Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

So, your argument is the dude who sold himself on power and prestige was the cheap option?
That's just a sad level of denial.
It's also irrelevant.
He is not ALLOWED to make money off the office, be it a dime or a million bucks. If he makes a DIME he is violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution.
He is engaged in a constitutionally criminal offence, and you want to give him a pass.
So much for your constitution eh?

Ok, he owned these hotels well before getting into politics. That was one business he was in before politics. Suppose the the Trump hotel is the cheapest or only choice. What should the govt. do? Spend more for someplace else, or set up a campground in a parking lot someplace?
Oh, and might I point out that it illegal for an officeholder to give things to people? Providing free rooms is ILLEGAL.

IT doesn't make sense. What do you think the solution is? Oh, and just a cheap excuse to say "Trump shouldn't be president" doesn't count.

You don't understand your rights, or that they come with responsibilities as well.

That is hilarious, coming from a guy who thinks that the US taxpayers should be financially responsible for the bad choices of not only our own idiots but those of other countries as well.

[Gatefan1976]

Ok, he owned these hotels well before getting into politics. That was one business he was in before politics. Suppose the the Trump hotel is the cheapest or only choice.

It's NOT it's DEMOSTRABLY NOT.
A quick google search will prove you wrong.
In other words, you are defending a constitutional violation by the POTUS, not in theory, but in legal practice.
There is no "supposing" here, it is a DIRECT VIOLATION OF YOUR HIGHEST LAWS.
What more do you need?
Some Emails?
It STILL violates the emoluments clause weather he is the cheapest or not

What should the govt. do? Spend more for someplace else, or set up a campground in a parking lot someplace?

BS question, assuming that there is no cheaper alternative and using it as the basis of a question.
Classic fence post moving.

Oh, and might I point out that it illegal for an officeholder to give things to people? Providing free rooms is ILLEGAL.

Oh, and might I point out that it is illegal for an officeholder to RECIEVE things from people? Providing cash for rooms is ILLEGAL.
Asking for "favours" is ILLEGAL
Promising pardons if you beak the law is ILLEGAL.
Saying you have the absolute authority to pardon yourself is ILLEGAL.
ALL of these things, trump has asked, or demanded from his staff and allies, and all of them are the actions of a dictator.

IT doesn't make sense. What do you think the solution is? Oh, and just a cheap excuse to say "Trump shouldn't be president" doesn't count.

It makes no sense because somewhere under all that stupid, you still believe in the USA, and you know trump is not, and does not represent the USA.
Oh, and it wasn't "trump should not be pres because trump, I gave you my reasons, several times. I even considered how much worse it could get under Pence.

That is hilarious, coming from a guy who thinks that the US taxpayers should be financially responsible for the bad choices of not only our own idiots but those of other countries as well.

I only ask you to be responsible for your own actions. I don't recall asking you to be responsible for the EU and it's decisions. I don't recall me asking you to be responsible for Australia's decisions.
I DO however recall saying that when the US destabilized Iraq, that was YOUR mess to clean up.
Also when you did it in Veitnam
And Korea,
And Afganistan
And Iran
And South Africa

You know, the stuff your lot started.

[Annoyed]

It's NOT it's DEMOSTRABLY NOT.
A quick google search will prove you wrong.
In other words, you are defending a constitutional violation by the POTUS, not in theory, but in legal practice.
There is no "supposing" here, it is a DIRECT VIOLATION OF YOUR HIGHEST LAWS.
What more do you need?
Some Emails?
It STILL violates the emoluments clause weather he is the cheapest or not

BS question, assuming that there is no cheaper alternative and using it as the basis of a question.
Classic fence post moving.

Oh, and might I point out that it is illegal for an officeholder to RECIEVE things from people? Providing cash for rooms is ILLEGAL.
Asking for "favours" is ILLEGAL
Promising pardons if you beak the law is ILLEGAL.
Saying you have the absolute authority to pardon yourself is ILLEGAL.
ALL of these things, trump has asked, or demanded from his staff and allies, and all of them are the actions of a dictator.

You'll have to provide proof for those claims. And not something published on Vox or some other leftist loony bin.

I ask you again. Trump walks into the game with numerous hotels in high-demand areas. This was his private business, before he got bored and ran for office. There will be times when his hotels are the best or only choice. But it's illegal. How do you proceed? Or do you stop whatever it is cold.

Seems to me the endpoint in that, according to you is that since there is no legal path, Trump can't be allowed to be president.

It makes no sense because somewhere under all that stupid, you still believe in the USA, and you know trump is not, and does not represent the USA.

You can lose arguments about the EC till the cows come home (and fart methane all over the nice, clean environment) but at the end of the day, he DOES represent much of the US population, otherwise we would be raking Shrillary over the coals. And the Democrats would have a lock on 2020, rather than playing impeachment 'cause they can't beat him.

[Annoyed]

And now, back to excoriating Democrats.

This link is satire, based on Beto's ideas for taxing churches. Beto O'Rourke said he would revoke tax-exempt status from religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage

https://babylonbee.com/news/beto-pro...bill-of-wrongs

LOS ANGELES, CA—Beto O'Rourke came under fire for his attack on religious liberty at the LGBTQ+++ town hall last night.

But O'Rourke stuck to his guns---metaphorical guns, of course---and fired right back (again, only in metaphor).

"See, this is the problem with this country," he said. "You propose taking away guns, curbing free speech, and taxing people for their religious beliefs, and people immediately jump to that old, archaic, so-called 'Bill of Rights.'" At this moment, he used finger quotes. "That's why, when I am president [this got some chuckles], my first action in office will be to rename the Bill of Rights the Bill of Wrongs."

O'Rourke pointed out that the Bill of Rights actually has a bunch of injustices and wrongs: for one, it doesn't allow O'Rourke to take everybody's private property. For another thing, it doesn't force everyone to believe the same things O'Rourke does. Finally, it allows people to say things that O'Rourke does not like.

"The so-called 'Bill of Rights' is actually a long list of roadblocks to progress," he said. The audience cheered wildly. One transgender black woman started rolling around on the floor as though she were in a Pentecostal church service. Don Lemon fainted of joy.

At publishing time, O'Rourke had committed to forcing Americans to quarter British Redcoats as one of his first acts in office.

The really scary part is that I'm quite sure a lot of lefties agree with this, for real.

Now, if he really does want to amend the Constitution, a guy by the name of Lewis Napper had a far better idea.

THE BILL OF NO RIGHTS
by Lewis Napper


We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our descendants, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other proponents of socialism and or authoritarianism.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that many people are confused by the Bill of Rights and apparently require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country was based upon freedom, and that means freedom for everyone-not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of dolts, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free of harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who will achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free healthcare, regardless of what Hillary thinks. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public heath care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you won't have the right to big screen color TV or life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

[Gatefan1976]

You'll have to provide proof for those claims. And not something published on Vox or some other leftist loony bin.

Try the house of representatives, they are required by law to provide information on what they do.

I ask you again. Trump walks into the game with numerous hotels in high-demand areas. This was his private business, before he got bored and ran for office. There will be times when his hotels are the best or only choice. But it's illegal. How do you proceed? Or do you stop whatever it is cold.

He should have followed tradition and put his holdings in a blind trust, He did not, so he brought this on himself.
ALL of it.

Seems to me the endpoint in that, according to you is that since there is no legal path, Trump can't be allowed to be president.

Wrong, as usual for you. There was a legal path, and a constitutional path, but your boy ignored them, now he has to pay for ignoring them.

You can lose arguments about the EC till the cows come home (and fart methane all over the nice, clean environment) but at the end of the day, he DOES represent much of the US population,

A shrinking minority is what he represents, and has done since being in office. He LOST the popular vote, and you can make up as much cow dung as you want about that, but we have the facts, you just have a sad, outdated system.

otherwise we would be raking Shrillary over the coals. And the Democrats would have a lock on 2020, rather than playing impeachment 'cause they can't beat him.

Can I put this in my new garden?
Cause the level of **** is sure to make the new plants grow.
When POTUS does the wrong thing, it is up to the house to draft articles of impeachment. That is what they are doing, same as they did with Nixon and Clinton, and both were deserved.
If Shillary was POTUS, and she pulled the same ****, she too should be impeached.

[aretood2]

I've heard that "hotel" argument before. What if Trump's hotel is the cheapest alternative? Should the government pay more to someone else? Or what if his hotel is the only one available?

His hotel is not the cheapest, not by far. Have you seen the one in Scotland that he is having the Air Force use? Does that look like a cheap hotel to you?

Or is the real point of this that he shouldn't be president, with because he has these things as the reason?

The issue is that he didn't divest. This is how corruption works. You make the government spend on your investments, like how he pays his own resorts (Mar-a-Lago) for his use as president as well funneling other government officials there. He picks his own properties (Business properties, not personal properties) for government activities whenever they are available. The State then pays money to those properties for its use. Same thing with trade decisions, he has not made any decisions to the detriment of his businesses in regards to trade and he never will. But he's okay with sinking anyone else's business. Then there's the issue of insider trading and nepotism. The list goes on and on.

I think you're confusled. The current impeachment noise is supposedly over the telephone call to Ukraine. It has nothing to do with taxation, finances and such.

And Bill Clinton was being investigated over fullying around with a consenting adult which wasn't illegal at all, but that didn't stop the GOP, did it?

The left has been after his tax returns since forever. There are several cases in NY where the state is trying to get at them too. This is just a fishing expedition, where they hope they can see something. They have no probable cause to obtain that pesky warrant.
Different ballpark.

A warrant was filed, I think more than one...what are you talking about?

Someone who wishes to exercise his rights?

Trump is the first to say "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about". None of the other candidates refused to give out their tax returns...so I guess they were honest businessman and Trump is the only dishonest businessman?

That is hilarious, coming from a guy who thinks that the US taxpayers should be financially responsible for the bad choices of not only our own idiots but those of other countries as well.

But it wasn't other countries who messed up those places. It was the US. I don't know why you keep ignoring the history involved here. This is how I know that you really don't care about "personal responsibility" because when it involves you paying up, you all of a sudden don't believe in it.

[Gatefan1976]

Critical thinking is beyond this chump Tood.
When you demand "accurate sources" and then link conspiracy pages as proof, you know you are dealing with a moron.

[Gatefan1976]

No comment Annoyed?
Guess you just failed in basic fact checking.

[Falcon Horus]

Holy ****... the letter was real... ... Oh boy... ...The Onion couldn't even make this one up, I guess.

"Is This Real?": Trump Sends Third-Grade Reading-Level Letter To Erdogan

The answer is, "Yes, it's real." -- puts The Onion right out of business. They can never top that.
And Erdogan chucked it in the bin. Probably after a good long laugh...

[Annoyed]

Try the house of representatives, they are required by law to provide information on what they do.

Oh, really. Then whu is Pelosi & the Democrats trying to hold their impeachment behind closed doors? No vote in the House, no public hearings, no identification of the supposed witness/whistleblower, no nothing. They are just trying to railroad it through.

What is the point anyway? They have to know it's d.o.a. in the Senate. So I'll leave it to you to figure out what they are really up to.

He should have followed tradition and put his holdings in a blind trust, He did not, so he brought this on himself.
ALL of it.

Tradition? Or legal requirement? Tradition. And there is your answer; there is no legal requirement to adhere to tradition.

A shrinking minority is what he represents, and has done since being in office. He LOST the popular vote, and you can make up as much cow dung as you want about that, but we have the facts, you just have a sad, outdated system.

But that IS the system. It is in place, has been used for a very long time, and is not going to be changed. Deal with it.

Can I put this in my new garden?
Cause the level of **** is sure to make the new plants grow.
When POTUS does the wrong thing, it is up to the house to draft articles of impeachment. That is what they are doing, same as they did with Nixon and Clinton, and both were deserved.
If Shillary was POTUS, and she pulled the same ****, she too should be impeached.

You can put whatever you want in your garden, subject to local restrictions, of course. No guarantees about what will grow, however.

And you can't possibly compare the treatment of Shrillary and Trump. The media, the "deep state" and numerous others are clearly biased and in fact some folks in these government offices took outright action to benefit Shrillary.

[SoulReaver]

What is the point anyway? They have to know it's d.o.a. in the Senate.

the point is to show how those in power in this Godvernment go unpunished & are above the law (may voters remember in 2020)

And you can't possibly compare the treatment of Shrillary and Trump. The media, the "deep state" and numerous others are clearly biased and in fact some folks in these government offices took outright action to benefit Shrillary.

no the media actually support Trump (even CNN MSNBC CBS etc.) and the Supreme Deep State also support Trump

[Annoyed]

the point is to show how those in power in this Godvernment go unpunished & are above the law (may voters remember in 2020)

no the media actually support Trump (even CNN MSNBC CBS etc.) and the Supreme Deep State also support Trump

Sleeping in class again, I take it?

BREAKING: New leaked video from inside CNN:

President Jeff Zucker tells employees to push "impeachment" and that all of CNN's stories should be about "moves towards impeachment"

One of CNN's employees says Zucker has a "personal vendetta against Trump"pic.twitter.com/nu8fkfsXDk

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 14, 2019

Never heard of Peter Strzok or Lisa Page? ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_...#Text_messages

The report revealed additional texts hostile to Donald Trump by Strzok. In early August 2016, after Page asked Strzok, "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!", Strzok responded: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

And we're still waiting on the results of Barr's investigation.

[SoulReaver]

Sleeping in class again, I take it?



Never heard of Peter Strzok or Lisa Page? ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_...#Text_messages

yeah they're the 2 federal cops who supposedly had useful info on Trump...yet never used it

that's almost like Comey aka. the election-****er who despite everything he said in the end worked for Trump by helping him get elected

And we're still waiting on the results of Barr's investigation.

tbh I don't give a flyingf what happens to these 2 or to Comey at best they were useless at worst they were detrimental to Clinton's campaign (when he's done with them I hope he in turn gets investigated)

I'm more concerned about the Godvernment going after real political opponents like Biden

[Gatefan1976]

Oh, really. Then whu is Pelosi & the Democrats trying to hold their impeachment behind closed doors? No vote in the House, no public hearings, no identification of the supposed witness/whistleblower, no nothing. They are just trying to railroad it through.

An impeachment inquiry is NOT a TRIAL, it is the investigative phase and NO trial happens without discovery beforehand. They are following the law based on constitutional guidelines. I don't know how many times I have had to explain this to you. In a normal case, the prosecution gathers witnesses and information to decide if a case should go ahead, and they don't make ANY of that public.
You see it as unfair, but that's the law, based on your own constitution.

What is the point anyway? They have to know it's d.o.a. in the Senate. So I'll leave it to you to figure out what they are really up to.

They are doing what the law requires, same as when Clinton had an impeachment investigation. If it dies in the senate (which is the actual trial) then it dies in the senate. What you are essentially saying is that the president is above the constitution, which is wrong. They are doing it because that is what your constitution demands. You constantly denying that, is just ignorant.

Tradition? Or legal requirement? Tradition. And there is your answer; there is no legal requirement to adhere to tradition.

So, when a Democrat becomes president, refuses to show their tax returns, goes for pay to play with foreign powers, enriches themselves on the presidency, refuses to divorce from their businesses, your answer is "no legal requirement, nothing to see here"?
If a Democrat pulled that crap, you would be screaming murder, and so would I because it's a violation of the law and the constitution, and I don't care if you have a R or a D or a I next to your name, it's illegal for ALL of them.

But that IS the system. It is in place, has been used for a very long time, and is not going to be changed. Deal with it.

I have, trump represents a shrinking base, deal with it.

And you can't possibly compare the treatment of Shrillary and Trump. The media, the "deep state" and numerous others are clearly biased and in fact some folks in these government offices took outright action to benefit Shrillary.

how much tinfoil did you go through to come up with that?

[Gatefan1976]

Now for the latest constitutional destroying act of trump:
https://www.afr.com/world/north-amer...0191018-p531u8

Emoluments clause violation 101.