Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Trump cancelled ethics training for staff

Hey, I'm not a Maori.

I'm not good at rugby, or beating people with clubs made of whalebone.
 
Entire families were torn apart in the extensive ICE raids he ordered. Plenty of stories in the media right now of long time illegal (but not criminal) residents who work hard & pay taxes, and raised kids born here that are now being sent home - or locked up in for-profit prisons and made to work for free. their kids will become wards of the state.

The folks at Salon don't necessarily agree that Trump is substantially different than Obama was.

Obama did make some changes in 2013 that reduced the number of deportations of those who hadn't committed crimes other than being in the country without authorization; but those deportations had happened before, and a the discretion ICE agents, did continue to a degree.

ICE operated under Obama for eight years; Trump has been office for six weeks.

There have been a handful of significant ICE raids during these first forty odd days.

It's euphemistic to describe a generalized comparison as "premature."

So we'll see.

As far as the travel ban, it seemed to me to have been implemented in kind of a "ready, fire aim," manner. Some people were inconvenienced who shouldn't have been.

I thought that the roll out of the ACA was also done in a "ready, fire aim" manner; a la, Nancy Pelosi "we have to pass it to see what's in it."

Obamacare fixed a couple things that needed to be fixing; it also fixed a whole of shit that was working pretty well, which has also inconvenienced a lot of people, too.

So we'll see.
 
Just wanted to respond to this part because it's confusing. I'm talking about something Trump ACTUALLY DID.

That's off the table because hypothetically if a democrat did the same thing, you think I'd try to argue it was okay? I guess no one is allowed to discuss politics here then...

Right and your response was anyone who disagrees doesn't understand English. That is how you discuss it!?!

. . . and things you say he ACTUALLY DID may not end up violating the Constitution so no it isn't off the table no matter how much you would like it to be. It really isn't up to you and CNN.

So, again, hypothetically, yeah it's the same thing. Discussing both as speculation is perfectly fine.
 
Right and your response was anyone who disagrees doesn't understand English. That is how you discuss it!?!

. . . and things you say he ACTUALLY DID may not end up violating the Constitution so no it isn't off the table no matter how much you would like it to be. It really isn't up to you and CNN.

So, again, hypothetically, yeah it's the same thing. Discussing both as speculation is perfectly fine.

Emolument clause... read it.

"Emolument" ... look it up.

What Trump did... read about it.
 
Emolument clause... read it.

"Emolument" ... look it up.

What Trump did... read about it.

Could you be a more condescending jerk? I doubt it.

I know exactly what it says:

?No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.?

My reading is that it is up to you and your ilk to prove it. If you link another conjecture about what has taken place rather than definitive proof of an impeachable offense, you lose all respect and the argument.

. . .and you can read it also you tool - you obviously don't know every damn thing about it. There are questions both legal and ethical concerning whether it applies or not.

link to a huff po article for you

Even a biased handling of the issue leaves open the fact that there are still questions that have no final answer yet.

I stand by my statement, tripling down as it were, it is only impeachable under the Constitution in your eyes, because it isn't some libtard getting money for speeches for favorable rulings, but rather a hated Republican.
 
Back
Top