Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump declares himself above the law.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Hatred isn't the right word cp. And it's simply wrong for you to consistently characterize my objections to trump as hatred. Hatred implies something far more personal than what motivates me. My objections to what he is doing have been clearly expressed, and they are not based on hatred. They are based on his actions and his constant subversion of basic moral values and honor.

    Jim
    Walks like it, talks like it.... Trump lives rent-free in your head, Jim. It's pretty much all you talk about anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Clearly the intent here is not to place the President above the law but to protect him from frivolous and politically motivated legal action, which this certainly is.
    It is easy to make such a statement. I am sure you would be unhappy seeing it used in many other contexts by other presidents.

    By the way the intent with Ekeland's counterfactual example was to question exactly where we would end if we accepted the idea proposed by Trump's lawyers. It seems you missed that point.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    And you aren't the first or only one to mention that Ox has been questioning how good of a Christian various members are if they don't agree with his assessments of Trump's behavior. When one person notices it, it might be a miscommunication or a mistake, but when several people notice and mention the same thing, it's time to take a serious look.
    It doesn't mean anything here. There is some sort of very odd group think thing that goes on here within the subgroup I sometimes refer to as the peanut gallery. None of them can read my posts and understand my posts. It always gets twisted up in very bizarre ways. I rely on those I trust to read my posts and I ask them what I said. They usually tell me what I thought I said. They have also helped me to understand some of the things that have set you guys off, and I'm working to correct those as much as possible. But there is nothing I can do that will correct the sort of gross misunderstanding and/or distortions of my words that are reflected in MM's characterizations in the three examples and what I actually said.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I'm just not as consumed with hatred of Trump as you and your fellow haters.
    Of course you're not, you support him. The problem is that you should be as consumed with hatred for what he's doing, but you pretend not to see it.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Don't pretend this is the only issue where you're at odds with Trump in a big way. You are consumed with your hatred of him. It's the biggest thing you and JimL have in common. I expect it from him, though - he's lost as a goose.
    Hatred isn't the right word cp. And it's simply wrong for you to consistently characterize my objections to trump as hatred. Hatred implies something far more personal than what motivates me. My objections to what he is doing have been clearly expressed, and they are not based on hatred. They are based on his actions and his constant subversion of basic moral values and honor.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    You mean, it was them, TOO!!!!
    Well, the very first time I crossed paths with the law was when I was all of 3 years old.

    The truant officers (they still had them back then) came to our house wondering why I wasn't in school.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Mom got SO TIRED of being "badged" every time she answered the door.
    The second time was while in Miami and probably 6 years old and I managed to get to the roof of the main part of the hotel we were in and then climbed up the outside of the building the next three stories (I think) which caused a bit of a ruckus when I was spotted up there. Fire Department thought they had a jumper rather than an overly-adventurous 6 year old.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    *they weren't formed til 1961
    A few years after that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    It was the Defense Intelligence Agency* and I was in 7th grade.
    You mean, it was them, TOO!!!!

    That was the first report/file in my file that the FOIA request nearly 20 years ago disclosed.
    Mom got SO TIRED of being "badged" every time she answered the door.



    *they weren't formed til 1961

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Psssshawww... when Rogue was 10, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was at our house, and he was leading them around by the nose!
    It was the Defense Intelligence Agency and I was in 7th grade.


    That was the first report/file in my file that the FOIA request nearly 20 years ago disclosed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Charles View Post
    I would say it is a bit more complicated than that:

    ...

    He [Ekeland] also offered the following counterfactual argument in favor of subjecting a sitting president to criminal law:

    If the President were to rape, and then murder, a citizen on national television by shooting them in the head on 5th Ave in broad daylight, does the Constitution dictate that nothing can be done to the President with the possible exception of Impeachment? And if so, can the President rape and murder until impeachment proceedings wind their way through Congress?


    https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...vestigate-him/
    I would expect a criminal defense lawyer to know better than to appreal to the straw man fallacy.

    What the President's lawyers actually said:

    The framers of our Constitution understood that state and local prosecutors would be tempted to criminally investigate the President to advance their own careers and to advance their political agendas,” the lawsuit adds. "And they likewise understood that having to defend against these actions would distract the President from his constitutional duties. That is why the Framers eliminated this possibility and assigned the task to supermajorities of Congress acting with the imprimatur of the nation as a whole."

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...s-tax-returns/

    Clearly the intent here is not to place the President above the law but to protect him from frivolous and politically motivated legal action, which this certainly is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    I think Chuck is very clever for a 10-year old.
    Psssshawww... when Rogue was 10, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was at our house, and he was leading them around by the nose!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    By the way, the thread title is an outright lie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    I think Chuck is very clever for a 10-year old.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Charles View Post
    Ad hominem
    Tweb Nannymom.

    Need a tissue?

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Charles, honey, are you just needing attention again?
    Ad hominem

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    You NannyMommied my post, claimed it was more complicated than that, posted NOTHING of substance to show my statement was not true....

    The title is a lie - Unless, of course, you can produce a cite or video where Trump actually says "I am above the law", or something similar.
    I did not say that your statement was not true. Nor did I claim I wanted to prove the title of the thread true. All I said was that it was more complicated than you indicated. I gave you an example of how a criminal defense attorney described and reasoned on the topic. I allowed you to see his line of reasoning. Without even dealing with any of that you claim there is "NOTHING of substance". If you have some reasons for claiming so feel free to share them.
    Last edited by Charles; 09-20-2019, 03:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post


    Cut it out chuck.
    Charles.jpg

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
16 responses
76 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
52 responses
262 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
109 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
195 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
83 responses
349 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Working...
X