Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

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:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-22-2019, 04:19 PM   #31
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
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.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 04:44 PM   #32
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 19,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
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.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 05:01 PM   #33
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,775
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
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 05:05 PM   #34
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 5,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
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.
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
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 05:06 PM   #35
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
You seemed to think that his lawyers found Doral to be acceptable which I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion.

I didn't say it was smart. I had read a report re his lawyers. Perhaps it was "fake news." Are you saying that his lawyers didn't? If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Or are you "just saying"?


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.
More just saying stuff? If you say so, it must be true?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 05:08 PM   #36
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
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
So you're saying that means he never listens to his experts?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 05:17 PM   #37
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 5,410
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
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 05:36 PM   #38
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
I thought he was trying for the black sympathy vote.
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."
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 05:38 PM   #39
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
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
Oh, you're being very clear. You're stating your unverified opinion very clearly. And for you, you're saying so makes it true.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 05:45 PM   #40
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 5,410
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
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 06:25 PM   #41
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
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
It's your opinion based on "People". Do these "People" say he never listens? Are they exaggerating? Are they biased? Are they stretching the truth? Is it their overblown opinion? Does he NEVER listen to or trust or rely on intel? Has that been verified?

Well, he has to listen to the intel in order to trust or not trust it. And he has praised various advisers for doing a good job. Does he not trust or listen to Don Jr., Giuliani, Barr, all the various people who worked on his campaigns and rallies and business ventures? That he sometimes disagrees with them doesn't mean he never "listens."

It seems a bit large to say that "it’s just not his style to listen to experts." There are "People" in his campaigns and business who have said he does rely on them. And if he never did, he must obviously be some kind of genius to have gotten as far as he has by just relying on his own opinions. Such a genius should be trusted above all the expert but obviously ignorant advisers that disagreed with him.

I "absolutely" agree with very little that I read or hear. I try to stay away from fully believing, or believing at all, broad unverified opinion. Most of the time, it really doesn't matter. But things like removing a President should require a very high bar of proof, not opinion.

But I get why you would "absolutely" agree with some things that would make Trump look bad.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 06:51 PM   #42
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
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."
If you cannot refute something, it must be evil or liberal
That’s a pretty desperate bit of revisionist history
I can easily find a list of over 4000 black people that were lynched
Show me A list of whites, you might find a few but they will be closely tied to preventing a lynching of a black person
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like presidents who don’t need to be impeached and removed.
Moscow Agent Governing America
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 07:28 PM   #43
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,775
Probably tomorrow it will be worse than the holocaust, and someone will find a definition to justify it.
In their mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 07:29 PM   #44
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 5,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
It's your opinion based on "People". Do these "People" say he never listens? Are they exaggerating? Are they biased? Are they stretching the truth? Is it their overblown opinion? Does he NEVER listen to or trust or rely on intel? Has that been verified?

Well, he has to listen to the intel in order to trust or not trust it. And he has praised various advisers for doing a good job. Does he not trust or listen to Don Jr., Giuliani, Barr, all the various people who worked on his campaigns and rallies and business ventures? That he sometimes disagrees with them doesn't mean he never "listens."

It seems a bit large to say that "it’s just not his style to listen to experts." There are "People" in his campaigns and business who have said he does rely on them. And if he never did, he must obviously be some kind of genius to have gotten as far as he has by just relying on his own opinions. Such a genius should be trusted above all the expert but obviously ignorant advisers that disagreed with him.

I "absolutely" agree with very little that I read or hear. I try to stay away from fully believing, or believing at all, broad unverified opinion. Most of the time, it really doesn't matter. But things like removing a President should require a very high bar of proof, not opinion.

But I get why you would "absolutely" agree with some things that would make Trump look bad.
Well since they work in the White House and you don’t and more than one very respected person working now or previously have commented on it, I guess I have to choose who to believe. You know none of the them and have no access to them, or the administration. I’m going to go with the consensus of those reports, even though I’m sure it’s just fake news, even those underrated generals and others who couldn’t take it any longer must be all in on this witch hunt.🤡🤡🤡🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 07:46 PM   #45
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
If you cannot refute something, it must be evil or liberal
That’s a pretty desperate bit of revisionist history
I can easily find a list of over 4000 black people that were lynched
Show me A list of whites, you might find a few but they will be closely tied to preventing a lynching of a black person
Oh, do you have a list of names, dates and places. Or do you just have a number, and who compiled it (Tuskegee Institute?). Wikipedia?

4743 lynched in US between 1882-1968. 3446 of them black 1297 were white. But, apparently your "list" has over 4000 blacks lynched. Interesting. And this doesn't list the number of whites who were lynched in Western states by various vigilantes.

Of course, there is no "list" or verified number of white people lynched at various times or countries in Europe. Several were lynched for various heretical reasons, religious or political or other. The French Reign of Terror did not record the number of lynching's of French dissidents. Southeastern Europe was rampant with various forms of mass killing including impaling and lynching by conflicting powers and factions during the 1000 years after the fall of Rome.

The reasons for all the lynching's have been various. The reasons, in terms of Trumps use of the word are not relevant. The fact is blacks are not the only race to be lynched. And we certainly don't have a clue as to how many Asians were lynched. That could be a huge number considering the long and bitter history of that region.

I don't know what "pretty desperate bit of revisionist history" you're talking about. I didn't bring up history. I didn't revise any. I didn't list numbers. I pointed out the definition of lynching. I pointed out that blacks were not the only ones lynched.

That you, or anyone, automatically ties lynching to that of blacks says more about your bias than about the meaning of the word. That is, the meaning devoid of Progressive political correctness.

And I certainly did not say it was evil or liberal to do so. I pointed out that it was wrong. And it is typical for you to impose the most damaging "interpretation" on Trump's words. It is you that was suggesting something "evil" in using the word "lynching." Which is nonsense.

And I would not accuse Progressives of being "liberal."

And oh, yeah, interesting what-aboutism, Dems used the word "lynching" during the Clinton impeachment.

Last edited by detbuch; 10-22-2019 at 08:04 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 07:54 PM   #46
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Well since they work in the White House and you don’t and more than one very respected person working now or previously have commented on it, I guess I have to choose who to believe. You know none of the them and have no access to them, or the administration. I’m going to go with the consensus of those reports, even though I’m sure it’s just fake news, even those underrated generals and others who couldn’t take it any longer must be all in on this witch hunt.🤡🤡🤡🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well, that was not very responsive to my post, but, as I said, I get why you believe what you want to believe.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 10:27 PM   #47
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Oh, do you have a list of names, dates and places. Or do you just have a number, and who compiled it (Tuskegee Institute?). Wikipedia?

4743 lynched in US between 1882-1968. 3446 of them black 1297 were white. But, apparently your "list" has over 4000 blacks lynched. Interesting. And this doesn't list the number of whites who were lynched in Western states by various vigilantes.

Of course, there is no "list" or verified number of white people lynched at various times or countries in Europe. Several were lynched for various heretical reasons, religious or political or other. The French Reign of Terror did not record the number of lynching's of French dissidents. Southeastern Europe was rampant with various forms of mass killing including impaling and lynching by conflicting powers and factions during the 1000 years after the fall of Rome.

The reasons for all the lynching's have been various. The reasons, in terms of Trumps use of the word are not relevant. The fact is blacks are not the only race to be lynched. And we certainly don't have a clue as to how many Asians were lynched. That could be a huge number considering the long and bitter history of that region.

I don't know what "pretty desperate bit of revisionist history" you're talking about. I didn't bring up history. I didn't revise any. I didn't list numbers. I pointed out the definition of lynching. I pointed out that blacks were not the only ones lynched.

That you, or anyone, automatically ties lynching to that of blacks says more about your bias than about the meaning of the word. That is, the meaning devoid of Progressive political correctness.

And I certainly did not say it was evil or liberal to do so. I pointed out that it was wrong. And it is typical for you to impose the most damaging "interpretation" on Trump's words. It is you that was suggesting something "evil" in using the word "lynching." Which is nonsense.

And I would not accuse Progressives of being "liberal."

And oh, yeah, interesting what-aboutism, Dems used the word "lynching" during the Clinton impeachment.
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!”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like presidents who don’t need to be impeached and removed.
Moscow Agent Governing America
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 05:38 AM   #48
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,840
America 1st.
You know the rules
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 06:19 AM   #49
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles View Post
America 1st.
You know the rules
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Here they are

Month ago: “Perfect call!”

2 weeks ago: “No quid pro quo!”

Last week: “No abuse of power!”

Today: “Abuse of power is not a crime!”!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like presidents who don’t need to be impeached and removed.
Moscow Agent Governing America
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 06:21 AM   #50
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,840
Haha
Liberal fool
🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 06:25 AM   #51
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,362
Don't forget as we have heard numerous times here, no matter what he does it is Presidential bc he is the President.
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 07:37 AM   #52
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,840
Best one ever too
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 07:45 AM   #53
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 5,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles View Post
Best one ever too
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Best deal maker evah, look at Syria, Turkey won, Russia won, Iran won, Assad won and Isis won, please explain what we won? Don’t put up a burger, put up what you feel America won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 07:46 AM   #54
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 3,674
It would seem his Administration feels the attack on the constitution is the other way around..

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement: "President Trump has done nothing wrong - this is a co-ordinated smear campaign from far-left lawmakers and radical unelected bureaucrats waging war on the Constitution..

Again its everyone else's fault
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 08:05 AM   #55
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,025
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......
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 08:16 AM   #56
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,775
If you are wondering what the next Trumplican spin is, today is the day the transition from “no quid pro quo” to “yeah quid pro quo, So?” begins in earnest.

Congress votes military aid to Ukraine autumn 2018
Trump promises to release aid by Feb 28 2019
Changes release to May 23
Trump extortion call to Zelensky July 25
Taylor text about "crazy" extortion plot Aug 8
12 Ukrainian soldiers KIA in August
Of course the Ukrainians knew

I like presidents who don’t need to be impeached and removed.
Moscow Agent Governing America
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 08:19 AM   #57
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,775
The Unitary Executive, as put forward by Attorney General Barr, holds that presidential power over executive branch functions can only be limited by the voters at the next election, or by Congress through its impeachment power. This was essentially the position Barr took in his June 8, 2018 memo to the Justice Department. “Thus, under the Framer’s plan, the determination whether the President is making decisions based on ‘improper’ motives or whether he is ‘faithfully’ discharging his responsibilities is left to the People, through the election process, and the Congress, through the Impeachment process,” Barr wrote. Although Barr does not say it, a president who acted in an improper or faithless way, but who is reelected or who escapes impeachment, could indeed be above the law. Is this really what the Framers intended?

I like presidents who don’t need to be impeached and removed.
Moscow Agent Governing America
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 08:44 AM   #58
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
The Unitary Executive, as put forward by Attorney General Barr, holds that presidential power over executive branch functions can only be limited by the voters at the next election, or by Congress through its impeachment power. This was essentially the position Barr took in his June 8, 2018 memo to the Justice Department. “Thus, under the Framer’s plan, the determination whether the President is making decisions based on ‘improper’ motives or whether he is ‘faithfully’ discharging his responsibilities is left to the People, through the election process, and the Congress, through the Impeachment process,” Barr wrote. Although Barr does not say it, a president who acted in an improper or faithless way, but who is reelected or who escapes impeachment, could indeed be above the law. Is this really what the Framers intended?
Above what law are you talking about? A law against improper motives? A law against faithfully discharging his responsibilities? Are there such laws?

The "Framer's plan" to which Barr referred, the Constitution, is the law on how to determine if a President has transgressed his duties. If Congress has determined by impeachment and trial that he hasn't, how is that above the law, above the Constitution? And the people can decide by election if they agree with Congress's decision.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 08:51 AM   #59
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Above what law are you talking about? A law against improper motives? A law against faithfully discharging his responsibilities? Are there such laws?

The "Framer's plan" to which Barr referred, the Constitution, is the law on how to determine if a President has transgressed his duties. If Congress has determined by impeachment and trial that he hasn't, how is that above the law, above the Constitution? And the people can decide by election if they agree with Congress's decision.
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.

I like presidents who don’t need to be impeached and removed.
Moscow Agent Governing America
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 09:36 AM   #60
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
can you provide a link to prove where anyone has ever stated this other than you......
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.
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com