Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V
Options
Comments
-
His advertisement for cash went out. He has what he wants so now he needs to avoid punishment for threatening a judge.
The man knows how to appeal to the Trump base. He got in imagery for shooting a perceived enemy of the people, he got Hillary a mention, he got Benghazi in there and that it is all controlled by the Deep State. I can see him making serious money off of that.0 -
Naked nepotism towards a blatantly unqualified, inexperienced family member. The gall with which this "draining the swamp" manifests itself is pretty remarkable. Ivanka Trump should be nowhere to be seen at any official White House outing, yet her appearance (for instance) at last week's middle East conference was an affront to the norms of any adult minded democracy.
She's obviously being groomed for other offices, and while I laughed at Samantha Bee's once snarky remark that the first female president would be Ivanka, I suspect she might end up being quite prophetic.
Good week for Ivanka, she is powering her way thru all the slime attacks, as she moves on with working on substantive issues, and gaining the real geo-political experience that will be invaluable in the years to come.
Only last week she was launching and heading up 'The Womens Empowerment Program' , 50Million being directed to women in poorer nations
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/02/13/694301566/ivanka-trump-launches-50-million-program-to-empower-women-in-the-workplace
And then Ivanka has to face off against Merkel at the Munich Security Conference. Thats the sort of experience one cant get in College and will stand to her in her career ahead.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/02/18/angela-merkel-ivanka-trump-german-cars-security-threat-sot-sanger-nr-vpx.cnn
And whilst she wont ultimately get the UN role, just to be talked of as a potential candidate is a sure sign her trajectory is on the up.
That lady is going places.
Meanwhile Obama the hero of the left, his daughter is caught necking a bottle of wine but the pool , under age drinking tut tut tut ... its okay free pass for her, she is liberal and the daughter of you know who..0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33932
Good week for Ivanka, she is powering her way thru all the slime attacks, as she moves on with working on substantive issues, and gaining the real geo-political experience that will be invaluable in the years to come.
So nepotism towards the unqualified is fine with you, so long as it's the right team then? Fine, at least you're honest.
Though affecting admiration for powering through "the slime" then take some personal digs at Obama's daughters?
Hypocrite.
This behaviour with Ivanka is textbook nepotism and the type you see with tinpot dictatorships in Africa et al, it's sad the US is sliding into this mundane anitdemocratic behaviour - sadder still you would admire it.
And all the "heading" of programs won't reset the recent DoJ reclassification of domestic abuse - you're an even bigger hyporcrie if you can't see the dissonance.0 -
-
It's kind of objectively accepted that what we call "middle-class" in the rest of the developed world, is not middle-class in the US.How do you come to that conclusion? The working class is still referred to as the working class.
Teachers, nurses, librarians, would all be considered middle-class jobs here in Europe. Jobs which require further education, which provide a solid and stable income that's not huge, but is enough to live a comfortable life on.
Working-class traditionally was to mean manual labour work, but more recently has come to describe any work where your income is in the lower percentiles - you can afford to live, but you don't really have any extra money for luxuries and you have to make do with living in some of the poorer areas.
In the US, traditionally middle-class professions have seen their work commoditised to the point where it's been continually devalued. As a result, "middle-class" workers now typically have to supplement their income with a second or third jobs in order to maintain their lifestyle, or have to drastically cut back.
In effect, there is virtually no middle-class in the US any more. You have a massive number of people working their asses off to stay afloat, and then you have people earning six-figure salaries and up because they're in the "right" job. There's nobody in-between. The "Malcolm in the Middle" families are gone.
This is what the poster is saying when he asks why there's no "working class". In the US, what the US media now refer to as "middle class", would be "working class" in the rest of the world.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 22734
This was only posted a day ago and is being ignored by several people.Baron de Charlus wrote: »Mod Note
Gentle reminder of the "play the ball, not the man" rule. If your post is a dig at another poster rather than discussion of the topic at hand, think twice before hitting "Reply".0 -
Good week for Ivanka, she is powering her way thru all the slime attacks, as she moves on with working on substantive issues, and gaining the real geo-political experience that will be invaluable in the years to come.
Only last week she was launching and heading up 'The Womens Empowerment Program' , 50Million being directed to women in poorer nations
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/02/13/694301566/ivanka-trump-launches-50-million-program-to-empower-women-in-the-workplace
And then Ivanka has to face off against Merkel at the Munich Security Conference. Thats the sort of experience one cant get in College and will stand to her in her career ahead.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/02/18/angela-merkel-ivanka-trump-german-cars-security-threat-sot-sanger-nr-vpx.cnn
And whilst she wont ultimately get the UN role, just to be talked of as a potential candidate is a sure sign her trajectory is on the up.
That lady is going places.
She’s going places because she has a rich father. Just like Trump inherited his wealth and used it to go places.Meanwhile Obama the hero of the left, his daughter is caught necking a bottle of wine but the pool , under age drinking tut tut tut ... its okay free pass for her, she is liberal and the daughter of you know who..
1. Obama isn’t the heronod the left. He was pretty conservative and largely in the pocket of the large banks/financial institutions.
2. Who cares if his daughter is underage drinking. She’s not being talked about for a role at the UN.
3. If she’s getting a free pass from the media, how are we talking about it.
If Ivanka was out on the lash 24/7, I couldn’t care less. But she’s doing work she’s monumentally under qualified to do because she’s Trumps daughter.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
Good week for Ivanka, she is powering her way thru all the slime attacks, as she moves on with working on substantive issues, and gaining the real geo-political experience that will be invaluable in the years to come.
Only last week she was launching and heading up 'The Womens Empowerment Program' , 50Million being directed to women in poorer nations
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/02/13/694301566/ivanka-trump-launches-50-million-program-to-empower-women-in-the-workplace
And then Ivanka has to face off against Merkel at the Munich Security Conference. Thats the sort of experience one cant get in College and will stand to her in her career ahead.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/02/18/angela-merkel-ivanka-trump-german-cars-security-threat-sot-sanger-nr-vpx.cnn
And whilst she wont ultimately get the UN role, just to be talked of as a potential candidate is a sure sign her trajectory is on the up.
That lady is going places.
Meanwhile Obama the hero of the left, his daughter is caught necking a bottle of wine but the pool , under age drinking tut tut tut ... its okay free pass for her, she is liberal and the daughter of you know who..
That post is little more than propagandist soap boxing.
50m is feck all. Ivanka commands no respect worldwide outside of sycophantic bootlickers who think the word "architecting" is clever. She's not fit to wipe Merkel's ass. Merkel is taken seriously, the clown and his spawn in the Whitehouse is not.
Malia is 20 years old and not what we would consider to be under age over here in the land of the free that we call Europe.0 -
Meanwhile Obama the hero of the left, his daughter is caught necking a bottle of wine but the pool , under age drinking tut tut tut ... its okay free pass for her, she is liberal and the daughter of you know who..
Targeting the kid of a former President to "own the libs" eh? Fairly desperate stuff.
But if that's game ball, best not mention Sarah Palin's son then.
https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/2018/10/01/sarah-palins-son-an-army-veteran-once-again-arrested-and-charged-with-domestic-violence-assault/
BTW - Manafort's second sentencing is coming up soon, Stone will most likely be jailed for breach of his bail conditions and Andy McCabe is telling all and sundry how much Trump's behaviour lead every right thinking individual to believe he is in Putin's pockets.
Your attempts at distraction are pretty poor.0 -
16 US states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia) have launched legal action against Trump’s national emergency declaration.
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/governor-newsom-attorney-general-becerra-and-15-partner-states-file-lawsuitNY AG James: Declaring a National Emergency without legitimate cause could create a Constitutional crisis. It will harm millions by diverting funds necessary to handle real emergencies & disasters. We won't stand for this abuse of power & will fight back with every legal tool at our disposal.
Furthermore, three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed a lawsuit against Trump’s move, claiming it violated the constitution and would infringe on their property rights.
I’m no legal eagle but can imagine it throws quite some spanners in the works of Trump.
How can a president do his job when he is torpedoed right, left and centre by lawsuits?
Moot question probably, considering it’s Trump who doesn't do his job anyway.0 -
Advertisement
-
16 US states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia) have launched legal action against Trump’s national emergency declaration.
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/governor-newsom-attorney-general-becerra-and-15-partner-states-file-lawsuit
Furthermore, three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed a lawsuit against Trump’s move, claiming it violated the constitution and would infringe on their property rights.
I’m no legal eagle but can imagine it throws quite some spanners in the works of Trump.
How can a president do his job when he is torpedoed right, left and centre by lawsuits?
Moot question probably, considering it’s Trump who doesn't do his job anyway.
I think as others have surmised, Trump likely wants the legal challenges, as it gives him people to blame for stopping him building the wall. Just like the wall itself, it's all about optics rather than reality.0 -
There is a further catch.
Every now and then I like to keep my law degree fresh by diving into various legal blogs and fora.
There are two very significant hurdles that the 16 States have to break. The first and most important is “standing”. Basically, it has to be shown that they will suffer injury from this declaration. Opinions are split on whether or not they will succeed. Remember, when they were challenging the travel ban, they were doing so on behalf of named residents and organizations in their states who were affected by the ban. It is difficult to identify who will be injured by this declaration, but there seems to be enough split opinion that there is a good chance that standing will be found on some ground or other. If it is decided they don’t have standing, then the court isn’t even going to consider the merits of the argument they put forward.
The second is that the overwhelming opinion of the lawyers is that an argument that the National Emergency Declaration should fall because there is actually no emergency is doomed to fail. Whether there is one or not, the legislation Trump is relying upon does not set a standard of emergency, and it does not require a definition in the declaration. Congress, for better or worse, gave the President great discretion on the declaration, and courts have historically provided great deference to the President on such things.
Now, there are plenty of other tacks which are worth noting. The first is that a declaration does not magically create much new funding out of thin air. Congress still controls the purse strings, so declaration or not, that doesn’t translate into much substantial built. There are limited funding sources which may be used as a result of this declaration. Secondly, there will be all sorts of private actions by landowners objecting to the construction on their land. This could well take so long to go through the courts that by the time it is all sorted, a new president will cancel the declaration, or maybe Congress will step in and decide too much authority was given the President in the National Emergencies Act.
Like Penn, I think this move was mainly for the legal challenges, but not so much for the optics of the wall, as much as the optics of getting the Democrat-majority states (note which 16 of the 50 are sueing) up to the Supreme Court and embarrassing them with another loss. As one blogger observed, don’t read too much into the lower court rulings which will come first, what counts is the Supreme Court. The travel ban is a case in point, the headlines on CNN last summer were “Trump travel ban upheld by Supreme Court”. The practical net effect is pretty limited, but it’s a great talking point.
Speaking of, SCOTUS has decided for the first time since 2010 to take up a 2nd Amendment case this year. Opinion is that New York City is highly likely to lose. More importantly, there are signifiicant circuit court splits to be resolved. Of interest, if it looked like a case was going to be lost at the Supreme Court, the States often would not appeal a loss at the Circuit level, because the “loss” would be limited only to the circuit’s jurisdiction, hence the current split. The importance of the case is not actually the case itself (New York City prohibits taking guns out of the city, gun owners want to take them out of the city. Not an earth-shattering titan of repercussion there) but the fact that SCOTUS will put out clearer guidance on the standards and interpretations the lower courts are to use and thus stop the split. I fully expect Thomas will be writing an opinion, he has not held back in his dissents to denial of cert on firearms cases in the last couple of years.0 -
Good post Manic.
Its a sad state of affairs when one of the aims of a POTUS is to embarrass states within the union.0 -
Bernie has thrown his hat in the ring, not sure why exactly but he's done it anyway.
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/10978288783100969010 -
Manic Moran wrote: »There is a further catch.
Every now and then I like to keep my law degree fresh by diving into various legal blogs and fora.
There are two very significant hurdles that the 19 States have to break. The first and most important is “standing”. Basically, it has to be shown that they will suffer injury from this declaration. Opinions are split on whether or not they will succeed. Remember, when they were challenging the travel ban, they were doing so on behalf of named residents and organizations in their states who were affected by the ban. It is difficult to identify who will be injured by this declaration, but there seems to be enough split opinion that there is a good chance that standing will be found on some ground or other. If it is decided they don’t have standing, then the court isn’t even going to consider the merits of the argument they put forward.
The second is that the overwhelming opinion of the lawyers is that an argument that the National Emergency Declaration should fall because there is actually no emergency is doomed to fail. Whether there is one or not, the legislation Trump is relying upon does not set a standard of emergency, and it does not require a definition in the declaration. Congress, for better or worse, gave the President great discretion on the declaration, and courts have historically provided great deference to the President on such things.
Now, there are plenty of other tacks which are worth noting. The first is that a declaration does not magically create much new funding out of thin air. Congress still controls the purse strings, so declaration or not, that doesn’t translate into much substantial built. There are limited funding sources which may be used as a result of this declaration. Secondly, there will be all sorts of private actions by landowners objecting to the construction on their land. This could well take so long to go through the courts that by the time it is all sorted, a new president will cancel the declaration, or maybe Congress will step in and decide too much authority was given the President in the National Emergencies Act.
Like Penn, I think this move was mainly for the legal challenges, but not so much for the optics of the wall, as much as the optics of getting the Democrat-majority states (note which 19 of the 50 are sueing) up to the Supreme Court and embarrassing them with another loss. As one blogger observed, don’t read too much into the lower court rulings which will come first, what counts is the Supreme Court. The travel ban is a case in point, the headlines on CNN last summer were “Trump travel ban upheld by Supreme Court”. The practical net effect is pretty limited, but it’s a great talking point.
I wouldnt call a $717 billion pot , limited funding.
The wall was paid for back in August, paid for by Democrats. When they signed off on the largest defense budget in US history.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/08/01/congress-finalizes-defense-budget-authorization-months-ahead-of-schedule/
And Trumps National Emergency declaration clealy states where the funding will come from (ie the above)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/text-letter-speaker-house-representatives-president-senate-2/This declaration invokes section 12302 of title 10, United States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of each relevant military department, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to order units or members of the Ready Reserve to active duty in order to assist and support the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security at the southern border.
Further, I have invoked section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, and authorized the Secretary of Defense, and at his discretion, the Secretaries of the military departments, to exercise the authority under that section to engage in emergency construction as necessary to support the use of the Armed Forces and respond to the crisis at our southern border.
It was the ultimate long game. US grunts are happy with their 2.9% pay rise, and they have a shed load of money to spend on the wall with plenty to go around for all the sub-contractors. HUA.
Funding will not be an obstacle.
And SCOTUS will not be an obstacle either, speaking of which
US Supreme Court re-starts today, has RBG turned up for oral hearings or is she still on her 'writing break' .0 -
Sorry Rigolo, are you suggesting that Trump much lauded increase in spending for the military, which was let down so much by Obama according to Trump, was just a ruse and that it was actually simply a way for Trump to ferret off funds for a wall that neither party wants?0
-
Bernie has thrown his hat in the ring, not sure why exactly but he's done it anyway.
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1097828878310096901
He's one of the most popular politicians in America so why the hell not?:)0 -
It is war style propaganda. Them versus us. If are not with us you are an enemy of the people (or traitor if you are in the UK with Brexit) with a crosshairs next to your head.Good post Manic.
Its a sad state of affairs when one of the aims of a POTUS is to embarrass states within the union.
However the landowners will likely kill this dead. Another possibility is that Trump may simply claim his wall as being built if this goes through. He has already claimed it is partially built.0 -
-
Rigolo, the entire pot of money of the defense budget is not available to the military for this construction. One of the huge annoyances I have to deal with is that the money is split into a whole bunch of buckets, which cannot be juggled around. You cannot, for example, take money from the IT bucket and use it to buy construction equipment, nor take money allocated to pay a reservists ' monthly training and use it to pay their annual training. Any assertion otherwise or to view the defense budget as a monolithic pool of money is demonstrating ignorance of the US military funding system. I'm sure there is some suitable pot, but I'm equally sure it is limited in capacity.0
-
Advertisement
-
Manic Moran wrote: »There is a further catch.
Every now and then I like to keep my law degree fresh by diving into various legal blogs and fora.
There are two very significant hurdles that the 16 States have to break. The first and most important is “standing”. Basically, it has to be shown that they will suffer injury from this declaration. Opinions are split on whether or not they will succeed. Remember, when they were challenging the travel ban, they were doing so on behalf of named residents and organizations in their states who were affected by the ban. It is difficult to identify who will be injured by this declaration, but there seems to be enough split opinion that there is a good chance that standing will be found on some ground or other. If it is decided they don’t have standing, then the court isn’t even going to consider the merits of the argument they put forward.
The second is that the overwhelming opinion of the lawyers is that an argument that the National Emergency Declaration should fall because there is actually no emergency is doomed to fail. Whether there is one or not, the legislation Trump is relying upon does not set a standard of emergency, and it does not require a definition in the declaration. Congress, for better or worse, gave the President great discretion on the declaration, and courts have historically provided great deference to the President on such things.
Now, there are plenty of other tacks which are worth noting. The first is that a declaration does not magically create much new funding out of thin air. Congress still controls the purse strings, so declaration or not, that doesn’t translate into much substantial built. There are limited funding sources which may be used as a result of this declaration. Secondly, there will be all sorts of private actions by landowners objecting to the construction on their land. This could well take so long to go through the courts that by the time it is all sorted, a new president will cancel the declaration, or maybe Congress will step in and decide too much authority was given the President in the National Emergencies Act.
Like Penn, I think this move was mainly for the legal challenges, but not so much for the optics of the wall, as much as the optics of getting the Democrat-majority states (note which 16 of the 50 are sueing) up to the Supreme Court and embarrassing them with another loss. As one blogger observed, don’t read too much into the lower court rulings which will come first, what counts is the Supreme Court. The travel ban is a case in point, the headlines on CNN last summer were “Trump travel ban upheld by Supreme Court”. The practical net effect is pretty limited, but it’s a great talking point.
Speaking of, SCOTUS has decided for the first time since 2010 to take up a 2nd Amendment case this year. Opinion is that New York City is highly likely to lose. More importantly, there are signifiicant circuit court splits to be resolved. Of interest, if it looked like a case was going to be lost at the Supreme Court, the States often would not appeal a loss at the Circuit level, because the “loss” would be limited only to the circuit’s jurisdiction, hence the current split. The importance of the case is not actually the case itself (New York City prohibits taking guns out of the city, gun owners want to take them out of the city. Not an earth-shattering titan of repercussion there) but the fact that SCOTUS will put out clearer guidance on the standards and interpretations the lower courts are to use and thus stop the split. I fully expect Thomas will be writing an opinion, he has not held back in his dissents to denial of cert on firearms cases in the last couple of years.
Wouldn't be the worst thing if it succeeded. It won't but if it did I mean...
It's just a waste of money, but no more really than is spent on the US military anyway.
Plus, fast forward two years and the democrats can use the precedent to sort out gun control and the environment.0 -
I've said it before, but this wall will go down in history as the biggest smokescreen on the History of US politics. It's almost as if he has been told by someone, create the ultimate distraction, and everyone else can go about their nefarious dealings unwatched. Whoever is orchestrating this must be overjoyed at how effective it has been, and will continue to be until everyone wakes up.0
-
Wouldn't be the worst thing if it succeeded. It won't but if it did I mean...
It's just a waste of money, but no more really than is spent on the US military anyway.
Plus, fast forward two years and the democrats can use the precedent to sort out gun control and the environment.
I'm not sure how. The same practical limitations apply to those subjects as to the current issue. Arguably even less: Whilst there is a case to be made that border protection is a legitimate use of the federal military, and even at that, there isn't a hell of a lot of funding that the declaration opens up for the military to do, there is even less opportunity for such a declaration to have any tangible effect of firearms or the environment. I think a lot of people are over-dramaticising this declaration, be it for political benefit or simple ignorance. It's a show piece, not anything particularly tangible.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »I'm not sure how. The same practical limitations apply to those subjects as to the current issue. Arguably even less: Whilst there is a case to be made that border protection is a legitimate use of the federal military, and even at that, there isn't a hell of a lot of funding that the declaration opens up for the military to do, there is even less opportunity for such a declaration to have any tangible effect of firearms or the environment. I think a lot of people are over-dramaticising this declaration, be it for political benefit or simple ignorance. It's a show piece, not anything particularly tangible.
It is more than a show piece, it is the POTUS overriding the will of a co-equal branch of Government, declaring an emergency on specious ground to subvert democratic processes.
The precedent is set, imagination and ambition will do the leg work for anyone else who so choses to embrace this new low in American democracy.0 -
jobbridge4life wrote: »It is more than a show piece, it is the POTUS overriding the will of a co-equal branch of Government, declaring an emergency on specious ground to subvert democratic processes.
The precedent is set, imagination and ambition will do the leg work for anyone else who so choses to embrace this new low in American democracy.
He won the election to be President of The United States, no subverting of the democratic process even comes into it.
If people are truly concerned about subverting any democratic process, they should be questioning why there was a near coup in the inteligence commuity to oust the duly elected POTUS , otherwise its just faux outrage.0 -
jobbridge4life wrote: »It is more than a show piece, it is the POTUS overriding the will of a co-equal branch of Government, declaring an emergency on specious ground to subvert democratic processes.
The precedent is set, imagination and ambition will do the leg work for anyone else who so choses to embrace this new low in American democracy.
Co equal doesn't mean they can't all override each other at times. Is Congress overriding a presidential veto and the will of the president a usurping of powers? If the court system invalidates the will of Congress by ruling "you can't do that", is this a threat to democratic government by one equal branch ignoring another?
There are checks and balances. Trump's declaration can be checked by either the court or by Congress. Right now, he arguably is using an authority specifically vested in him by Congress in the National emergencies Act. If Congress or the courts don't like it and if they have grounds, they equally can override the will of the president. This isn't a threat to democracy, it's exactly how the US government works.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Rigolo, the entire pot of money of the defense budget is not available to the military for this construction. One of the huge annoyances I have to deal with is that the money is split into a whole bunch of buckets, which cannot be juggled around. You cannot, for example, take money from the IT bucket and use it to buy construction equipment, nor take money allocated to pay a reservists ' monthly training and use it to pay their annual training. Any assertion otherwise or to view the defense budget as a monolithic pool of money is demonstrating ignorance of the US military funding system. I'm sure there is some suitable pot, but I'm equally sure it is limited in capacity.
Who ever said taking IT money to use on the wall.
Heck with teh huge budget from 2018, Trump administration work on restructuring of NATO, Syrian troop pull out, clean up of the VA, clean up of Boeing price tags etc etc, the list goes on, the DOD has rarely seen such healthy finances.
Besides Its the DOD and the Pentagon , they invented diversion of money .
Ive no doubt they will easily find the ways and means to get a few billion moved into the wall project, after all Article 2 , Clause 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution pretty much guarantees it.0 -
He won the election to be President of Thttps://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/b-static.net/vbulletin/images/editor/php.gifhe United States, no subverting of the democratic process even comes into it.
1) He committed Campaign Finance violations as a matter of fact as found in law
2) Russians interfered in the election as stated by his own intelligence agencies and assisted with his votes
3) His campaign conspired with the Russians to swing the vote
4) By the by, Hillary got 3,000,000 more votesIf people are truly concerned about subverting any democratic process, they should be questioning why there was a near coup in the inteligence commuity to oust the duly elected POTUS , otherwise its just faux outrage.
The people who HE APPOINTED thought he was acting so irrational, that they considered a 25th Amendment situation. By the by, that IS constitutional. Secondly, McCabe informed the Gang of 8 and none of them objected.0 -
In other news, seems like Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor and Mrs. Mitch McConnell, has been sending goodies Mitch's way:
https://hillreporter.com/emails-show-coordination-between-mitch-mcconnells-office-and-wife-elaine-chao-24913
Well, we hadn't heard much about this cabinet officer, so probably, she'll be next and get replaced with an Acting for the next few months, like is the case for Defense and Interior (maybe they've confirmed the Interior guy by now.)0 -
Advertisement
-
If people are truly concerned about subverting any democratic process, they should be questioning why there was a near coup in the inteligence commuity to oust the duly elected POTUS , otherwise its just faux outrage.
"Near" Coup, AKA "conversation". More inflammatory rhetoric designed to feed his base.
Discussing something that is part of the US constitution can't be called a coup. Especially when it requires the vice president and a majority of cabinet members to enact.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement