Dave
Staff member
He put "can't handle a 3rd grad concept". So I added the "e".[DOUBLEPOST=1516907108,1516907074][/DOUBLEPOST]And I don't see that "edited" text so I didn't think anyone would notice. Oops.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
You gotta remember to check that "edit silently" box
Dave
Staff member
I almost never edit so I forgot. Besides, I was using my powers for good. Not bad from the third worst admin JCM had ever seen.You gotta remember to check that "edit silently" box
GasBandit
Staff member
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/26/investing/steve-wynn-sexual-misconduct/index.html
RNC finance chair (current) accused of significant sexual assault allegations.
However he seems to be a bit of a fair weather friend, having supported Barrack Obama and donated to the Dems in the past.
Regardless, as the Republican Party finance chair the republicans are more responsible, could be a bigger boondoggle than Weinstein's association with the DNC and Clintons.
RNC finance chair (current) accused of significant sexual assault allegations.
However he seems to be a bit of a fair weather friend, having supported Barrack Obama and donated to the Dems in the past.
Regardless, as the Republican Party finance chair the republicans are more responsible, could be a bigger boondoggle than Weinstein's association with the DNC and Clintons.
So on one hand, you've got a $4 billion ship that can't afford to fight. On the other, you've got another one stranded in Montreal until spring.
It's almost like spending billions on stealth fighter jets designed to fight a war we'll never fight have caused us to be unprepared for the upcoming naval wars we'll HAVE to fight if we want to remain an economic powerhouse.
I'm not saying it's a good argument - it'd cost the same or less to put all those hundreds of thousands of people to work in a sector that might improve happiness or social stability. It's just part of the truth
I know, I could tell. Calling that argument stupid doesn’t mean I think you’re stupid, or that you’re actually making the argument. But conservatives in this country are all about the free market until it comes to defense spending, and it drives me nuts.I'm not saying it's a good argument - it'd cost the same or less to put all those hundreds of thousands of people to work in a sector that might improve happiness or social stability. It's just part of the truth
Look, the fact that Boeing employs 35% of the less-educated population of my state and they sponsored my re-election campaign for $lots has nothing to do with my proposal to give a contract for $lotsmore to them, and you're mean and evil to suggest otherwise.
Ah, so you're changing your tune on whether Obama should have enforced DOMA and immigration laws? If I recall correctly you believed that it was his right to wield the executive power constitutionally, and that he didn't have to enforce laws congress passed which he felt didn't meet his interpretation of the constitution?
But even if you are changing your tune now, this tactic is almost as old as the presidency itself: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...uz-says-barack-obama-first-president-who-thi/
I thought I understood your point, but I guess I don't. Hillary Clinton is still politically active, this is a political thread, and there's some ongoing discussion about her. I'm sorry you feel that every time she is brought up you have to bring attention to Trump, I don't know if this is defensive or if you really think I don't know about the latest kerfluffle, but it appears you feel it's important, so here we are.
Obama (and bush, reagan, nixon, truman, roosevelt, johnson, lincoln) were sitting presidents when they chose not to enforce certain laws congress passed.
Trump is the sitting president as he's now choosing not to enforce laws congress passed.
You're complaining about Trump not enforcing laws.
I recall you being happy about the previous president doing the same thing.
So either you're experiencing partisan bias, or you've changed your mind about what a "sitting president" can and cannot do.
If you're trying to make a different point, then I'm sorry it has completely flown over my head and is currently causing a problem for DTW flight controllers.
It was passed with a veto proof number of votes in congress. At the time he complained about it, indicated he'd probably not implement it, but signed it anyway "as a show of unity with congress" (paraphrased here).
I suspect he just didn't want to appear weak, refusing to sign something and then having congress override him.
Here's one article written at the time it happened:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/was...ns-russia-sanctions-1501685899-htmlstory.html[DOUBLEPOST=1517421083,1517420797][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh, here's the text of the bill. If one reads it you'll find there are all sorts of loopholes that provide the president with ample room to avoid enforcing it. According to section 112 all he has to do is say, "It's in the interest of national security that it not be implemented at this time."
Congress may ask for proof or further explanation, but at that point all they can do to strong arm him is impeachment.
Isn't impeachment the only tool for dealing with the President refusing to implement a law passed by congress anyway?
They can censure the president it’s not much really. They could also start removing the president’s funding for things he wants unless the president starts enforcing the laws they want enforced.
Of course both actions are dead in Congress under republican control but they are an equal branch of government.
If any agency would don the brownshirt for Der Cheetofuhrer, it's these assholes.
Jesus Christ, Fox News just continues to dive further and further down the fucking rabbit hole.
Geraldo Rivera to Hannity: If you were around then Nixon 'wouldn't have been forced to resign'
Geraldo Rivera to Hannity: If you were around then Nixon 'wouldn't have been forced to resign'
