Dangers of a Trump Presidency--Part 7

barbarafan

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,425
Except she's done this multiple times and been called out on it each time. She knows exactly what she is doing. I don't think she should be arrested, but she absolutely should be removed from office.
I agree and they should introduce a law stating that no one can be hired by the government to work in any capacity in the white house who has previously violated the hatch act.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,822
I agree and they should introduce a law stating that no one can be hired by the government to work in any capacity in the white house who has previously violated the hatch act.
Maybe they can also introduce a significant fine that the offender has to pay until they resign or maybe they can come up with something else that will force the offender out of office/will remove them from office if they aren't fired.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,581
I agree and they should introduce a law stating that no one can be hired by the government to work in any capacity in the white house who has previously violated the hatch act.
Or that they cannot have a security clearance because they are incapable of obeying laws?
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,822
Sounds to me that Trump is lying (lucky guess)to distract from his huge mess in the interview.
I think if they lied they would have lied one way or another. Someone in that administration wants to go to war with Iran and that opportunity would have been too good to pass up on even if it hadn't coincided with the interview.
 

Peaches LaTour

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,996
The agreement with the Trump admin and Mexico is abhorrent. The U.S. bullying countries and demanding they change laws to benefit US interests is BS.
Really? The U.S., (as well as any other country) has the right to stop the flow of illegals into their country. Putting demands to/on the country who is the source of those illegals isn't "bullying" nor is it unique.

If the undesired illegal flow were from the U.S., to Mexico, Mexico would resort to the same measures.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,822
Really? The U.S., (as well as any other country) has the right to stop the flow of illegals into their country. Putting demands to/on the country who is the source of those illegals isn't "bullying" nor is it unique.

If the undesired illegal flow were from the U.S., to Mexico, Mexico would resort to the same measures.
Except that Mexico is not the source. The majority of current migrants are from El Salvador and Guatemala. Threatening Mexico isn't going to help anyone and neither would those ridiculous tariffs. That would merely hurt the US and Mexican economy and if it goes very badly, it would create a surge in undocumented immigrants from Mexico. If he wants to stop the flow of migrants, he needs to help El Salvador and Guatemala fight violence and corruption in earnest. (And no, I don't consider aide money that no one knows where it goes "in earnest").
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Three A's, T&M, P&C
Messages
48,421

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,188
Except that Mexico is not the source. The majority of current migrants are from El Salvador and Guatemala. Threatening Mexico isn't going to help anyone and neither would those ridiculous tariffs. That would merely hurt the US and Mexican economy and if it goes very badly, it would create a surge in undocumented immigrants from Mexico. If he wants to stop the flow of migrants, he needs to help El Salvador and Guatemala fight violence and corruption in earnest. (And no, I don't consider aide money that no one knows where it goes "in earnest").
You can’t help El Salvador and Guatemala in a vacuum! The gangs know the United States was helping the Anti gang police so the solution was very simple and clear for the gangs. Kill or threaten all family members of anti gang police! So US aid is bad when it comes to anti gang police
 

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,985
"Trump told the Fox News hosts, “There was Jackie O, and that’s good. But we have our own Jackie O today. It’s called Melania. Melania. We’ll call it Melania T. Okay?” "
It. Even ships are referred to as "she". :)
Jacqueline Kennedy was not, of course, Jackie O during her time as first lady. I'm guessing that nobody on Fox News pointed this out, though?
 

skatesindreams

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,504
I worry about the Trump "faithful" legitimizing positions like this:

 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,600
Jacqueline Kennedy was not, of course, Jackie O during her time as first lady. I'm guessing that nobody on Fox News pointed this out, though?
Maybe she's planning on marrying someone else whose last name starts with T when she leaves him. ha ha
Well, it goes without saying that trump is an idiot. And Michelle Obama is the closest thing we have had to a Jackie Kennedy. Nobody here is commenting on the fact that he referred to her as "it" twice. That's what jumped out at me.
 

skatingguy

Golden Team
Messages
6,040
Really? The U.S., (as well as any other country) has the right to stop the flow of illegals into their country. Putting demands to/on the country who is the source of those illegals isn't "bullying" nor is it unique.

If the undesired illegal flow were from the U.S., to Mexico, Mexico would resort to the same measures.
Except that Mexico is not the source. The majority of current migrants are from El Salvador and Guatemala. Threatening Mexico isn't going to help anyone and neither would those ridiculous tariffs. That would merely hurt the US and Mexican economy and if it goes very badly, it would create a surge in undocumented immigrants from Mexico. If he wants to stop the flow of migrants, he needs to help El Salvador and Guatemala fight violence and corruption in earnest. (And no, I don't consider aide money that no one knows where it goes "in earnest").
In addition, if anyone enters any country and claims asylum they are not illegal.
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Three A's, T&M, P&C
Messages
48,421
Here's a good article about Trump's refusal to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill.


Just a reminder of the day-to-day s__ttiness of Trump.
If we elect a democratic president in 2020, can he/she undo this injustice and move forward with the $20 Tubman bill?
 

skateboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,635
I worry about the Trump "faithful" legitimizing positions like this:

I suppose I shouldn't be shocked, but I am. Horrifying.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,600
If we elect a democratic president in 2020, can he/she undo this injustice and move forward with the $20 Tubman bill?
I've thought that about a lot of things he's undone because he is jealous of President Obama. Can the next president just undo his damage?
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,822
The GOP and WH can't agree on what a budget should look like and until they do, they won't start to negotiate with Democrats. Apparently, Mulvaney is not the GOP's favorite person during those budget meetings.


Big businesses have paid fewer taxes than anticipated.


India imposes retaliatory tariffs on almonds, apples and walnuts. They're the largest buyer of US almonds and second largest of US apples. ... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-india/india-to-impose-retaliatory-tariffs-on-28-us-goods-from-sunday-idUSKCN1TG0H0
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,822
Out of curiosity, is there a way to start an impeachment inquiry without the blessing of Pelosi?
Apparently, it's not entirely clear but likely possible.


The full House voted for resolutions directing the House Judiciary Committee to open the inquiries into Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton. But it is not clear whether that step is strictly necessary, because impeachment proceedings against other officials, like a former Federal District Court judge in 1989, began at the committee level, congressional aides say.

In 1998, the Clinton resolution granted the House Judiciary Committee certain powers to subpoena for documents and testimony. Since then, however, House rules have been changed to enhance the subpoena powers of Representative Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, so that step may now be redundant.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,188
Out of curiosity, is there a way to start an impeachment inquiry without the blessing of Pelosi?
The democrats or republicans give speaker authority to make decisions and respect that but they can be ignored! If 217 democrats and Amash got a discharge petition to pass impeachment it can be done today
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 9)

Top