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,205
|
..
|
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 11:07 AM
|
#66
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
he still loves me  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 11:14 AM
|
#67
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
He is being a #^&#^&#^&#^& today for asking me to do it only bc he knows I asked someone to post a link recently.
I certainly don't put him in your class of #^&#^&#^&#^&ness as we can see from your most recent round of posts.
|
It’s great to have a #^&#^&#^&#^& expert on the board. Congrats .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 11:31 AM
|
#68
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,302
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
he still loves me |
Some times you can be a little funny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 07:01 PM
|
#69
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
And tomorrow to Trump will come the holocaust brought by:
Wait, the WHPO said the ambassador who was appointed by Bush and rehired by Pompeo is a far-left radical? Amazing, probably drunk again.
I worry that this clown 🤡 will start a war.
He suggested it would be a viable re-election tactic before for desperate politicians so beware America.
Tweet 1: Nov. 29, 2011, a year before Obama’s re-election, Donald Trump tweeted: “In order to get elected, Barack Obama will start a war with Iran.” (He meant re-elected, translated Trumpspeak for you, though as his disease progresses it has become more difficult)
Tweet 2: Oct. 6, 2012, just a month before Election Day, Donald Trump tweeted: “Now that Obama’s numbers are in a tailspin [obviously wishful Trumpian thinking] watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.”
Tweet 3: Oct. 22, 2012, two weeks pre-election, Trump’s thumbs said: “Don’t let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected – be careful Republicans!”
|
This rant is supposed to be a reply to my pointing out that Trump did not misuse the word "lynching" and that blacks were not the only ones ever lynched?
It's hard to have a rational conversation with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 07:06 PM
|
#70
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,469
|
Why does Dangles always swing back to a focus on #^&#^&#^&#^&s? Not sure if it’s just a hobby or an obsession.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 07:40 PM
|
#71
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
The concept of Congressional oversight over the executive branch is a long-established precedent in the United States, a practice that traces back to our British roots. As early as 1792, the House established a special committee to investigate certain executive branch actions, and Madison and four members of the Constitutional Convention voted for the inquiry, indicating they thought this was a core function of the Congress. In a 1927 Supreme Court decision, the Court found that “the power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process [and] that power is broad.” It has often been the Supreme Court that has required presidents who overstep their bounds to comply with Congressional mandates. When Richard Nixon refused to turn over his tapes during the Watergate crisis, the Supreme Court ordered him to do so, leading to his eventual resignation from office.
The Supreme Court has in fact ruled twice on the unitary executive theory, and both times rejected the concept. In Morrison v. Olson, decided in 1988, the Court majority decided that the special counsel statute did not violate the separation of powers. Justice Scalia, alone among the justices, issued a scathing dissent largely along the lines of the theory of the unitary executive. “Morrison shattered the claim that the vesting of ‘the executive power’ in a president under Article II of the Constitution created a hermetic unit free from the checks and balances apart from the community,” MacKenzie wrote in Absolute Power. In 2006, the Supreme Court again issued a stinging rebuke to executive overreach in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a case that dealt with the use of military commissions to try terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. As Justice Breyer wrote for the majority, “The Court’s conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a ‘blank check’ to create military commissions,” and told the Bush Administration that they should seek Congressional approval, which they ultimately received.
|
This is supposed to be an answer to my question if there was "a law against improper motives? A law against faithlesly discharging his responsibilities?" You haven't cited any such law in your response here.
As far as Congressional oversight goes, Congress has the choice to use it. If Congress doesn't invoke it, presumably it has not considered that the President "acted in an improper or faithless way." And Congress represents the will of the people. It is given the seat of power by the vote of the People. And so, yes, as Barr says, if a current Congress does not invoke its oversight in the way the People wish, they can elect an new Congress that will.
Last edited by detbuch; 10-23-2019 at 11:58 PM..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 08:58 PM
|
#72
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Why does Dangles always swing back to a focus on #^&#^&#^&#^&s? Not sure if it’s just a hobby or an obsession.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I understand your curiosity Jeff,be proud.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 09:12 PM
|
#73
|
|
Ledge Runner Baits
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 8,629
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Why does Dangles always swing back to a focus on #^&#^&#^&#^&s? Not sure if it’s just a hobby or an obsession.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Anything beyond a sentence is hard for him, substance isn’t his strong suit, but if you need a juvenile insult he’s your man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2019, 12:19 AM
|
#74
|
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
This is supposed to be an answer to my question if there was "a law against improper motives? A law against faithlesly discharging his responsibilities?" You haven't cited any such law in your response here.
As far as Congressional oversight goes, Congress has the choice to use it. If Congress doesn't invoke it, presumably it has not considered that the President "acted in an improper or faithless way." And Congress represents the will of the people. It is given the seat of power by the vote of the People. And so, yes, as Barr says, if a current Congress does not invoke its oversight in the way the People wish, they can elect an new Congress that will.
|
Keep snorting it
Trump is toast
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2019, 12:38 AM
|
#75
|
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,429
|
TWELVE of the Republicans who protested are actually on the committees doing the impeachment investigation so they could already get in the SCIF and have been in the depositions already
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2019, 07:16 AM
|
#76
|
|
Ledge Runner Baits
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 8,629
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
TWELVE of the Republicans who protested are actually on the committees doing the impeachment investigation so they could already get in the SCIF and have been in the depositions already
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Was all a show for Trump, media coverage to distract and the base.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2019, 07:40 AM
|
#77
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,302
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
TWELVE of the Republicans who protested are actually on the committees doing the impeachment investigation so they could already get in the SCIF and have been in the depositions already
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
And they have nothing of substance to say about the issue - only about the process.
Supposedly the R's check in the morning and then leave the meetings. The majority of them are not staying to ask questions or listen. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
 Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 PM.
|
| |
