What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Brenthoven said:
I will defend his RIGHT to do this, but will not defend the EO itself.
Click to expand...

what is the point of continuing to say that

NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT TRUMP DOES NOT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO LEGAL THINGS. This is your brave stance? Seriously, you are not making some kind of profound statement here.

We are arguing that what he is doing has questionable legality (but that will be decided by the courts, not us), but regardless of legality, it is morally wrong, unamerican, and counter productive in ensuring our safety.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

aparch said:
Did anyone post that Trump's first raid on al-Queda resulted in the death of a US Serviceman and one helicopter loss, but he "got 14 of those b*stards!"
Click to expand...


isn't killing 14 terrorists like an average afternoon in the drone program?
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

BassAle said:
what is the point of continuing to say that

NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT TRUMP DOES NOT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO LEGAL THINGS. This is your brave stance? Seriously, you are not making some kind of profound statement here.

We are arguing that what he is doing is has questionable legality (but that will be decided by the courts, not us), but regardless of legality, it is morally wrong, unamerican, and counter productive in ensuring our safety.
Click to expand...

I could call you a hypocrite for defending another legal action that is morally wrong, but I won't. :)
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Or, you know, we could maintain an independent justice department.

Just a thought.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

BassAle said:
what is the point of continuing to say that

NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT TRUMP DOES NOT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO LEGAL THINGS. This is your brave stance? Seriously, you are not making some kind of profound statement here.

We are arguing that what he is doing is has questionable legality (but that will be decided by the courts, not us), but regardless of legality, it is morally wrong, unamerican, and counter productive in ensuring our safety.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's legal.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Just a reminder, according to the NYT, the justice department can no longer issue foreign surveillance warrants without Yates or a new attorney general being confirmed.

Those sound important.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

BassAle said:
what is the point of continuing to say that

NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT TRUMP DOES NOT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO LEGAL THINGS. This is your brave stance? Seriously, you are not making some kind of profound statement here.

We are arguing that what he is doing is has questionable legality (but that will be decided by the courts, not us), but regardless of legality, it is morally wrong, unamerican, and counter productive in ensuring our safety.
Click to expand...
Because I was being ripped for stating the exact same statement, since some folks cannot distinguish "legally right" and "morally right." One can rip the POTUS on moral grounds, but one CANNOT rip him on legal grounds, and many are doing both. Again, assuming what he is doing is legal.

The acting AG acted on her own. Can't do that. I agree with her stance, but as Dillo said, if she felt she couldn't act within the EO, due to moral issues, she should have resigned. Instead, she gets fired. It sucks, but that's life.
 
Brenthoven said:
Because I was being ripped for stating the exact same statement, since some folks cannot distinguish "legally right" and "morally right." One can rip the POTUS on moral grounds, but one CANNOT rip him on legal grounds, and many are doing both. Again, assuming what he is doing is legal.

The acting AG acted on her own. Can't do that. I agree with her stance, but as Dillo said, if she felt she couldn't act within the EO, due to moral issues, she should have resigned. Instead, she gets fired. It sucks, but that's life.
Click to expand...

I suspect she won't be the last one to go while standing up for what is right. This week.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Just a reminder, according to the NYT, the justice department can no longer issue foreign surveillance warrants without Yates or a new attorney general being confirmed.

Those sound important.
Click to expand...

<img src=http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/stewart.gif>

This is turning into the Blues Brothers police car crash scene where more and more cars keep crashing into the pile of wrecked police cars almost endlessly.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Brenthoven said:
Because I was being ripped for stating the exact same statement, since some folks cannot distinguish "legally right" and "morally right." One can rip the POTUS on moral grounds, but one CANNOT rip him on legal grounds, and many are doing both. Again, assuming what he is doing is legal.

The acting AG acted on her own. Can't do that. I agree with her stance, but as Dillo said, if she felt she couldn't act within the EO, due to moral issues, she should have resigned. Instead, she gets fired. It sucks, but that's life.
Click to expand...

Or you know, the justice department could remain an entity independent of the presidency.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Brenthoven said:
One can rip the POTUS on moral grounds, but one CANNOT rip him on legal grounds, and many are doing both. Again, assuming what he is doing is legal.
Click to expand...

The thing is lots of people are unsure if what he is doing is legal, so I call bull**** on your brain dead 'cannot rip on on legal grounds' arguments. One of my senators, a republican, said it is probably unconstitutional. I'd value her opinion on the legality of it more than I would yours. So there is that. Then there is the fact that there is actually no point in what you are saying. You are saying he has the legal right to do legal things. Duh. But we aren't even sure if what he is doing is legal, and we ARE sure what he is doing is morally wrong, unamerican, and according to experts WILL NOT MAKE US SAFER. I think I can speak for most people when I say our outrage is not directed towards the legality of the situation. I would be glad if it is ruled unconstitutional because 1) it is a validation for what I believe are American values and 2) it puts an end to this immediately so we can move on to fight something else. I will still fight this even if it isn't thrown out in courts, because resisting this unamerican action is the right thing to do no matter its legality.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

aparch said:
<img src=http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/stewart.gif>

This is turning into the Blues Brothers police car crash scene where more and more cars keep crashing into the pile of wrecked police cars almost endlessly.
Click to expand...

This is like a bad spy novel...where is Harrison Ford when you need him!

On another subject...dx, Brent and Dillo you guys need to stop coming at each other so hard. You are all ugly children with equally bad taste in beer ;) :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top