Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 101

Thread: The Cult of Donald Trump

  1. #46
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,475
    Quote Originally Posted by Wonderful Plans View Post
    I don't allude to anything, what I say should be taken at face value. Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't claim any of those things.

    I already wrote my position clearly, "I'm not questioning these accusations. I'm not following the case and don't really know much at all about what Trump is up against." And as such, none of my comments can be attributed to being opinions on the trial.
    So you are ok with supporting Trumpkin from any and all criminal liability because "he's got balls" but have no opinion on his impeachment?

    One question my friend - for I bear you no grudge or ill will - could a female President (or Prime Minister even in another country) have "balls" if she did the opposite in regard to executive orders and for example legalised abortion in all states and opened welcome centers for migrants? Would it be "having balls" for her attempt bribery of a foreign country for her own good or is it only A. Male Presidents or B. Those you agree with who can "have balls"?

    Full disclosure; you possibly don't know that I am female so I would hate to feel that I have misled you.
    Last edited by snapper; 22 Jan 20, at 01:20.

  2. #47
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    1. It shouldn't even be necessary, given the wording of the law.
    2. There are multiple court rulings, but...
    3. It's been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

    But, again, the argument of Trump all along is that he's immune from prosecution in the first place.
    Still doesn't make sense to me. This should not have gone to the SCOTUS. The President is not above the law.

    Why has this not been struck down in Lower Courts and prevented from going all the way to the SCOTUS? Congress should have had the Returns by now.

    In any case, the point is mute. The Democrats have their impeachment. I don't see them wasting effort in trying for a 2nd impeachment.

  3. #48
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,047
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    What exactly don't you buy?

    That such a claim is lawful? Well, I don't buy it either because it isn't lawful.
    The claim your president has complete immunity from prosecution. We are in agreement then.

    "Our guys"? Who are "our guys" that will ensure that this never happens? "Passing a law"? The law is already passed: The President is not immune from prosecution, the President is not a King, full stop. But that is what Trump's lawyers are arguing.
    Your judges have the final say


    Trump's lawyers say you're completely wrong. And it's not an insinuation at all. They've declared it, in clear and unequivocal language. I've posted their words and the relevant links multiple times on the board, including in this thread. Bolded it, even.
    We need more tests then. They're claiming victory without a battle. What is the proof of their assertions

    Does this claim by Trump give you have a better understanding of why this man is so dangerous to the United States?
    Politicians are known to talk out their sides. Every where.

    He's grandstanding : )

  4. #49
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,875
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Can you challenge what i said ? otherwise the phrase is bunk

    You're unaware this nonsense was said quite frequently in India since 2014

    I called it out early only the very ignorant repeat it these days, ones on the left who won't be told otherwise

    Not into fear mongering, prefer fear bashing
    Did you read the essay? Yes or no? It is that simple.

    Well, that simple for most except you. I'm pretty sure you have zero clue about it as usual given that your response bears no relationship to the essay.

    As, I said, dismissed.

  5. #50
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,047
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Did you read the essay? Yes or no? It is that simple.

    Well, that simple for most except you. I'm pretty sure you have zero clue about it as usual given that your response bears no relationship to the essay.

    As, I said, dismissed.
    So no challenge then ?

    After i trashed that article why do i need to read any essay

  6. #51
    Regular Wonderful Plans's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 20
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Still doesn't make sense to me. This should not have gone to the SCOTUS. The President is not above the law.

    Why has this not been struck down in Lower Courts and prevented from going all the way to the SCOTUS? Congress should have had the Returns by now.

    In any case, the point is mute. The Democrats have their impeachment. I don't see them wasting effort in trying for a 2nd impeachment.
    They probably already have them. If they don't got an I.R.S. insider already sneaking records out then what kind of spies are they really? No, they must acquire those records through the proper channels in order to use them in court, but rest assured, they already got 'em.

  7. #52
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,165
    Here's the plan.
    Congress demands the tax returns.
    If the Executive Branch refuses, Congress impeaches the President.

    How's that sound?
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  8. #53
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,047
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Trump's lawyers say you're completely wrong. And it's not an insinuation at all. They've declared it, in clear and unequivocal language. I've posted their words and the relevant links multiple times on the board, including in this thread. Bolded it, even.

    Does this claim by Trump give you have a better understanding of why this man is so dangerous to the United States?

    President Trump Doesn't Need To Release His Tax Returns — For Now | NPR | Oct 07 2019


    A federal appeals court has granted President Trump a temporary stay of decision, and he will not have to turn over his tax returns to the Manhattan district attorney.

    Earlier on Monday, a federal judge in New York ruled that Trump's longtime accounting firm must turn over eight years of tax returns as part of a criminal probe of his business dealings. The president's personal attorneys immediately filed a notice of appeal.
    Temporary

    Just one word in my defense


    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    "Our guys"? Who are "our guys" that will ensure that this never happens? "Passing a law"? The law is already passed: The President is not immune from prosecution, the President is not a King, full stop. But that is what Trump's lawyers are arguing.
    I mean something more basic. Want to stand for office then present your tax returns

    California enacted a law to require presidential candidates to disclose their taxes if they wanted to be on the state's primary ballot, but a federal judge blocked the law.
    Sounds like a reasonable requirement to stand for office but it was blocked. Means you're not supposed to have such a law. Why ?

    Maybe its to prevent frivolous cases being filed with the express intent to block candidates from running for office.

    Most people find this bit bewildering.

    How can some one who wants to stand for office not have to prove they pay their taxes.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 22 Jan 20, at 13:29.

  9. #54
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,584
    Pak foreign minister Qureshi says Trump will visit Pakistan 'soon'; US President skirts question

    Nowhere to post this gents. Trump is so.....so very inconsistent. Nobody told him, he won't get an inch on Kashmir from India, always speaking like a fool. Sometimes Pakistan is good, sometimes very good, and sometimes Paks take billions in aid. What kind of shit does he smoke. Trump will end up alienating India, and then it will take another 20 years for mutual trust to set in. Batshit crazy.

    Indian response - No scope for third party mediation on Kashmir: Govt sources after Trump's fresh offer for help

    It has been India's position since Day # 1. What is it that people, countries and leaders don't understand?
    Last edited by Oracle; 22 Jan 20, at 16:55.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  10. #55
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Temporary

    Just one word in my defense
    Temporary until the Trump-packed and conservative-dominated Supreme Court votes on it. This will hinge entirely on Chief Justice Roberts deciding if the President is a monarch accountable to no one, or if he is indeed the constitutionally-bound president of a representative democracy, required to adhere to the rule of law.

    It will literally come down to one man's interpretation of Donald Trump's dictatorial fantasies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    I mean something more basic. Want to stand for office then present your tax returns
    I would like that as well. Won't happen as long as Trump and the GOP are able to stop it. Because they absolutely will.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Sounds like a reasonable requirement to stand for office but it was blocked. Means you're not supposed to have such a law. Why ?
    No, it does not mean that "we're not supposed to have such a law". It means that that particular court ruled as such.

    The courts have also ruled that "the Constitution of the United States was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free"

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Maybe its to prevent frivolous cases being filed with the express intent to block candidates from running for office.
    It is struck down as unconstitutional, meaning that it was not part of the requirements laid out in Constitution, which do not include "turn over your tax returns" before you can run for President.

    But again, the Constitution has also stated that Congress shall not pass any law that would restrict the importation of slaves into the United States (prior to 1808).

    So, the whole point is, what is actually needed is a Constitutional amendment. Which is, as stated, a pipe dream.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    How can some one who wants to stand for office not have to prove they pay their taxes.
    See above. Until a constitutional amendment is made and ratified, you can run for president even if you're an incurable tax cheat and until you somehow get caught, you'll stay in office. So make damn sure you do everything you possibly can to keep your returns out of the "wrong" hands.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  11. #56
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,081
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Still doesn't make sense to me. This should not have gone to the SCOTUS. The President is not above the law.

    Why has this not been struck down in Lower Courts and prevented from going all the way to the SCOTUS? Congress should have had the Returns by now.
    Sir, now you know exactly why I, and the majority of this country, are absolutely appalled at this man and what he has done to the once-sacred institutions of this country. (Or what people like surfgun like to casually dismiss as "TDS")

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    In any case, the point is mute. The Democrats have their impeachment. I don't see them wasting effort in trying for a 2nd impeachment.
    And the Trump will have his acquittal. Which he will proclaim is an exoneration. And use that new immunity to further shred this country from one end to the other, all to satisfy his sewage dump of an ego.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  12. #57
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post

    Politicians are known to talk out their sides. Every where.

    He's grandstanding : )
    No DE, this is not grandstanding. This is not "talking out of his sides". This is not fear-mongering. This is not a interpretation by the mainstream press. This is not the Democrats accusing him of anointing himself as king.

    This is an actual legal defense, made by Trump and his lawyers, in multiple courts of law, that has now reached the highest court in the land.

    Do you see now why the situation is so serious?
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  13. #58
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Sir, now you know exactly why I, and the majority of this country, are absolutely appalled at this man and what he has done to the once-sacred institutions of this country.
    My question is why haven't these sacred instiutions struck back? McCarthy was held back by these institutions. They should have done the same to Trump.

  14. #59
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,081
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    My question is why haven't these sacred instiutions struck back?

    These institutions are sacred only so long as the party in power believes in them, and defends them.

    Look at who the party in power is. There will be your answer.

    Look at the Impeachment Vote in the House. There will be your answer.

    Look at the votes in the Senate trial yesterday to subpoena witnesses from the Executive Branch to be heard at the beginning of the trial. There will your answer.

    See the title of this thread. There will be your answer.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  15. #60
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,016
    political incentives have changed.

    sorting within districts as well as gerrymandering have produced political incentives that highly, highly discourage political independence...at least for Republicans. Dems are more flexible in that regard.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Impeachment, Trial and Acquittal of Donald John Trump
    By TopHatter in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 663
    Last Post: 12 Feb 20,, 20:20
  2. Donald Trump rallies infiltrated by paid Hillary Clinton operatives
    By Parihaka in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08 Nov 16,, 15:21
  3. Donald Trump Tells Friends He Will Run for President, Report Says
    By Julie in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02 Mar 11,, 20:01
  4. Donald Trump Has Disappointed Me
    By THL in forum International Economy
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09 Jan 07,, 21:11

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •