Trump

[LeatherHead]

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Masher59]

Yup it's a double standard. Do you want to know the really hilarious thing with his 90 day travel extreme vetting executive order? It was sent to the AGs office before hand of course so it could be checked for legality. Once it was cleared by legal President Trump then signed it into law. Now the acting AG did not sign off on it herself but the department she is over did sign off on it as LEGAL. Now after Trump signs it she speaks up saying she is not going to enforce it lmfoa! If this does not prove it's purely political then nothing will.

 

[first blood]

Yeah. No your not getting my point. And I am getting your point.
All I am saying is that he fired her when as AG she was doing her job.
Now you say this and the media says that. But whatever you say or think or what anyone in the media thinks is the reason she did it...Doesn't matter. Maybe it is politically motivated.
But she chose to act saying she feared the legality of it.
I'm not gonna try to interpret anything. It's within the scope of her position to do so.
The problem is that this shows the next prez that he or she can fire an AG without actual cause.

If legality is a concern then the prez should respect the process. If the AG made a mistake then shit happens..
If it was politically motivated well then that's wrong. But prove it!
She otherwise has a good track record and never showed political motivation in the past. So basically I ask...why is she getting fired?

The Nixon issue shows plenty of parallel.
The AG didn't follow his order and was fired. And it led to impeachment trial of abuse of power.

Also chanced are after all this gets settled, Trump's Ex order will uphold as legal.
But his abuse in power is firing the AG



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Masher59]

But he did fire her for cause because the order had already been cleared as being legal. After it was signed she didn't want to enforce it so she was terminated for not doing her job.

The whole Nixon ordeal was a scandal and he ordered the AG to fire a independent special prosecutor Cox that was appointed to investigate Watergate and we know Nixon was all tied up in that. The AG did not follow the order and RESIGNED then Nixon ordered the Deputy AG to fire cox and he also RESIGNED.

This is a blatant abuse of power.

If this parallels the current AG situation I need some shroom juice to figure it out.

Once again if she was doing her job then why didn't she do it when Obama ordered the 6 month ban?
Why didn't any of the other AGs do their job when the other Presidents did the exact same thing?

She wasn't doing her job in my opinion.

 

[first blood]

Well I missed that detail then. Her office signed off but she opposed.... wasn't aware it went down like that. If so then her move is lame.

With Obama declaring a ban I believe it was based on there being a threat. As in someone threatened they would send attackers... so he had to .

My concern is that we have a very fragile shell of a democracy and behind it is a system that can become totalitarian overnight. The reason each prez signs more executive orders then the last is because they are emboldened because we never protest it and the media hardly points it out as bad or abusing of privilege.
If we continue allowing the system of checks and balances to be halted even briefly for concern of safety or anything else we also run the risk of losing it all or in part.





Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Masher59]

Agreed.

Obama signed a ban because of the two guys in Kentucky from Iraq that were plotting an attack. It was still a ban and that's what the people are protesting, not the way it happened with the AG that happened after. It has been and will always be within the Presidents power to halt immigration if there is a clear and present danger to Americans. I applaud Trump for erring on the side of caution vs playing defense from the 1 yard line. I'm sure everything will be back to normal with this soon but they probably wont like his extreme vetting process.

- - - Updated - - -

Though Trump is fast and loose I don't think he is dumb by any means. Even thinking he would sign into law something that hadn't been vetted for legality would mean he was very dumb.

 

[first blood]

One other thing . Since I was focused on legality issues and not on ideology... I noticed alot of posts like the one with Clinton and posts saying how come when the demo do it no one complains but when Republican do it everyone complains.

This is the crux of our problems... we are divided over ideologies. It's easier to keep our nation of 330 million under control when we are divided into camps. Ideology has us divided.

Obama deported more people than any prez in history. The Clinton's thought a wall was a good idea...etc etc.

Gw bush was gonna gut welfare until he was shown the numbers that for every dollar given 1.80 would come back...

Yes conservatives will deregulated and liberals will regulate but it's all done around a more centrist Ideology.

All the presidents go left or right just enough to garner votes and money. But once they get in follow a more centrist path.

Back to slick willy... I mentioned regulation/deregulatuon....well he is responsible for getting rid of Glass Steagall
..this was the ultimate form of deregulation we have ever seen. In fact his little swipe of the pen destroyed our economy in 2007!

So what am.i pointing out?

While we fight for out Ideology they do what ever the fuck they want!

What is a progressive? Well alot of people think it's a liberal. But a true progressive is not a liberal. True progressive s sound like liberals when they speak about conservatives and they sound like some really pissed off libertarians or Patriots when they talk about Liberals. In fact true progressive call liberals Neo liberals. That's because they point out the the liberal dems don't really behave like true liberals.
Progressives follow another Ideology that at least points at the problems. That both the dems and the Republicans have failed to do what either one says they will do.
They expected Obama to keep immigrants in the country and we're pissed that he kicked them out.
When I see or hear a person is a liberal or a conservative the 1st thing I do is remind myself that they won't listen to the other side so there for have walled away any type of debate that leads to solutions.
All a liberal and conservative do is maybe politely argue until it's bed time and never solve a thing and they only learn to dig in deeper to their Ideology.

The root of it is the any Ideology is gonna have flaws. So you surround your thinking with the flaws and this only prevents progress.

I don't vote for Republicans and I don't vote for dems.
I.vote 3rd party. I vote third party cause we have no 3rd party. And why is that??
Why is there no room for 3 candiates.?
What a shame.
Look at the media. It's good for one thing. Confusing the shit outta us.
Seek alternate media and news. Bail on the party you vote in and resist everything they do.
Our founding fathers distrusted a powerful govt and they explain it in all there quotes and other writings.
That's what we need a 3rd party that is like them. The founding fathers.
They would be more conservative than a modern-day conservative probably!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[The Survivor]

Some good points FB, I am a registered GOP but admit there are some GOP'ers that need to go. I more or less say I'm a conservative independant because at times, the Rep party has screwed things up. If ever I sound condescending towards the Dems, its likely out of frustration and of course difference in ideology. First Blood you and Metal85 may have both indicated left leaning, which I dont mind as I believe you both to be honorable men. Its the crazy far left rads like Elizabeth Warren (Pocahontas as DT calls her LOL) that make me want to puke. Then again, there's the far righties arent any better

 

[SD]

Winning and Losing. Winners get to do what they want. Losers get to bitch about it. Thats all politics are.

 

[Masher59]

There is nothing wrong with leaning left or right of center it's just sad when those venture too far to either side. I for the most part just want to be left alone. They can do whatever they want just don't rape me of my hard earned dollar to fund your political wet dream. People can get along IF they want to and put their swords away. Intelligent conversations can be had IF the name calling and finger pointing stops. I plan on staying in the US about 12 more years then I will determine if I stay or go. Think I'm headed for a small island off the Honduran coast to live out the rest of my days.

 

[VTX]

There is nothing wrong with leaning left or right of center it's just sad when those venture too far to either side. I for the most part just want to be left alone. They can do whatever they want just don't rape me of my hard earned dollar to fund your political wet dream. People can get along IF they want to and put their swords away. Intelligent conversations can be had IF the name calling and finger pointing stops. I plan on staying in the US about 12 more years then I will determine if I stay or go. Think I'm headed for a small island off the Honduran coast to live out the rest of my days.

Belize

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Masher59]

Belize

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Roatan but yea it's right by Belize. Start me up a scuba diving and fishing charter gig just to stay a little busy.

 

[Metal85]

Why hasn't the IRS been dissolved yet?
Or do the indentured servants still have to not follow by example? haaa

 

[first blood]

Holy sheep shit Trump is firing off executive orders like it's nobody's business!!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Masher59]

Why hasn't the IRS been dissolved yet?
Or do the indentured servants still have to not follow by example? haaa

Been waiting on this for years. Straight consumption tax and shitcan half the IRS. The other half can handle the business tax work.

 

[first blood]

If you read up on it , it's a compelling argument that income tax is technically illegal.
But anyone who has challenged it by not paying and they cite all the legal issues winds up jailed.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Masher59]

If you read up on it , it's a compelling argument that income tax is technically illegal.
But anyone who has challenged it by not paying and they cite all the legal issues winds up jailed.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

There is actually nothing that says we have to pay the tax but everyone does it every year or you will end up in jail. The problem is they have the resources to drain you dry if you try to fight them in court over it also. Also if you are assessed taxes and can make it 10 years without paying them then the taxes are forgiven and erased. Another little known caveat with taxes.

 

[EMW14]

the closest historic parallel to this law is the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 that banned Chinese laborers from coming to the U.S. That law was repealed in 1943.
What Obama did was not the same once you open up the case and research it.

And you are focused on the ban. That wasn't really my focus at all in my post.
My focus is that the AG told Trump it was illegal and therefore couldn't support or enact the ban. Trump fired her for attempting to uphold the law!!

Whether she was right or wrong is not an issue either. Cause if he allowed her to do her job the next step would be to see if it did qualify as within the law.

This is part of the checks and balances system to maintain democracy.
If the AG followed his orders and it actually is illegal then what's the point of having an AG?

Trump clearly could care less about following the law it appears. Because he isn't even sure if it's within the law. He doesn't know.

Ignorance is no excuse for not following the law.

Also imo he knows it's illegal and that's why he is ramroding it thru.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I'm late to the party here, but you're not quite right with this. You ARE right in that you have repeated what the liberal media is reporting. However, there is more to the story, as usual. The liberal media has left out certain key facts:

The White House legal team reviewed the TEMPORARY restrictions on 7 "predominantly Muslim" countries which have a high concentration of terrorists. It is NOT a ban on all Muslims, as the protestors and the leftist media are portraying it to be.

The ACTING attorney general, who was an Obama apountee and was filling the post temporarily, as is customary, untilthe new president's appointee could fill the spot, refused to implement Trump's temporary travel restriction because she "questioned" its legality, BUT ALSO because she "questioned the morality and wisdom" of the decision. THIS is why she was fired. NOT because Trump's policy "is illegal" or unconstitutional, or whatever the leftists are incorrectly screaming about. She was fired because she made a policy decision. Policy decisions ARE NOT the attorney general's realm of authority. That is NOT the attorney general's job.

As usual, the leftist media is "creating its own truth" by reporting only part of the facts; leaving out key facts; and repeating it loudly enough and often enough that most people take it to be the truth. It isn't.

This temporary restriction of immigration of possible terrorists from counteies known to produce terrorists hostile to the United Stated of America is entirely sensible; is responsible; and in keeping with the Federal Government's basic responsibikity to protect its citizens from foriegn threats.

I don't understand how it came to be that foriegn nationals' "rights" came to be a higher priority than US citizens' rights here in the United States. The fact is, citizens of foriegn countries do not have any rights in the United States of America. The Bill of Rights applies, technically and legally, to United States Citizens. Not to people from foriegn countries who want to enter the United States. The Federal Guvmint has no "Constitutional" or legal responsibility or obligation to anyone who is not a US citizen.

Now, there may be some moral and ethical obligation to help those less fortunate; or to protect those being oppressed by tjeir own guvmints, or whatever. Those "obligations" are highly subjective. They depend entirely on an individual's personal feelings. They are debatable. And ultimately, the Will of the People, as expressed through the voice of their States (remember the Representative Republic as opposed to democracy discussion from a different thread) decides this. And that collective Will of the People resulted in Trump being the President.

I totally disagree with the statement that what makes Teump a good businessman makes him a lousy statement. In my opinion, the opposite is true. I believe that because he is NOT a politician and rather a businessman, he is EXACTLY what the US needs as President. Is much of the world going to be unhappy with us because of changes being made? Of course they are! For a long time, the US has been kissing ass to the rest of the world and putting other coutries' needs and wants ahead of our own. Many of these countries have been on the gravy train. In part, it's an indirect benefit for many of these countries rather than direct. For example, Mexico being an attractive place for manufacturing. This is a dirext result of environmental and tax laws that made the US an unfavorable place. Now that those kinds of things are changing, OF COURSE those that have been on the gravy train are going to be upset. Tough shit. It's time for America to put America first and everybody else after that. It's the same as the head of a household taking care of his own family and home first, before turning his attemtion elsewhere. Do you invite every homeless person you run across to sleep on your couch? Of course not. Without knowing who they are, you assume they are likely to pose a threat. Now, my wife and I HAVE recently opened our home to someone in meed and given tjat person a place to stay - someone we don't know well, but who we determined did not pose a threat of any kind. This is exactly the same thing that's going on with the travel restriction in place on the 7 countries. Being selective about who we let into our home until we're certain (as much as we can be) that we're not carelessly allowing a threat to enter our home.

 

[EMW14]

Nixon did the same thing. He tried to fire a prosecutor...it wound up leading to him facing impeachment.... look it up.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Firing a prosecutor who is on your guilty ass amd firing a disobedient, defiant previous administration's appointee who refuses to enact a policy because she questions the morality and wisdom of it - not because of its legality - are two totally different things. Your comparison here is not valid. You're comparing rotten apples to oranges.

 

[Metal85]

I was wondering with the irs from a follow your leader example