WWTBAM Bored

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2019 8:07 am**

BackInTex wrote: This type of crap will backfire. The party in power changes. Passing laws to target (let's set aside the "laws to target" as that by itself is tyranny) specific individuals can and will be applied to others (unintended consequences).

In case you've been asleep for the last decade, Republican legislators have played all kinds of games with the legislative procedure over the years. After Scott Johnson lost re-election, the Republicans quickly called a lame duck session to pass laws limiting the New Democratic governor's power. In North Carolina, they did the same thing two years earlier when a Democratic governor was elected.

And it's odd that BiT, a supposed champion of state's rights, doesn't like the fact that the state is actually exercising its power. I guess he only approves of that when they are passing harsh anti-abortion or anti-gay legislation.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2019 9:47 am**

silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote: This type of crap will backfire. The party in power changes. Passing laws to target (let's set aside the "laws to target" as that by itself is tyranny) specific individuals can and will be applied to others (unintended consequences).
In case you've been asleep for the last decade, Republican legislators have played all kinds of games with the legislative procedure over the years. After Scott Johnson lost re-election, the Republicans quickly called a lame duck session to pass laws limiting the New Democratic governor's power. In North Carolina, they did the same thing two years earlier when a Democratic governor was elected.

And it's odd that BiT, a supposed champion of state's rights, doesn't like the fact that the state is actually exercising its power. I guess he only approves of that when they are passing harsh anti-abortion or anti-gay legislation.

Did I EVER say I approved of what WI did? No. I did not approve.
Did I say what NY was doing was illegal or unconstitutional or that they shouldn't BE ABLE to do it? No. If they want to do it they can.

What I did say is it was crap and foolish. I'll stand by that, regardless of the party in power or intended target of the laws.

Pull your head out of your biased ass.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2019 11:47 am**

BackInTex wrote:What I did say is it was crap and foolish. I'll stand by that, regardless of the party in power or intended target of the laws.

Pull your head out of your biased ass.

It's interesting that you and Flock and others make comments like this only when it's Democrats or liberals that engage in these activities. If someone presses you, you may say, but I don't approve of the Republicans doing it either (at least you're better than Flock in this regard because he always strains to find a way to claim that what the Democrats are doing is far worse).

And one fundamental difference between what New York did and what Wisconsin and North Carolina did, is that New York has enacted these laws after an election that shifted the balance of power in the State Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats (despite the impression of New York as a deep blue state, Republicans did control the state senate before 2018). In passing this legislation, they were presumably doing what the electorate wanted. Wisconsin and North Carolina moved to limit the power of the governor after the people voted Republican governors out, in so doing, going against the will of the electorate.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2019 12:18 pm**

silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:What I did say is it was crap and foolish. I'll stand by that, regardless of the party in power or intended target of the laws.

Pull your head out of your biased ass.
It's interesting that you and Flock and others make comments like this only when it's Democrats or liberals that engage in these activities. If someone presses you, you may say, but I don't approve of the Republicans doing it either (at least you're better than Flock in this regard because he always strains to find a way to claim that what the Democrats are doing is far worse).

And one fundamental difference between what New York did and what Wisconsin and North Carolina did, is that New York has enacted these laws after an election that shifted the balance of power in the State Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats (despite the impression of New York as a deep blue state, Republicans did control the state senate before 2018). In passing this legislation, they were presumably doing what the electorate wanted. Wisconsin and North Carolina moved to limit the power of the governor after the people voted Republican governors out, in so doing, going against the will of the electorate.

What New York did wasn't extraordinary. The notion of double jeopardy that New York had adopted by statute is, if not unique in the nation, fairly unusual. In most states (and under the dual sovereignty doctrine this is entirely consistent with the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment), the state can charge a criminal defendant with precisely the same conduct for which a federal trial has just concluded. New York's change simply joined most of the nation.

And the change in tax confidentiality laws merely authorizes New York tax authorities to release state tax returns to precisely the same Congressional Committee chairs who are already authorized to receive federal tax returns under federal law. It wouldn't have been necessary if Donny hadn't decided to obstruct justice by instructing his Treasury Secretary to disobey a Congressional request that's expressly authorized by statute, but extraordinary acts call for clear and firm responses.

In other words, you don't get to give Donny a pass for his extraordinary behavior and then call out those who respond to his extraordinary tactics by claiming that their response is extraordinary. --Bob

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2019 12:18 pm**

silverscreenselect wrote: It's interesting that you and Flock and others make comments like this only when it's Democrats or liberals that engage in these activities. If someone presses you, you may say, but I don't approve of the Republicans doing it either (at least you're better than Flock in this regard because he always strains to find a way to claim that what the Democrats are doing is far worse).

I don't find it interesting. What I find interesting is that you make comments like that only when it's Republicans or conservatives that engage is such activities. If someone presses you you make excuses or change the subject.

Interesting, but not surprising.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2019 12:21 pm**

Bob78164 wrote: It wouldn't have been necessary if my president hadn't decided to obstruct justice

There was/is no justice to obstruct.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2019 1:17 pm**

BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote: It wouldn't have been necessary if Donny hadn't decided to obstruct justice
There was/is no justice to obstruct.

Don't put those words in my mouth. He's Donny. And the party that spent years chasing Secretary Clinton for her e-mail handling has no basis to complain when Congress wants to investigate clear criminal acts of obstruction of justice and patent violations of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. --Bob

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2019 3:34 pm**

Bob78164 wrote:He's Donny.

Guess that makes you Marie.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2019 6:14 pm**

Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote: It wouldn't have been necessary if Donny hadn't decided to obstruct justice
There was/is no justice to obstruct.
Don't put those words in my mouth. He's Donny. And the party that spent years chasing Secretary Clinton for her e-mail handling has no basis to complain when Congress wants to investigate clear criminal acts of obstruction of justice and patent violations of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. --Bob

Just what 'clear' criminal acts are you referring to? How could Mueller have missed them? Oh, of course, the super intelligent Nadler will find something if he can just get some cooperation. There must be some crime he can find!
You have hooked on to emoluments since before he was even inaugarated. Sure. He entered the race for President just so he could build a hotel in Moscow that was never built, right? Just to get more guests in his hotels?
You and yours are just pathetic.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2019 6:23 pm**

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
There was/is no justice to obstruct.
Don't put those words in my mouth. He's Donny. And the party that spent years chasing Secretary Clinton for her e-mail handling has no basis to complain when Congress wants to investigate clear criminal acts of obstruction of justice and patent violations of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. --Bob
Just what 'clear' criminal acts are you referring to? How could Mueller have missed them? Oh, of course, the super intelligent Nadler will find something if he can just get some cooperation. There must be some crime he can find!
You have hooked on to emoluments since before he was even inaugarated. Sure. He entered the race for President just so he could build a hotel in Moscow that was never built, right? Just to get more guests in his hotels?
You and yours are just pathetic.

Read volume 2 of the Mueller Report. He didn't miss them. He was precluded by Justice Department policy from indicting Donny, and as an employee of the Justice Department, he followed that policy.

The Emoluments Clause doesn't have a "trust me, I don't need the money" exception. It does have an exception for Congressional permission, but he hasn't received that. So Congress has every right to investigate. --Bob

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2019 7:10 pm**

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Just what 'clear' criminal acts are you referring to? How could Mueller have missed them?

Mueller didn't miss them. He said there was substantial evidence of obstruction. There is a question whether the president can be indicted which is why he kicked it back to Barr, who buried it in his whitewash.

Posted: **Thu May 23, 2019 9:45 pm**

silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: Just what 'clear' criminal acts are you referring to? How could Mueller have missed them?
Mueller didn't miss them. He said there was substantial evidence of obstruction. There is a question whether the president can be indicted which is why he kicked it back to Barr, who buried it in his whitewash.

What specifically did he obstruct? Did he claim executive privilege on anything? Is there some document he didn't give them? Should McGahn have testified for 31 hours? Anybody Mueller missed?
I believe its a no on all counts. And a substantial percentage of the american people who don't live in your bubble think that the democrats have sunk lower than anything they ever accused trump of.
Either charge him with a specific crime or shut the hell up about it. What is he charged with that Nadler needs his bank records for? Charge him with something specific and let it go through the courts.

Posted: **Fri May 24, 2019 12:49 am**

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: Just what 'clear' criminal acts are you referring to? How could Mueller have missed them?
Mueller didn't miss them. He said there was substantial evidence of obstruction. There is a question whether the president can be indicted which is why he kicked it back to Barr, who buried it in his whitewash.
What specifically did he obstruct? Did he claim executive privilege on anything? Is there some document he didn't give them? Should McGahn have testified for 31 hours? Anybody Mueller missed?
I believe its a no on all counts. And a substantial percentage of the american people who don't live in your bubble think that the democrats have sunk lower than anything they ever accused trump of.
Either charge him with a specific crime or shut the hell up about it. What is he charged with that Nadler needs his bank records for? Charge him with something specific and let it go through the courts.

You haven't read Volume 2 of the Mueller Report. Get back to me when you have. --Bob

Posted: **Fri May 24, 2019 7:26 am**

Bob78164 wrote: Charge him with something specific and let it go through the courts.

Perhaps you don't understand the basics of Constitutional law. We don't have a monarchy where the president can do no wrong. Congress is charged with oversight of the President. That's the same reason that the Republicans kept calling Hillary Clinton back over and over on Benghazi. A subpoena is not a search warrant that requires a finding of probable cause before issuing. The reason for granting a subpoena is that it might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the grounds for challenging it are fairly limited, as Trump is rapidly discovering in court.

Posted: **Fri May 24, 2019 9:12 am**

silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: Charge him with something specific and let it go through the courts.
Perhaps you don't understand the basics of Constitutional law. We don't have a monarchy where the president can do no wrong. Congress is charged with oversight of the President. That's the same reason that the Republicans kept calling Hillary Clinton back over and over on Benghazi. A subpoena is not a search warrant that requires a finding of probable cause before issuing. The reason for granting a subpoena is that it might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the grounds for challenging it are fairly limited, as Trump is rapidly discovering in court.

I'm not the one who wrote that. --Bob

Posted: **Fri May 24, 2019 9:47 am**

Bob78164 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: Charge him with something specific and let it go through the courts.
Perhaps you don't understand the basics of Constitutional law. We don't have a monarchy where the president can do no wrong. Congress is charged with oversight of the President. That's the same reason that the Republicans kept calling Hillary Clinton back over and over on Benghazi. A subpoena is not a search warrant that requires a finding of probable cause before issuing. The reason for granting a subpoena is that it might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the grounds for challenging it are fairly limited, as Trump is rapidly discovering in court.
I'm not the one who wrote that. --Bob

Mea Culpa; I get confused quoting things sometime.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 8:54 am**

Donald J. Trump wrote:North Korea fired off some small weapons, which disturbed some of my people, and others, but not me. I have confidence that Chairman Kim will keep his promise to me, & also smiled when he called Swampman Joe Biden a low IQ individual, & worse. Perhaps that’s sending me a signal?

Here's Trump siding with "Rocket Man" Kim Jong Un against both his own National Security Adviser and a Democratic opponent in a single tweet. Undeniably bizarre.

Posted: **Tue May 28, 2019 8:53 pm**

I was actually sticking up for Sleepy Joe Biden while on foreign soil. Kim Jong Un called him a “low IQ idiot,” and many other things, whereas I related the quote of Chairman Kim as a much softer “low IQ individual.” Who could possibly be upset with that?

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2019 5:55 am**

Tweeted:

The Greatest Presidential Harassment in history. After spending $40,000,000 over two dark years, with unlimited access, people, resources and cooperation, highly conflicted Robert Mueller would have brought charges, if he had ANYTHING, but there were no charges to bring!

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2019 6:44 am**

Vandal wrote:Tweeted:

The Greatest Presidential Harassment in history. After spending $40,000,000 over two dark years, with unlimited access, people, resources and cooperation, highly conflicted Robert Mueller would have brought charges, if he had ANYTHING, but there were no charges to bring!

Downright treason is what it was, trying to remove a duly elected president from office for no reason other than the folks pushing the investigation wanted someone else in office.

The Democrats acted and continue to act like the governments in power in a banana republic. No wonder they are the ones pushing for open borders and paths to citizenship for people who broke out laws. They seem to care more for folks who are not US citizens that folks who are. They want folks from banana republics to vote here.

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2019 7:45 am**

BackInTex wrote:Downright treason is what it was, trying to remove a duly elected president from office for no reason other than the folks pushing the investigation wanted someone else in office.

Since you and Trump like to throw the word treason around as apparently as synonym for anyone who wants to investigate Trump, it's actually the only crime defined in the Constitution, and with good reason, because the Constitution was adopted at a time when people were understandably suspicious about some of their fellow countrymen's possible loyalties to England. Here's the definition: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Treason requires either a confession in open court or the testimony of two witnesses for a conviction. Only a handful of people have ever been convicted of treason (including John Brown and Tokyo Rose), none since the aftermath of World War II.

Other countries have a broader definition of treason and use it to include various types of political protest or uprising, peaceful or otherwise. Adolf Hitler was convicted of treason for his role in the Beer Hall Putsch in the early 1920s. So were Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI.

And when you stop to consider that, if Trump is impeached and convicted, he'll be replaced by Mike Pence, not exactly a liberal icon, then these claims about Democratic motives in getting rid of Trump are clearly baseless.

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2019 8:39 am**

silverscreenselect wrote: And when you stop to consider that, if Trump is impeached and convicted, he'll be replaced by Mike Pence, not exactly a liberal icon, then these claims about Democratic motives in getting rid of Trump are clearly baseless.

Um, no. Pence is not the duly elected president. Pence is not the person the electorate voted, per the Constitution, to be president.

Perhaps treason is not a fully accurate term (even forgetting about the US Constitution's definition). Perhaps sedition fits better. You can quibble about the words used. I'll argue about the acts perpetrated.

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2019 9:14 am**

BackInTex wrote:
Vandal wrote:Tweeted:

The Greatest Presidential Harassment in history. After spending $40,000,000 over two dark years, with unlimited access, people, resources and cooperation, highly conflicted Robert Mueller would have brought charges, if he had ANYTHING, but there were no charges to bring!
Downright treason is what it was, trying to remove a duly elected president from office for no reason other than the folks pushing the investigation wanted someone else in office.

The Democrats acted and continue to act like the governments in power in a banana republic. No wonder they are the ones pushing for open borders and paths to citizenship for people who broke out laws. They seem to care more for folks who are not US citizens that folks who are. They want folks from banana republics to vote here.

No. Trying to remove a President because of a blow job fits that description. Donny was all too happy to accept help from a hostile foreign government to get elected, and he has been busily repaying that help for the last year and a half.

Funny you should refer to banana republics. Because it's in banana republics where you see people get fired because they are investigating those in power. It's in banana republics where those in power rely on lies to the citizens to try to conceal their crimes. It's in banana republics where the legislature cares more about partisan power than it does about the good of the country. Justin Amash understands that, but he appears to be the only Republican member of Congress who does, or at least who is willing to act on that understanding. --Bob

Posted: **Fri May 31, 2019 10:30 am**

Tweet:

90% of the Drugs coming into the United States come through Mexico & our Southern Border. 80,000 people died last year, 1,000,000 people ruined. This has gone on for many years & nothing has been done about it. We have a 100 Billion Dollar Trade Deficit with Mexico. It’s time!

Posted: **Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:28 am**

Donald Trump on his state visit to London wrote:Sadiq Khan, who by all accounts has done a terrible job as Mayor of London, has been foolishly “nasty” to the visiting President of the United States, by far the most important ally of the United Kingdom. He is a stone cold loser who should focus on crime in London, not me. Kahn reminds me very much of our very dumb and incompetent Mayor of NYC, de Blasio, who has also done a terrible job - only half his height. In any event, I look forward to being a great friend to the United Kingdom, and am looking very much forward to my visit.

By the way, on their state visits to England, Presidents Bush and Obama stayed in Buckingham Palace, which has some 50 guest rooms available. Trump isn't staying there because the palace is "undergoing renovations."

WWTBAM Bored

Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

Re: Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread