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

BassAle said:
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.
Click to expand...

However, you cannot rip folks for standing up for legal processes. IF this act is deemed legal (although morally wrong in the majority's eyes), there is no basis for calling BS on a legal standpoint. You can call BS on a moral standpoint, and I'd be with you. There IS a difference. And, AGAIN, some people, including you, are not separating those facts. THAT is where I have an issue.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Handyman said:
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
Click to expand...

Oh yeah? Well your face is dumb.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Christing hell, I just read the White House's statement on Yates. Just say "Acting Attorney General Yates has been relieved of her duties" and move on. But nooooooo...

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.
Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

This, more than anything, will be Trump's undoing. He has no filter, no sense of when to stop. He's legally in the right here, and could easily say what I said above. However, he just HAS to scorch the Earth.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Brenthoven said:
However, you cannot rip folks for standing up for legal processes. IF this act is deemed legal (although morally wrong in the majority's eyes), there is no basis for calling BS on a legal standpoint. You can call BS on a moral standpoint, and I'd be with you. There IS a difference. And, AGAIN, some people, including you, are not separating those facts. THAT is where I have an issue.
Click to expand...

The administration is 0-5 in district courts and has an entire state suing them.

I'd say it's on fairly shaky legal grounds right now.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Armadillo said:
Christing hell, I just read the White House's statement on Yates. Just say "Acting Attorney General Yates has been relieved of her duties" and move on. But nooooooo...



This, more than anything, will be Trump's undoing. He has no filter, no sense of when to stop. He's legally in the right here, and could easily say what I said above. However, he just HAS to scorch the Earth.
Click to expand...

You are the best poster on USCHO

:D ;)
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

dxmnkd316 said:
The administration is 0-5 in district courts and has an entire state suing them.

I'd say it's on fairly shaky legal grounds right now.
Click to expand...

Then it'll all play out just fine in the long run.

And didn't multi-quote, but Dillo's bit on that BS press release is spot on. State the facts, leave out opinion and spin. And I agree, this will be Trump's undoing.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

dxmnkd316 said:
This



Does not jive with this
Click to expand...

The DOJ enforces the laws. That's it. That's what they do. President Trump, HOWEVER YOU OR I MAY FEEL ABOUT IT, issued an order that has been declared lawful by the Office of Legal Council. Therefore, the DOJ's job is to enforce the order. Period. What I don't want is a *politicized* DOJ, which is what was happening under Yates. She was making enforcement decisions based on how she felt, not about whether something is legal or not.

And nothing I've said here has contradicted anything else I've said.

Trump's a jerk, the order was badly written and implemented, the order is legal, Yates should have been fired for refusing to uphold a legal order, Trump's a sausage-belching jerk.

All of these statements are accurate.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

No, trumps undoing is going to be the spotlight department, the New York Times, the WaPo, or Wikileaks publishing evidence that the 19% stake in the Steele (the peeing prostitutes dossier) Trump was supposedly promised was the 19.5% stake that was just sold in December.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Armadillo said:
The DOJ enforces the laws. That's it. That's what they do. President Trump, HOWEVER YOU OR I MAY FEEL ABOUT IT, issued an order that has been declared lawful by the Office of Legal Council. Therefore, the DOJ's job is to enforce the order. Period. What I don't want is a *politicized* DOJ, which is what was happening under Yates. She was making enforcement decisions based on how she felt, not about whether something is legal or not.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's the same reason Obama didn't fire Comey in June. You want a justice department that is independent of the executive branch. You don't want it being seen as a gestapo out to enforce one man's diktats.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

aparch said:
It's as if the Trump Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam.
Click to expand...

I'm stealing this.

Also:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s4GAj2v4BIE
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

dxmnkd316 said:
Wrong. It's the same reason Obama didn't fire Comey in June. You want a justice department that is independent of the executive branch. You don't want it being seen as a gestapo out to enforce one man's diktats.
Click to expand...

That's cute. But that's not how the current laws work.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

dxmnkd316 said:
Wrong. It's the same reason Obama didn't fire Comey in June. You want a justice department that is independent of the executive branch. You don't want it being seen as a gestapo out to enforce one man's diktats.
Click to expand...
The order was deemed legal. Until such time that a court rules it is not, then the DOJ enforces the law. I don't get what's so hard about this.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Brenthoven said:
That's cute. But that's not how the current laws work.
Click to expand...

I think it's <strike>cute</strike> horrifying that you are ok with situations where the United States Attorney General is afraid to stand up to the White House when the AG believes the White House does something potentially illegal.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

dxmnkd316 said:
I think it's <strike>cute</strike> horrifying that you are ok with situations where the United States Attorney General is afraid to stand up to the White House when the AG believes the White House does something potentially illegal.
Click to expand...
The answer in such a case is for the AG to resign and go full-frontal. You just can't have an AG refusing to enforce legally-passed laws/orders simply based on personal opinions. That would be anarchy.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Armadillo said:
The answer in such a case is for the AG to resign and go full-frontal. You just can't have an AG refusing to enforce legally-passed laws/orders simply based on personal opinions. That would be anarchy.
Click to expand...

Based on legal opinion. It would not be anarchy. It would be a check on the executive branch and the legality of a law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top