Search found 20 matches

by srothstein
Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

BigGuy wrote:
Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:53 pm
What's more, both Biden and Ginsberg claimed to be catholic.
Since Ginsburg was Jewish, I am curious about the statement that she had claimed to be Catholic. Any links to this?

But along the lines of your other statements, I remember being told that the attacks on JFK' for being Catholic included questioning if his first loyalty would be the the US or to the Pope. And that this backfired and actually helped him get elected. And, unfortunately, I agree that this was when history was taught in school (though this was almost current events to me).
by srothstein
Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:07 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philip964 wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:32 pm
Nobel Prize Committee credibility on the line.
I did not know they had any credibility left at all to be on the line.
by srothstein
Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:22 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philip964 wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:16 pm
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/04/tr ... ns-record/ Trump hater John Bolton says it’s false.
To me, what is important in this, and all the Democrats and mass media are deliberately ignoring, is that Bolton wrote about how it happened in his book, published months before this accusation hit the media. If there had been any truth to it at all, Bolton would have written it that way in the book.
by srothstein
Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:51 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philip964 wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 6:25 pm
Biden I believe today will denounce violence in the streets. Apparently his people have decided rather than hurting Trump it is hurting him.
Anyone want to bet the riots end pretty quickly now? Or did they get out of control of the planners?
by srothstein
Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:40 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

Goodyear has backed down fast. They also blamed a third party contractor.
by srothstein
Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:15 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

03Lightningrocks wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 12:32 pm
He repeatedly acknowledges he is not a doctor. He was doing like any other regular Joe and spit balling ideas at the doctors.
I think this is exactly what he was doing. Looking at what is coming and trying to think of innovative ways to apply what he has just heard.

[qoute]He just needs to learn not to talk so frankly in front of the sharks who are looking for any and every angle to bash him with.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, that means that for the foreseeable future, he could not talk in DC or where there are media reporters within hearing distance.
by srothstein
Tue Apr 14, 2020 10:32 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philip964 wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:50 pm
https://apnews.com/ba9578acf23bdb03fd51a2b81f640560

Trump says something about authority to open up country again.

State governors apparently differ.
I found this one to be an interesting argument. If Trump cannot issue orders to close (and he did not, just guidelines), then he can't issue orders to open. But he has the authority to tell the governors exactly what to do with business. The governors are claiming the Tenth Amendment stops Trump. They apparently missed that he is working based on federal emergency laws passed by Congress. And thanks to the Constitution and, IMO the worst case ever decided by SCOTUS, Congress has that authority to give him. They need to read the Interstate Commerce clause and the Wickard decision.

But there is another interesting logical problem. If opening the businesses is the governor's responsibility, then the response from the start was their responsibility. Trump did not muff the initial response at all, if they are right. And if Trump is right, then any fault with the initial response comes back to him. You cannot fairly blame him for not responding if he doesn't have authority to control the response.
by srothstein
Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:37 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

03Lightningrocks wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:35 pm
Pawpaw wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:08 pm
It was the Dim-o-craps that changed the rule back when Barry was president. They regretted it after Trump was elected.
True, but that does not change the fact that what comes around goes around. What will be really interesting is when the Dums try to bring up that the nomination to supreme court should wait until after the elections. I hope Republicans laugh in their sorry faces.
My understanding, and I could be wrong, was that the Democrats changed the nomination rules for everything other than SCOTUS and the Republicans changed it for that.

But, as Crazy2medic said, there is truly little doubt that the Republicans will ram through the nomination over the Democrats objections. I was just pointing out that they will object for the same grounds the Republicans did and it would be unfair of the Republicans to complain about it.

I think this is an example of how to grow the divide in the country, and it will hurt the country as a whole more than either party (hopefully) intends.
by srothstein
Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:17 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

03Lightningrocks wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:24 am
It is becoming obvious she is not gonna make it till the end of 2020. It will be interesting to see if leftists try to make us wait for new pick until after Trump is re-elected.
The Republicans certainly can't complain if they try. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
by srothstein
Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:11 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

I, for one, am very glad to see all of the committees investigating the president and most of the administration. I want to see them do as thorough an investigation as they can. I would prefer to not see them spending any money on it, but you can't have everything and investigations do cost money.

But as long as these committees are busy investigating the president, they are not out there thinking up new laws to interfere with the people and business. And that is good for me and good for the country. Proof that this is good for the country is how well the economy has been doing when all the Democrats do is investigate Trump. The fewer laws they are busy passing, the better off we are.
by srothstein
Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:52 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

carlson1 wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:31 pm
Concerning Trump’s taxes and the family taxes is there a law where they have to turn over their taxes or was it just a precedence?

If that is the case how in the world can you subpoena to see anyone’s taxes?
It has recently been customary for candidates to make their returns public, though I have no idea why or what the benefit is. There is no law requiring it of any candidate.

There is a law making all tax returns to IRS confidential. Looking at IRS records, including returns, without authorization is a crime. The flaw is that the law was written by congress and they left a loophole in the law. It allows the committee to subpoena any tax records necessary so they can check if the IRS is performing its functions properly. It is part of the oversight function of congress. The committee making the request is claiming this law allows it.

As I understand it, the IRS has refused to comply because their interpretation of the law is slightly more restrictive. They believe there has to be some question of misbehavior on the IRS' part, not on the part of the taxpayer.
by srothstein
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:37 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philbo wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:09 am
just pointed out that collusion was never used by anyone
I am not sure that the word collusion was only used by Trump and his associates, but I agree it was not used in the letter appointing Mueller as special counsel. But I also noted that you seem to have missed a significant point in the appointment that might make a difference. It says, as the primary purpose of the investigation:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;
Now, I may not be an employee of Merriam-Webster but it seems to me that the term collusion is another way of saying "links and/or coordination". For a very interesting article on what collusion means, I suggest this one from the Columbia Journalism Review: https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/wha ... russia.php. And this article from Politico magazine is proof that someone other than Trump and his associates use the term collusion for the investigation target: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ion-215366 (and for everyone, this helps explain exactly which laws might have been broken and what other than just talking with the other side is needed).

It also seems to me that your not mentioning the first clause in your denials of the accusation being collusion is very misleading. I do not know if it was a deliberate attempt to mislead or not, and I try to not attribute to evil those actions which are properly attributed to incompetence. But I will point out that incompetence hurts your credibility as much as evil intent would. While admitting my bias based on my belief that the investigation is just more politics as usual, I must say that you do not seem to be winning this debate at this time. You have scored on some points, but you have been scored against on more of them, IMO. Considering the subject of this forum, your having won some points is more surprising to me than your having lost more.
by srothstein
Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:37 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philbo wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:30 am
But wait, there's more. Now tRump is wanting more troops to the border (where they are legally prohibited from engaging in police activites) and suggesting they have the authority to shoot anyone throwing rocks at them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 5ad5878e58
I strongly suggest that you do better research on your points. When you repeat false claims it really hurts your credibility in all other arguments. The military is not prohibited from all police activities in the US. The law prohibiting this is called the Posse Comitatus Act and it is in the US code in Title 18, section 1385. The wording of the law forbids the military from being used as a posse except for where authorized by the Congress (among other exceptions).

One of the known exceptions, for example, is that the military can be used to help enforce drug laws. This was how the military was used in several recent encounters against US citizens, with the most notable in our area being in Waco against the Branch Davidians (the ATF told the AG and our Governor that they suspected them of having drugs). Another one, used and favored by the Democratic Party, is that the President may order the military out to enforce federal law. The example of this being favors by the Democrats is when the 101st Airborne Division was ordered out to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Ark in 1957.

I could be wrong, but I understand after some very brief research that the deployment of military troops to the border to enforce federal law is within the legal authority of the president. If you want to argue against it, you might use the example of what happened when Marines were assigned to patrol the border. That resulted in them shooting Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., a US citizen on his own property. You might not want to use it as an example though, because that was in 1997 when a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) assigned active duty troops to patrol our southern border to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in while carrying drugs. Kind of cuts against your argument of it being illegal to use troops to enforce the law.
by srothstein
Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:30 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philbo wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:49 pm
In either the most arrogant display of ignorance concerning the US Constitution, or the newest in a long line of absurd pronouncements to distract the populace just days before the mid-term elections, tRump proposes to end birthright citizenship protected in the 14th Amendment with an executive order... Yep, winning as only tRump knows how.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1N41MD
I just wanted to point out that any president can issue any executive order he wants. It has no bearing on law, just as directives to how the agencies he is responsible for will act. What this president might due is issue an executive order telling the immigration services how to interpret the clause in the 14th Amendment that says that birthright citizenship applies to people who are under the jurisdiction of the US. For example, he can point out that a person who entered the country illegally is not under our jurisdiction and therefore their children are not citizens.

Obviously, as with many other executive orders in recent years, people with opposing political issues will file a lawsuit to hold up the implementation of the order. While I do not necessarily agree with the president on this issue, I have to admit that I like the strategy of forcing the courts to decide exactly what that phrase does mean. My question is if the Democrats will be willing to take this chance with the SCOTUS or if they will compromise with the president on some other issue. I don't know what other issues he may want to deal on, but given his faith in his negotiating skills this seems like his type of an opening gambit. Always negotiate from a position of strength.
by srothstein
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:19 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 4256
Views: 342166

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

strogg wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:55 pm
3. By design, since it was such a long time ago with no witnesses or video tapes or audio recordings or whatever, the card is literally a he-said-she-said game. Also with such a large gap between the supposed event and anyone hearing about it, there's no way anyone would be convicted of that crime no matter what public profile the defendant has. So what's the point?
The left expected this too work because they have had so much success with it in the recent past. It has all been civil so far, and in the private sphere with companies taking action against individuals, and others jumping on the bandwagon to help. Look at how many people have been taken down by the claims of sexual harassment recently.
7. Lastly, it looks like an all-out civil war is occurring with this political battle. Seriously. It really does look that way.
I see this as a strong sign that a real civil war is coming. One with both sides fighting, and by fighting I mean armed combat in the streets. I have seen our country being pulled apart politically, and I think this is by design. I think it is planned to lead to a civil war and a breakup of the US. We are falling right into their trap too, because we are becoming more strident in our divisions. I keep hoping we can avoid it, but I am more and more sure it is coming and unavoidable.

The two sides are both being controlled by their extremes and neither side is willing to talk or discuss things with the other side. Look at the protests that occurred after Trump won the election, even though there was no disputing that he had won. Now we get similar protests after a nomination. How soon until the protests turn into riots and spread around the country? I really want to avoid this and keep our country intact, but I am also not prepared to give in on my civil rights just to get to that point. If the other side is feeling the same way I do about their points, and feel it is their civil rights, combat is coming.

Return to “Today in Trump's new term as President”