what part of administration and executive authority do you not understand, do you think it means standby and do nothing? it certainly means more than what some beknighted politician thinks is a good idea
|
what part of administration and executive authority do you not understand, do you think it means standby and do nothing? it certainly means more than what some beknighted politician thinks is a good idea
yes in fact there is no check and balance since the Marbury v Madison .Whatever the court says goes regardless how preposterous their decision is . Plessy v Ferguson was a SCOTUS decision that decided that segregation was the law of the land . A later SCOTUS decided in Brown v Board of Education that Plessy was incorrectly decided . The Dred Scott decision reversed the Missouri compromise and that directly led to the Civil War. The Korematsu decision rubber stamped the illegal detention of Japanese American citizens . And of course the Griswald v Connecticut case was the most egregious example of SCOTUS verbal jui jitsu in history short of Roberts changing the plain language of Obamacare to say that a "penalty " that would've been unconstitutional was constitutional because it was a "tax"....even though the emperor made it clear that it was not a tax.Quote:
Just about right. There seems to be very little in the way of checks and balances for what the Court decides.
In Griswald Justice Douglas came up with the most convoluted reasoning to create what has become known as the privacy right ."The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of
Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that
help give them life and substance. "
What does that even mean ? Penumbra is an astronomical term for when there is a partial shadow in an eclipse .Emaination is a scientific term for gas made from decay .The case was about birth control .But the case led directly to Roe V Wade....another wrongly decided case
Well Tom it seems your courts with their politically appointed judges are incapable of making right decisions. In earlier eras the problem would have been quickly solved. Thomas Moore comes to mind
you mean Becket ?
Him too
Well our dufus has another historic photo op. He shook hands with Kim and walked though NK on his way home. No deals though but one can hope they agreed to keep talking, even while NK keeps it's nukes and Iran contemplates theirs.
I think we have established that the possession of nukes is a talking point, which leads us to ask if Trump can talk to Kim in a amicable manner why can't he talk to Iran the same way. There was a deal which means settlement of disputes was further down the road with Iran than with NK and yet he can be polite to one and shouts at the otherQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Trump wants to talk to the Mullahs and has offered to do so. I want them gone and for the people of Iran to get the liberty they deserve . Trump gave up Presidential prestige for nothing so far with un-Kim
The time to talk was before you turned the screws up and tore up the signed sealed and deliverd deal on the table by the Chinese, Russians, and Europeans along with us. No fan of Iran, but if the other signatories of the deal tell the dufus to screw off then his war only has him and his sycophants playing with themselves. I don't think the other countries were happy with that G2 meeting, or the dufus photo op with Kim after.
Not a good look that everybody in the world is either sanctioned or tarrifed by the dufus...except for Vlad who loves it immensely. Wait until Bolton gets over his exile to Mongolia so he can hit somebody. What happened to Pompeo? No Netty either to blow sweet nothings in the dufus's ear either. Just Ivanka trying to look important.
Nobody likes her either. Them Mexicans better hurry up and train those 4,000 extra troops for the border or the dufus may jump in their butts again next month. You know how he is.
G2 well that is what I would expect from a self obsessed american
LOL, I mean't G20.
See what I mean?Quote:
a self obsessed american
Iran was pissing all over the paper it was written on before the ink dried .Quote:
The time to talk was before you turned the screws up and tore up the signed sealed and deliverd deal
Not according to our own government proclamation, and the other signatories. They were in compliance with the nuclear treaty even if they had other stuff they were doing we didn't like.
The dufus is LYING...AGAIN as usual.
The 14th amendment almost mandates a citizenship question Section 2 states :
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the inhabitants of such state, being 18 years of age , and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such citizens shall bear to the whole number of citizens 18 years of age in such state."
There is no ambiguity .It is mandatory .
Compliance is impossible without counting how many CITIZENS live in each state. There is a constitutional obligation to obtain citizenship data.
Trump should issue an executive order stating that, to comply with the requirements of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, the citizenship question will be added to the 2020 census.
Go ahead disobey the court, and end up back in court.
The dufus won't add the citizenship question to the census, but told his cabinet to send citizenship data to where ever, as Acosta RESIGNS amid scandal and controversy, just like many before him. I lost count, but expect the number to rise given the Dufus's penchant for dubious characters around him. Of course that means his kids too.
A shoe that will drop soon.
yeah Trump caved . you must be tired of winning .
I never get tired of winning at anything. You know that! I haven't forgot what losing is for a minute though! You know that too.
We're all winning with the Trump economy.
Really, define ALL!. Once again your view is one eyedQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Of course he speaks for everyone, or just himself. Can't tell which. I know he doesn't speak for ME!
Yes a limited perception
Record low unemployment, stock market at all time high, and highest average income on record sounds pretty good to me. If Obama had done that, you'd be singing his praises. Politics. Just stinkin politics. Sad in this whole deal where bitterness or whatever it is will not allow people to give credit where it is due.Quote:
Really, define ALL!. Once again your view is one eyed
In the meantime, AOC is now at the forefront of democratic economic ideas. Oh brother.
How many points did Obama add to the stock market? What was the stock market doing when he took over? What was the unemployment when he started? When he left? Just like the dufus started his business with a healthy inheritance, so he started his presidency with a healthy economy. Of course you and the dufus give him no credit, and take it all for yourselves, that's hardly accurate. Just as the right wing tries to cast AOC as the voice of the dem party. Are those just your politics, or propping up the lies of a cheating dufus?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Don't forget the brelly and galoshes when you go out. A good soaking is a coming.
That's a fair enough statement as long as you take into account the 9 trillion of national debt Obama added. But it's interesting to me how quickly you love to give Obama credit while, at the same time, refusing to give Trump any credit at all. Stinkin politics. That's all it is. Bitterness.Quote:
How many points did Obama add to the stock market? What was the stock market doing when he took over? What was the unemployment when he started? When he left?
when I asked you to define ALL you answered with the narrow perception I expected, the narrow american point of view, however in other parts of the world these policies you laud have done damage, but you can laugh that off because you have some extra moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Since Trump is the president of the United States, I guess I thought it would be blindingly obvious that I was referring to the American people. That is his first and great priority.Quote:
when I asked you to define ALL you answered with the narrow perception I expected, the narrow american point of view, however in other parts of the world these policies you laud have done damage, but you can laugh that off because you have some extra money
What damage to the rest of the world are you referring to? I find that to be a curious comment coming from the guy who advocated that we adopt a policy of impoverishing Mexico.
Make sure you add the Bush Wars into that deficit since he brought that from under the table to the light. Between you and the dufus he has all the credit he needs that he doesn't deserve. LOL at the rate he burns through money he will surpass that 9 trillion especially if you hold your nose and vote him back in. Wonder what you will do then?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Actually, he won't come close, but his deficit spending should concern everyone. Of course the people who sat by quietly, practically worshiping every move Obama made, are not in a position now to complain without appearing to be enormous hypocrites.Quote:
LOL at the rate he burns through money he will surpass that 9 trillion
Consistency of belief should be apparent. I was opposed to Obama's deficit spending, and I am opposed to Trump's. I was opposed to Obama's wholehearted support of abortion, and if Trump ever goes in that direction, I will not vote for him under any circumstances. Consistency. You ought to give it a try.
If the dems nominate another titanic loser like HC, then I will once again have no choice. It's like making a choice between having a cold or having cancer. It's so easy a child can do it.Quote:
especially if you hold your nose and vote him back in. Wonder what you will do then?
No we don't but can generate a few bucks and why are you surprised that capitalist have policies to get money from other people?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Everyone has that policy. Everyone who has a job is trying to get money from someone else in exchange for his labor, skill, knowledge, or whatever. I feel very certain you did that. It has nothing to do with capitalism.Quote:
capitalist have policies to get money from other people?
Let's see, almost 4 trillion in 3 years so far, hmm and hQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
e's already at the debt limit, and if it's not raised or cuts made, we go broke! DEFAULT! Another shut down?
I've been pretty consistent, but not so entrenched I cannot learn and apply new data as it registers. Yes your consistent too so entrenched in your beliefs you dismiss new data so it doesn't register. You could try being more open to different ideas.Quote:
Consistency of belief should be apparent. I was opposed to Obama's deficit spending, and I am opposed to Trump's. I was opposed to Obama's wholehearted support of abortion, and if Trump ever goes in that direction, I will not vote for him under any circumstances. Consistency. You ought to give it a try.
Could have went either way in 2016, you won, but get no bragging rights for electing your loser. No I won't vote for your loser.Quote:
If the dems nominate another titanic loser like HC, then I will once again have no choice. It's like making a choice between having a cold or having cancer. It's so easy a child can do it.
I stand corrected. It's worse than I thought. Sometimes I wonder why I vote republican. Of course it's a shame you didn't have this same attitude when Obama was in office.Quote:
Let's see, almost 4 trillion in 3 years so far, hmm and he's already at the debt limit, and if it's not raised or cuts made, we go broke! DEFAULT! Another shut down?
I hope to some day join a great movement of people who say we will not vote for a person who does not commit to a balanced budget from day one. As to a government shut down, I'm all for it. Better we shut it down in a temporary fashion instead of what lies ahead in the future.
No, you'll vote for an even bigger loser like Biden or Madam Pocahontas.Quote:
No I won't vote for your loser.
YEP, or any other democrat. I don't like deficits either but I didn't really like the way Clinton balanced the budget, nor foreseee anyone repeating his effort. He had the advantage of relative peace in the world, but I sight King Reagan's example repeatedly, cut taxes and raise them when neccesary incrementally with a cooperating congress. Man that kind of creative flexibility was really impressive and he deserves credit as did the congress he had. Unfortunately for Obama, he didn't have such a congress, a fall out of the raucous rise of the T Party movement. It was subverted and diluted by repubs regaining power with no inkling of interest of reaching consensus in a bi partisan way, and thwarted every opportunity that came along. Immigration being the chief example off hand. The dufus got that play down pat with the budget deal that included wall money that he canned for whatever reason.
The dufus may be great for you your way or no way right leaners and stumblers, you like hollering bluster blaming and naming but I prefer pragmatism and discussion actually and all the dems running have that. As to debts and deficits nothing wrong with them if they are managed and planned for. Stuff happens in my house and it's needed but you have to have a plan to pay for it and sorry that trickle down from the top is not the way to go without adding a solid revenue stream because the cost of the debt adds more debt, not less, and supply side economics is to dependent on enough growth to pay for it which we have never seen ever. So nice theory, but a lot harder to achieve in the long run to be viable.
Matter of fact, it is a budget killer in the short term. Just my take on it.
You mean like you do?Quote:
you like hollering bluster blaming and naming
You mean the plan to spend 90 trillion in 20 years to get rid of airplanes and rebuild every building in America?Quote:
but I prefer pragmatism and discussion actually and all the dems running have that.
Well, if you think our 23 tril in debt has been planned for and managed, you are living in a bigger fantasy world than I thought. It amounts to about 180 thousand for every taxpayer.Quote:
As to debts and deficits nothing wrong with them if they are managed and planned for.
I can hang and bang with the best when its called for, but I am a quiet kind of guy naturally. The dufus brings out the fire in me. So do YOU sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
She ain't running so what's your problem. Remember what I say about life and BS as applied to you! Go ahead get me fired up! 8)Quote:
You mean the plan to spend 90 trillion in 20 years to get rid of airplanes and rebuild every building in America?
Never said that! Deficit tax cuts are legalized STEALING with no ROI in site. I'm sure I said that before.Quote:
Well, if you think our 23 tril in debt has been planned for and managed, you are living in a bigger fantasy world than I thought. It amounts to about 180 thousand for every taxpayer.
Mr. Obama's description of what constitutes legal asylum.
https://youtu.be/ItXY1l-yB2M
The last I looked the US and Canada was still hammering out an agreement for asylum and I would imagine a treaty agreement with our southern country neighbors would also be required.
Yes the narrow view, stay where you are and wait. Strange, that with such a fair system, millions throughout the world keep leaving their country of origin. Every liberal minded nation should adopt this policy however there are few nations who take refugees voluntarily. Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:45 PM. |