LadySkinsFan Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Getting criminal lawyers on the legal team isn't a good sign for Kushner. I mean, I wouldn't get a criminal lawyer unless something big was up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornaSkinsFan83 Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said: Getting criminal lawyers on the legal team isn't a good sign for Kushner. I mean, I wouldn't get a criminal lawyer unless something big was up. Eh. If you got the money to burn it probably doesn't hurt to cover yourself. And he's right in the middle of potentially the most high profile political scandal in American history. Can you blame him for covering himself? I get what you're saying but I'm not going to view it as anything as yet. I mean if that was the case, everyone with a lawyer on retainer would be in the dirt. And that's not always the case. I just love that his original lawyer told him that he should get another lawyer. Completely legitimate reason but I like to imagine that when he finally does and let's her know, she's gonba have a little night out celebration. "Whew. That was close. **** that ****." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Newt Gingrich looks like a big toe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Easily option B The MAGA movement and current Republican Party needs to be smashed into pieces like communism was in 1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 20 hours ago, twa said: I thought that was or four yrs? maybe 8 Nah, McConnell and the GOP decided that the President is only in authority until their final year in office, so the Presidential term is now 3 years or 7, I fully expect them to be consistent in the application of this with GOP Presidents. Wait, you were in favor of that too so I'll be expecting you to call lame duck in the final year as well. Can't have any blatant hypocrisy on your part, otherwise people might figure out that the whole thing was BS. 2 hours ago, SkinsHokieFan said: Easily option B The MAGA movement and current Republican Party needs to be smashed into pieces like communism was in 1991 I want this entire Administration so tainted by this scandal that even IF Pence took over that he would be so radio active that in 3.5 years he would choose to not run. Sweep the House and Senate and show that we will not repeat this cruel farce that Republicans forced upon us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Nah, McConnell and the GOP decided that the President is only in authority until their final year in office, so the Presidential term is now 3 years or 7, I fully expect them to be consistent in the application of this with GOP Presidents. Wait, you were in favor of that too so I'll be expecting you to call lame duck in the final year as well. Can't have any blatant hypocrisy on your part, otherwise people might figure out that the whole thing was BS. Not hypocrisy to recognize POTUS has no more power than exists. Despite some folks delusions and willingness to bend a knee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 That tongue sure did way for Donlad Trump, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 21 minutes ago, twa said: Not hypocrisy to recognize POTUS has no more power than exists. Despite some folks delusions and willingness to bend a knee. YOU and MANY others made the "lame duck" argument in favor of the stonewalling...you did that and you CANNOT deny it. That isn't an argument over power, that was an argument about the duration of authority. By making that argument YOU were arguing that the President's authority should not extend into their final year. YOU made that argument. If you'd like we can do a vacation bet on it again, just know that I specifically recall setting YOU straight on the definition of "lame duck". So don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 You seem not to grasp Congress did nothing to reduce presidential authority. They exercised theirs....and it is theirs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 20 minutes ago, twa said: You seem not to grasp Congress did nothing to reduce presidential authority. They exercised theirs....and it is theirs Based on what argument? Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 29 minutes ago, twa said: You seem not to grasp Congress did nothing to reduce presidential authority. They exercised theirs....and it is theirs No...they refused their duty, to advise or consent...either way, they stopped our Nation's business on partisan grounds and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 15 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Based on what argument? Exactly. He's attempting to make the argument that abusing one's authority is OK, by pointing out that said authority exists. Of course, he's not actually going to state that argument, because if he does, he will look like a complete party hack. (Not that he actually minds being one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 16 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said: No...they refused their duty, to advise or consent...either way, they stopped our Nation's business on partisan grounds and you know it. You don't think affirming they were going with the Lame Duck rule was advising? Perhaps ya'll are confused on duty AND powers. ASF I explained it many times in the appropriate thread....perhaps your memory is failing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 11 minutes ago, Larry said: He's attempting to make the argument that abusing one's authority is OK, by pointing out that said authority exists. Of course, he's not actually going to state that argument, because if he does, he will look like a complete party hack. (Not that he actually minds being one.) No doubt. Abuse of power is justifiable because the power was there to be abused. Sound reasoning to any tyrant. I just read an article where Trump voters were voicing their frustrations that everyone seemed to be stonewalling Trump. They just want folks to give him a chance to see what he can do...like they did with Obama for eight years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, twa said: ASF I explained it many times in the appropriate thread....perhaps your memory is failing. Oh I recall your justification of the abuse of power many times. The tyrant once said, "Why did I kill them all? Because there was no one to stop me." That is the thinking of a sociopath. That you would defend it says a lot about what you'll support from your party allegiance. And this is on point in this topic because it goes to what Trump did to Comey. It's the same logic. The same self serving sociopathic mentality, "why did I fire the man in charge of investigating criminals within my campaign? Because I could." And again you line up to defend. The true irony is that it's the Right who claim that the Left has no moral compass. The Right lives to claim the Bible as the source of their's but instead their moral compass as often as not spins on their party fealty. Just because it bears repeating...you cannot serve two masters. Choose which you'll serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Firing Comey was certainly in his power(by Comey's own words) The results of using that power is another matter. ASF are you rejecting morality?.....or just selectively wrapping yourself in it. Ironic added btw I said firing Comey would bring more problems for Trump, so .......? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 I really have a hard time with Christians who don't live what Christ taught, specifically the Beatitudes. I learned those precepts in Sunday School when my parents forced me to go. As an atheist, I still think that these are universal teachings on how human beings interrelate. One can believe in universal moral precepts without religion attached. I think of religion as men manipulating universal moral precepts to their own advantage. Anyway, my point is that certain people who identify as Christian don't really follow those moral teachings for the betterment of humankind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said: Anyway, my point is that certain people who identify as Christian don't really follow those moral teachings for the betterment of humankind And they never have. For the vast majority of humanity throughout history, religion is simply a way to justify/sanctify our natural human inclination towards violence and destruction. This largely explains its enduring popularity. And Im talking about really all religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said: And they never have. For the vast majority of humanity throughout history, religion is simply a way to justify/sanctify our natural human inclination towards violence and destruction. This largely explains its enduring popularity. And Im talking about really all religions. I think we have identified the weak spot, pretty sure religion warned us about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 2 hours ago, twa said: Despite some folks delusions and willingness to bend a knee. Which apparently ranges from infinite to none at all depending on the letter he puts after his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 59 minutes ago, twa said: I think we have identified the weak spot, pretty sure religion warned us about them. Lets just be glad the settlers didn't run into any Anglicans after they disembarked the Mayflower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 23 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: Lets just be glad the settlers didn't run into any Anglicans after they disembarked the Mayflower. Damn! And was that whole great again thing really just supposed to apply to lawyers? Cuz so far they seem to be the only ones really benefiting from this ****show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 3 hours ago, twa said: You seem not to grasp Congress did nothing to reduce presidential authority. They exercised theirs....and it is theirs What exactly makes the above logic apply to only specific time frames? What is to stop a Congress from applying it across, say, an entire Presidency (as was mentioned at one point in reference to H. Clinton and SCOTUS nominees)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said: What exactly makes the above logic apply to only specific time frames? What is to stop a Congress from applying it across, say, an entire Presidency (as was mentioned at one point in reference to H. Clinton and SCOTUS nominees)? Elections....maybe. Ya might ask Schumer, but I think he asserted it was best for a outgoing President not to be allowed a SCOTUS confirmation. Personally I think we could work with a smaller high court.....nine is arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.