Author Topic: The US Presidency 2019  (Read 42815 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 499,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,250
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #375 on: April 29, 2019, 16:00:36 »
Awfully thoughtful of that union to make that decision in behalf of it's members.

He's already having a meltdown on Twitter over it. 

This has always been the policy of our union in regards to active and retired members,

Quote
First and foremost, I want to be clear - your union will never tell you how to vote. No organization, individual or union should demand that you vote for a particular candidate. It is a very personal decision based on your values, priorities and expectations.

As public employees, IAFF members are subject to all manner of government – government that is run by politicians who make decisions that affect your lives and livelihoods. That’s why elections can have a more serious and direct impact for our members than for many other Americans.

Whether we like it or not, the political arena is where all the power is – politicians and lawmakers have a big hand in deciding policies that can greatly affect your career, family and economic future.

Your union represents you on a narrowly focused basket of issues – issues specifically related to your jobs as professional fire fighters and paramedics, including retirement security, occupational safety and health, collective bargaining rights, healthcare, wages and benefits, worker rights, staffing and presumptive protections.

As your union, we are your voice on these issues. We will always fight to improve your livelihood, keep you safe and improve conditions for our profession.

How much importance you place on these issues in electing a president is your choice.

It is our responsibility as your union to support the candidate who will have your back when it comes to signing laws, making agency appointments, writing rules and making the important decisions that affect you on the job every single day.

Your union works on your behalf on issues that pertain to our profession. We don’t engage in identity politics, nor do we advocate for or against other issues.

Our recommendations are offered as information on where candidates stand on issues that are vital to fire fighters – protecting you on the job, improving your standard of living, protecting your safety and health, securing affordable healthcare, making sure you come home at the end of each shift, providing a secure retirement and other aspects of your work.

Simply put, we provide you with information on where candidates stand so you are better educated on fire fighter-specific issues when you go to the ballot box.
https://client.prod.iaff.org/#contentid=91865




« Last Edit: April 29, 2019, 16:18:59 by mariomike »

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 288,501
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,777
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #376 on: April 29, 2019, 16:25:33 »
Cool. Did your union support specific candidates during elections?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 277,292
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,587
    • Army.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #377 on: April 29, 2019, 16:34:28 »
At least they are out in the open. Unlike Working Families and other union shill, union supported and union financed organisations that use members dues to promote a specific party and candidate.

Then we have professional organisations that, by using pictures of people on the job and hedged speech, promote the idea that all their members support a certain government. Like the OPP association tried.

Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 277,292
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,587
    • Army.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #378 on: April 29, 2019, 18:58:53 »
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/deputy-ag-rod-rosenstein-submits-resignation?fbclid=IwAR0rnMI9u2gY_d9Llt8oKenOZ-L5U6iY4GPfwx301SQfhwbhEQgN4d1A0DQ

Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein Submits Resignation

Quote
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who frequently found himself in the political crosshairs due to his role in the special counsel's Russia probe and whose departure has long been expected, submitted his resignation on Monday to President Trump, effective May 11.

Attorney General William Barr in a statement said Rosenstein served the Justice Department "with dedication and distinction."

"His devotion to the Department and its professionals is unparalleled," the statement read. "Over the course of his distinguished government career, he has navigated many challenging situations with strength, grace, and good humor."

In his resignation letter, Rosenstein thanked Trump "for the opportunity to serve; for the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set in your inaugural address: patriotism, unity, safety, education, and prosperity, because 'a nation exists to serve its citizens.'"

Rosenstein, 54, previously served as deputy assistant attorney general and U.S. attorney. He had intended to leave his position last month but stayed on for the completion of the Mueller probe, which Rosenstein had overseen.

In February, Fox News reported that Barr had picked Jeffrey Rosen, who currently serves as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, to take over for Rosenstein.

Rosenstein was part of a small group of department officials who reviewed the document and helped shape its public release. After Mueller didn't reach a conclusion on whether Trump had obstructed the investigation, Barr and Rosenstein stepped in and determined the evidence wasn't enough to support such an allegation.

In recent months, Rosenstein became a frequent target of Trump's ire, after FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe described private discussions about secretly recording and potentially ousting the president in the days after he fired FBI Director James Comey.

Trump accused them of pursuing a “treasonous” plot against him. Rosenstein, though, denied pursuing a recording of the president and has pushed back on claims he broached the idea of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. However, Rosenstein was largely spared the type of anger directed by Trump at Sessions, whose recusal infuriated the president and led to Sessions' to his forced resignation last November.

As first reported by The New York Times last year, Rosenstein allegedly discussed wearing a "wire" to tape Trump and pursuing his removal from office in meetings and conversations with Justice Department and FBI officials. This would have been in the tumultuous days after Comey was fired as FBI director, with the president citing in part a memo penned by Rosenstein — reportedly catching him off guard.

Fox News has learned one key meeting took place on May 16, 2017 at Justice Department headquarters. Several people were in the room, including McCabe and former FBI counsel Lisa Page. Mueller was appointed as special counsel the next day.

Rosenstein’s conservative critics on the Capitol Hill seized on the reports, with North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, calling on him to appear before Congress to explain the comments. In July, Meadows and Jim Jordan of Ohio, another member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, introduced five articles of impeachment against Rosenstein.

Those impeachment articles accused Rosenstein of intentionally withholding documents and information from Congress, failure to comply with congressional subpoenas and abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That effort was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it has not been voted upon.

Before named by Trump to serve as the No. 2 to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Rosenstein served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. Rosenstein took over the Russia probe after Sessions recused himself from the investigation. It was Rosenstein who later appointed Mueller to his post.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 499,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,250
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #379 on: May 06, 2019, 17:22:43 »
AG Barr's commitment, described fairly here at The Atlantic, means that if there is anything that someone other than Mueller might choose to latch onto, it should become available.

The author had this to say,

Quote
I was willing to give Bill Barr a chance. Consider me burned.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/bill-barrs-performance-was-catastrophic/588574/

In today's news,

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1
"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice."

« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 20:15:11 by mariomike »

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 217,812
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,445
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #380 on: May 06, 2019, 20:51:30 »
I have only ever read a few articles from the Atlantic, so offer no personal opinion about its general accuracy or political bias, but many of those commentators that I have come to trust do not hold it - or NYT and MSNBC - in high regard.

My preferred source for discussions about President Trump, and this matter in particular, is National Review Online. Several writers are lawyers, and not all are fans of their President, so several viewpoints are available in one source. The overiding opinion, from several articles that I have read, seems to be supportive of Attorney-General Barr.

From the Atlantic article quoted:

"This pair of mischaracterizations has the effect of transforming Trump into an innocent man falsely accused."

The legal standard is "innocent until proven guilty". No guilt seems to have been proven, and claims of "collusion" (not a crime, as "conspiracy" would be, if committed) have proven groundless. There has been some discussion regarding the ability to obstruct justice in a case where no crime can be proven. And vocalization by somebody falsely accused is certainly normal behaviour; there is no indication that, words aside, he actually took any unusual step to obstruct anything. Firing James Comey was well within his right, and, until he did so, Democrats were calling for his firing as his actions during the election supposedly cost Clinton her "win" (as did, according to her, many other things except for her crappy campaign and growing reputation for corruption).

The Mueller witch hunt (which completely ignored more credible claims of true crimes committed by the Democrats) was allowed to continue, and the final report was released with the minimal level of redaction necessary to meet legal requirements. That displayed an unprecedented level of transparency, as such documents are (usually, at least) never released.

"Barr amplifies this transformation with his third layer of misrepresentation: his adoption of Trump’s “spying” narrative, which states that there was something improper about the FBI’s scrutiny of campaign figures who had bizarre contacts with Russian-government officials or intermediaries. Barr has not specified precisely what he believes here, but yesterday’s Senate hearing was the second congressional hearing at which he implied darkly that the FBI leadership under James Comey had engaged in some kind of improper surveillance of the Trump campaign. In other words, not only is the president an innocent man falsely accused, but he’s now the victim of “spying on a political campaign” - as Barr put it a few weeks ago - by a biased cabal running the FBI."

There certainly seems to be ample evidence to back up the "spying" narrative, and I eagerly await the investigations regarding that and the coverups of Clinton/Democrat activities, including, but not limited to, Clinton Foundation donations/briberies, Uranium One, The Steele Dossier (based upon faulty/made-up claims of Trumpian misbehaviour concocted by Russians and a former British intelligent agent - see "Collusion" with foreign agents, including Russians) which was used to kick off various investigations, and absolutely gross e-mail security violations.

I could never believe any claims that Russia had a preferrence for Donald Trump winning, after the Clintons had, essentially, been bought and paid for, and Obama had soft-pedalled the Russian threat. Obama was caught, while unknowingly on an open microphone, promising Dmitri Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" to make concessions to Russia after his re-election, and, later, when Mitt Romney referred to Russia as "The number one geopolitical foe", retorted that "The 1980s are now calling and they want their foreign policy back". Russians were good until Donald Trump won, at which point they became an excuse for Clinton losing and a means of obstructing the lawfully-elected President.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/clinton-russia-collusion-evidence/

Russian Collusion, Clinton $tyle

By Deroy Murdock March 27, 2018 10:51 AM

In contrast, Team Mueller studiously ignores something more conspicuous than the iridescent onion domes atop Red Square’s St. Basil’s Cathedral: Private interests that closed deals with Vladimir Putin and his agents - thanks to then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s public favors - gave the Clinton Foundation between $152 million and $173 million.

While this institution performed some charitable work, it also was the Clintons’ de facto slush fund. It operated a veritable full-employment program for the courtiers in Hillary’s “government in waiting” during the Obama years and financed much of the Clintons’ global travels. Donations to the Clinton Foundation were, in essence, gift-wrapped presents for the Clintons.

Hillary’s March 2009 button-pushing “Russian reset” ceremony with Moscow’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, triggered this particular bonanza. Hillary captured its essence in March 2010 when she told former Soviet propagandist Vladimir Pozner on First Channel TV: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 499,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,250
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #381 on: May 16, 2019, 11:12:07 »
I find Conrad's shrieking to be only slightly left of Alex Jones's conspiracy tripe. More articulate, perhaps, but no more persuasive.

He was in today's news,

Quote
Trump grants full pardon to former media baron Conrad Black
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/conrad-black-pardon-trump-1.5137985
Black was convicted in 2007 of fraud and obstruction of justice



Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 65,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,753
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #382 on: May 16, 2019, 14:44:51 »
That should set all the right teeth nicely on edge for a couple of days...
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 106,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,616
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #383 on: May 17, 2019, 08:00:28 »
You guys need to start reading Gateway Pundit ,as I do. The Atlantic I consider to be left leaning. National review has lost their mind in their hatred of Trump. I also like Legal Insurrection for anything in the news about the law. Its run by a Harvard professor. With 22-23 Democrats running it appears that Biden has sucked all the oxygen from the room. But I wonder if he wants to be President , if he sticks it out it may be time to get the popcorn going. It will be entertaining.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 499,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,250
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #384 on: May 17, 2019, 08:25:14 »
You guys need to start reading Gateway Pundit ,as I do.

For reference to the discussion,

The Gateway Pundit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit#False_stories_and_conspiracy_theories

The Gateway Pundit
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/




Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 106,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,616
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #385 on: May 17, 2019, 08:31:41 »

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 544,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,017
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #386 on: May 17, 2019, 09:25:26 »
You guys need to start reading Gateway Pundit ,as I do. The Atlantic I consider to be left leaning.

Quote
The Gateway Pundithttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

Overall, we rate The Gateway Pundit  Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and numerous instances of publishing false (fake) news.
Quote
The Atlantichttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/
LEFT-CENTER BIAS

Overall, we rate The Atlantic  Left-Center Biased due to editorial position and High for factual reporting based on excellent sourcing of information.
      Yep, seems about right. 



Personally, (since we're giving recommendations), try The Economist.  Subscriptions are inexpensive, articles tend not to be lengthy, and the e-version analyses are quite timely.
Quote
The Economisthttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/
LEAST BIASED

Overall, we rate The Economist  Least Biased based on balanced reporting and High for factual reporting due to a clean fact check record.


Mind you, I know quite a few people who read widely (yes, across  ideological biases  :o ) in order to develop informed opinions;  of course, that requires an interest in TRUTH, which isn't always found on a soapbox or behind a pulpit.

+300

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 288,501
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,777
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #387 on: May 17, 2019, 09:33:58 »
I prefer going to Milnews.ca as my source of unbiased media reporting and Mariomike as my search engine  ;D
+600 « Last Edit: May 17, 2019, 09:57:42 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 499,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,250
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #388 on: May 17, 2019, 10:24:04 »
Thank-you. When strangers on the internet tell me what I "need" to read, I prefer to do a little fact-checking first.
+300

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 336
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #389 on: May 17, 2019, 10:56:23 »
   
Mind you, I know quite a few people who read widely (yes, across  ideological biases  :o ) in order to develop informed opinions;  of course, that requires an interest in TRUTH, which isn't always found on a soapbox or behind a pulpit.

I agree.  And with that, I am very much looking forward to AG Barr's tenure, and following US Attorney John Durham's probe.  I believe some of the media is going to get bit in the end. 

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 215,074
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,804
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #390 on: May 17, 2019, 13:43:46 »
Thank-you. When strangers on the internet tell me what I "need" to read, I prefer to do a little fact-checking first.

Don't worry, the Government is going to cover that for you.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 190,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,215
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #391 on: May 24, 2019, 22:43:41 »
Federal judge blocks Trump from using Defense funds for parts of border wall
By Priscilla Alvarez, CNN

Quote
Washington (CNN)A federal judge on Friday night blocked President Donald Trump from tapping into Defense Department funds to build parts of his US-Mexico border wall.

In a 56-page ruling, Judge Haywood Gilliam, a Barack Obama appointee in the Northern District of California, blocked the administration from moving forward with specific projects in Texas and Arizona, saying he couldn't disburse the funds without congressional approval.

Although Friday's ruling does not prevent the Trump administration from using funds from other sources to build the projects, it's a setback for the President on a signature agenda item that has frequently been thwarted by Democrats in Congress.

"The position that when Congress declines the Executive's request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds 'without Congress' does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic," Gilliam writes.

He added, "because the Court has found that Plaintiffs are likely to show that Defendants' actions exceeded their statutory authority, and that irreparable harm will result from those actions, a preliminary injunction must issue pending a resolution of the merits of the case." ...

See rest of article here:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/politics/federal-judge-trump-border-wall/index.html

and here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-border-wall-construction-plans

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 222,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,831
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #392 on: May 26, 2019, 14:05:24 »
At least one North American country has people willing to stop their Top Cat from pissing Other People's Money up against the wall, either literally or figuratively.
+300
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 106,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,616
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #393 on: May 26, 2019, 17:35:21 »
The Supreme Court will overrule these lower court democrat judges.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 190,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,215
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #394 on: May 26, 2019, 19:02:55 »
The Supreme Court will overrule these lower court democrat judges.

Is this a reasoned legal analysis or are you just sure that the GOP has finally stacked the Supreme Court sufficiently?

 :whistle:
+300
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 499,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,250
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #395 on: May 26, 2019, 19:06:39 »
Federal judge blocks Trump from using Defense funds for parts of border wall

Maybe the Mexican taxpayers will pay for it?

Quote
Fox News

I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me. Believe me. And I'll build it very inexpensively. I'll build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.
https://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/16/watch-highlights-donald-trumps-2016-announcement-ill-build-border-wall-and-mexico-will


Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 729
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #396 on: May 26, 2019, 22:06:02 »
Is this a reasoned legal analysis or are you just sure that the GOP has finally stacked the Supreme Court sufficiently?

 :whistle:
I would prefer to say that the supreme court has been unstacked to the point that reasonable decisions based upon law and not upon personal preferences can finally be rendered.  It all depends upon your point of view.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 499,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,250
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #397 on: May 26, 2019, 22:42:37 »
I would prefer to say that the supreme court has been unstacked to the point that reasonable decisions based upon law and not upon personal preferences can finally be rendered. It all depends upon your point of view.

Considering the Republicans lost the popular vote in every presidential election, except one, since the 1980's, they have done a pretty good job of stacking / unstacking, if you prefer, the Supreme Court.

As you say, "It all depends upon your point of view."

Five of the Justices, including the Chief, were appointed by a Republican president.

Four of the Justices were appointed by a Democratic president.

Yes, I understand the popular vote does not determine who gets in. But, as Brihard explained,

It’s still a valuable gauge of political sentiment, particularly given the rather horrendous gerrymandering many districts have been subjected to. While popular vote does not directly turn into seats controlled, it offers some insight into fundraising, voter turnout, and hence electoral prospects, which in turn are basically blood and oxygen to representatives.

Speaking of gerrymandering and the Supreme Court,

Quote
Politico

05/24/2019

Supreme Court blocks gerrymandering rulings in Michigan and Ohio
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/24/supreme-court-blocks-gerrymandering-michigan-ohio-1344369

If interested, read about REDMAP. Described as, "Gerrymandering on steroids."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
"The effects of REDMAP came about in the 2012 election, in which the Republicans were able to secure several districts and retain control of the United States House of Representatives by a 33-seat margin, despite Democratic candidates having had more of the general vote."




« Last Edit: May 26, 2019, 22:56:05 by mariomike »

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 106,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,616
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #398 on: May 27, 2019, 00:13:17 »
Is this a reasoned legal analysis or are you just sure that the GOP has finally stacked the Supreme Court sufficiently?

 :whistle:

Trump has been able to replace some very liberal judges with conservatives. With Justice Roberts being able to side with the liberals more often than not if its a close vote and he is the decider it makes me uneasy. The Judges at all levels are supposed to be apolitical but the ones that are ruling against Trump were selected by Obama generally.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 211,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,505
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #399 on: May 27, 2019, 02:05:00 »
Trump has been able to replace some very liberal judges with conservatives. With Justice Roberts being able to side with the liberals more often than not if its a close vote and he is the decider it makes me uneasy. The Judges at all levels are supposed to be apolitical but the ones that are ruling against Trump were selected by Obama generally.

Out of curiosity, are you open to the possibility that trying to do an end run around Congress on a couple billion dollars of spending might simply and actually be illegal? There’s a constitutional separation of powers for a reason, and as president he’s sworn to uphold that, not usurp it. I won’t even bother getting into why it would be a horrendous precedent to set. Quite simply, the executive gets to do some things, Congress gets to do others, and each has certain ability to say no to the other. He’s trying to do something he just isn’t allowed to do, and that’s why he lost this in court.

Hopefully the Supreme Court aren’t simply partisan puppets and uphold this separation of powers. It’s important for the health of America that excesses in any branch of government be curbed.
+600
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.