Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 10
1
Political Discussion and Debate / Re: Trump Executive Orders etc...
« Last post by Solar on Today at 08:16:30 PM »
I'll move to use your definition of misuse:

So now we agree that misuse = abuse.

Now let's look at the intent of an executive order. I'm using this source:

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2017/01/executive-orders-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-presidents-use-them/

and is says:

What I was saying is that the ACA EO is used accurately / legally but not as originally intended - so I'll say that the ACA EO used the executive authority in a manner inconsistent with original intent. Specifically, this EO is used to direct enforcement to use loopholes to circumvent the law rather than to enforce it. But, again, it is legal and, from my viewpoint, welcome to begin a counter to what BO did in ramming the ACA law in-place

I do not believe that any of Trump's EOs are illegal - nor am I qualified to make an actual determination. The clarification above establishes that there was no abuse = misuse. It is my opinion that the EO use in the ACA example is a stretch, i.e., inconsistent with original intent, and it would be more appropriate if the EO were not issued as it stands and, rather, that the Legislative branch would appeal or replace the ACA law.

I support that this forum should only support what is true to the extent possible and that opinion should be established as just that. It's a good practice and I'll work to shore up my posts.
It's late, I'll reply in the morning. Here's something to ponder. :biggrin:

VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN NAMED CHAIR OF NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER BOARD OF TRUSTEES

http://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/heros/VP_Joe_Biden_Hero_Image1.jpg

“Vice President Biden’s love for the Constitution, and passion for teaching all Americans about its enduring principles, have inspired people around the world,” said Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center. “From his service in the Senate to his time in the White House, Vice President Biden has devoted himself to educating all Americans about the founding principles of the Constitution and their timeless relevance today. The National Constitution Center is America’s leading convening place for non-partisan constitutional education and debate, and all of us here are thrilled and honored that Vice President Biden will lead us as our Chair.”

To learn more about the announcement, you can read about it on our blog, Constitution Daily, and download a PDF file of the official press release.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2017/02/biden-named-chair-of-national-constitution-center-board-of-trustees1/
2
Basically the democrat party is the Titanic crashing into the Hindenburg and landing on an orphanage for deaf kids in the middle of a leprosy colony during an earthquake.
And the only person to report on it was an illiterate deaf mute.
3
As well as all Jews. Man, is this ever going to be an eye opener for much of the NY area and other Jewish communities.
Wait, what, we're no longer welcome in the dim party, what, they hate us and want us dead, what?

Basically the democrat party is the Titanic crashing into the Hindenburg and landing on an orphanage for deaf kids in the middle of a leprosy colony during an earthquake.
4
Political Discussion and Debate / Re: Trump Executive Orders etc...
« Last post by topside on Today at 07:35:13 PM »
I'll move to use your definition of misuse:


Umm, no you did not, you used the term without qualifying it and that's why anyone that understands English, knows what Mis-use means: 'Apply to a wrong thing or person' apply badly or incorrectly' 'Improper or excessive use' 'Abuse' 'illegal use'
That's what misuse means, and you attributed that to Trump and I asked you to prove that allegation, it really is that simple.


So now we agree that misuse = abuse.

Now let's look at the intent of an executive order. I'm using this source:

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2017/01/executive-orders-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-presidents-use-them/

and is says:

Quote
The constitutional basis for the executive order is the President’s broad power to issue executive directives. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no direct “definition of executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations in the U.S. Constitution, there is, likewise, no specific provision authorizing their issuance.

But Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests executive powers in the President, makes him the commander in chief, and requires that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

What I was saying is that the ACA EO is used accurately / legally but not as originally intended - so I'll say that the ACA EO used the executive authority in a manner inconsistent with original intent. Specifically, this EO is used to direct enforcement to use loopholes to circumvent the law rather than to enforce it. But, again, it is legal and, from my viewpoint, welcome to begin a counter to what BO did in ramming the ACA law in-place

Quote


I don't think you realize, but we're a fact based forum, so in most cases when something is stated on this forum, and someone challenges said claims, it's incumbent upon the person these claims, to back them up, or simply retract them.
To date, trump has not abused his EO privilege, so when you claimed he did, we needed to set the record straight, because this forums credibility rides on all of us taking responsibility for what's said here.
 
Let's try this. If a judge misuses his power, is that not abuse of the law? In other words, when dealing with any legal aspect of the law, to misuse is to abuse which always carries consequence.
So essentially you were saying Trump abused his powers as POTUS, an Impeachable offense.


I do not believe that any of Trump's EOs are illegal - nor am I qualified to make an actual determination. The clarification above establishes that there was no abuse = misuse. It is my opinion that the EO use in the ACA example is a stretch, i.e., inconsistent with original intent, and it would be more appropriate if the EO were not issued as it stands and, rather, that the Legislative branch would appeal or replace the ACA law.

Quote

So let's back up then. Explain how it was misused if it was perfectly legal?
Keep in mind, as Zewazir pointed out, BO wrote illegal EO's regarding the law, and Trump using an EO to undo the damage is in no way an "Misuse" abuse of the law, in fact, what he did was to correct a serious wrong that Congress refused to address.
 
There you go again, coming to conclusions without qualifying how it was done. Eg. "I know he abuses puppies, I just can't prove it, never even seen him with one, but I just know it, even a moron can see it".

I'm simply trying to hammer on point home here, and everyone here is familiar with it.
Always be prepared to back up anything you write, so if you make a claim, be it against a Conservative or liberal, it has to be valid, or simply qualify it as unsubstantiated opinion.
Hell, and even then, you can still be called on it if it's outlandish enough.
A lot of people read this forum for truth, be it opinion or fact, they want to know everything we say won't get them in trouble when they take it to another forum and repeat it.

I support that this forum should only support what is true to the extent possible and that opinion should be established as just that. It's a good practice and I'll work to shore up my posts.
5
They have crashed and burned, in slow motion over the last eight years. Now they are just pissing on the scene of the accident. Dershowitz will soon learn he is not welcome in the democrat party.
As well as all Jews. Man, is this ever going to be an eye opener for much of the NY area and other Jewish communities.
Wait, what, we're no longer welcome in the dim party, what, they hate us and want us dead, what?
6
Yeah, that's how I saw it too, but I think Dersh is trying, or rather hoping, to pull the party back over from the precipice, though I think it may be a bit like wishing on Leprechauns.
They need to crash and burn first, before the rebuilding can commence.

They have crashed and burned, in slow motion over the last eight years. Now they are just pissing on the scene of the accident. Dershowitz will soon learn he is not welcome in the democrat party.
7
He's being naive. Appointing the Jew hating lunatic as his deputy shows the party is moving farther to the left and Perez can do nothing to stop it. Assuming he would want to.
Yeah, that's how I saw it too, but I think Dersh is trying, or rather hoping, to pull the party back over from the precipice, though I think it may be a bit like wishing on Leprechauns.
They need to crash and burn first, before the rebuilding can commence.
8
Political Discussion and Debate / Re: Trump Executive Orders etc...
« Last post by Solar on Today at 06:30:54 PM »
I felt that my point was well-formed and summarized in the earlier post: "I found the content worth considering for a little while to see how some in the group think about action and intent in the Trump context and BO context under similar actions but opposing intent. " The right was calling fouls when the left was using the same type of logic in the EOs. Now the Left isn't calling fouls because they know they'd be admitting problem when they were kicking out EOs.
Yeah - I agree. It was just an easy place to pull the EO data - pretty neutral material that contained no opinion.
 
Sure they are. After Obozo told illegals he would not prosecute illegals voting, the left is in a panic over Trump's EO and calling him all kinds of names.
Quote
Both the misuse and CYA were my opinions and my interpretations of what I read - up to the reader to decide if they agreed or not.

Wherein lies the problem, you stated it as fact, and not opinion, a given conclusion.

Quote
I hadn't defined what I meant by misuse and that was a mistake.

Umm, no you did not, you used the term without qualifying it and that's why anyone that understands English, knows what Mis-use means: 'Apply to a wrong thing or person' apply badly or incorrectly' 'Improper or excessive use' 'Abuse' 'illegal use'
That's what misuse means, and you attributed that to Trump and I asked you to prove that allegation, it really is that simple.

I don't think you realize, but we're a fact based forum, so in most cases when something is stated on this forum, and someone challenges said claims, it's incumbent upon the person these claims, to back them up, or simply retract them.
To date, trump has not abused his EO privilege, so when you claimed he did, we needed to set the record straight, because this forums credibility rides on all of us taking responsibility for what's said here.

Quote
You defined it as abuse and I was having trouble making a distinction after you did it - was a good point to think on. But, after looking at the EOs again, I decided that my opinion is that the distinction of misuse vs. abuse was valid: the misuse is in the intent of the EO but not illegal.  This aspect was well supported in the discussion on the ACA EO.

Let's try this. If a judge misuses his power, is that not abuse of the law? In other words, when dealing with any legal aspect of the law, to misuse is to abuse which always carries consequence.
So essentially you were saying Trump abused his powers as POTUS, an Impeachable offense.

Quote
There is nothing illegal in the EO but it's intent is to neutralize a law - again, my viewpoint but I would think even a moron would see it even but may not admit it. I had never intended that the EOs were illegal because they can't be illegal due to the way they are written.

So let's back up then. Explain how it was misused if it was perfectly legal?
Keep in mind, as Zewazir pointed out, BO wrote illegal EO's regarding the law, and Trump using an EO to undo the damage is in no way an "Misuse" abuse of the law, in fact, what he did was to correct a serious wrong that Congress refused to address.

Quote
These were in reference to other statements. Yes, EOs are under Constitutional law - no question of that. I was trying to say that they may not be being used as intended - even though they are legitimate.

There you go again, coming to conclusions without qualifying how it was done. Eg. "I know he abuses puppies, I just can't prove it, never even seen him with one, but I just know it, even a moron can see it".

Quote
I'm 99.9% sure you know what I'm saying, but you seem to want more support in some way. The example discussed on ACA is a good example. I'll take your advice on more specifics in the future. This is too broad for me to cover all the ground in the details that was identified in the ACA discussion.
. Hmm. That makes sense. I didn't put that together. It was a real-time reaction to the blocks. Interesting.
I haven't looked at the history on this - thanks for the pointer. I'll take a look - but I believe you. It's must have been more under-the-hood in the past. It's so publicized this time - he signs the EO and it shows up in all the media.
Well, I don't trust any of the media at all. I do trust you guys more than most as I think you have the principles right. But sometimes you make it hard to hang in with yall.

I agree that 's very sad the GOP weren't able to do more against the Marxists.
I'm simply trying to hammer on point home here, and everyone here is familiar with it.
Always be prepared to back up anything you write, so if you make a claim, be it against a Conservative or liberal, it has to be valid, or simply qualify it as unsubstantiated opinion.
Hell, and even then, you can still be called on it if it's outlandish enough.
A lot of people read this forum for truth, be it opinion or fact, they want to know everything we say won't get them in trouble when they take it to another forum and repeat it.
9
Dershowitz speaks on Perez



He's being naive. Appointing the Jew hating lunatic as his deputy shows the party is moving farther to the left and Perez can do nothing to stop it. Assuming he would want to.
10
Political Discussion and Debate / Re: Trump Executive Orders etc...
« Last post by topside on Today at 05:01:37 PM »
You got a timeout because you made the claim that Trump was misusing EO, in other words you claimed he was breaking the law, and this stuff you posted is in no way illegal or unconstitutional.
You should have just said you misspoke and moved on instead of doubling down on stupid.

I felt that my point was well-formed and summarized in the earlier post: "I found the content worth considering for a little while to see how some in the group think about action and intent in the Trump context and BO context under similar actions but opposing intent. " The right was calling fouls when the left was using the same type of logic in the EOs. Now the Left isn't calling fouls because they know they'd be admitting problem when they were kicking out EOs.

Quote
Just so you know, WIKI is a lousy source and generally dismissed as opinion.
Yeah - I agree. It was just an easy place to pull the EO data - pretty neutral material that contained no opinion.
 
Quote
Yes you did, that's why you got a timeout, you made a claim and refused to back it up.
You really need to check yourself when you state an opinion in conclusion of fact, as in "CYA", much in the way you used "Misuse' as a claim of fact and got called on it.
Let this be a learning moment.

Both the misuse and CYA were my opinions and my interpretations of what I read - up to the reader to decide if they agreed or not. I hadn't defined what I meant by misuse and that was a mistake. You defined it as abuse and I was having trouble making a distinction after you did it - was a good point to think on. But, after looking at the EOs again, I decided that my opinion is that the distinction of misuse vs. abuse was valid: the misuse is in the intent of the EO but not illegal.  This aspect was well supported in the discussion on the ACA EO. There is nothing illegal in the EO but it's intent is to neutralize a law - again, my viewpoint but I would think even a moron would see it even but may not admit it. I had never intended that the EOs were illegal because they can't be illegal due to the way they are written.

Quote
It's referenced under Constitutional law.
Convoluted and incomplete.
Try being a bit more specific and give reference to your question. I have no idea what you're talking about.
These were in reference to other statements. Yes, EOs are under Constitutional law - no question of that. I was trying to say that they may not be being used as intended - even though they are legitimate. I'm 99.9% sure you know what I'm saying, but you seem to want more support in some way. The example discussed on ACA is a good example. I'll take your advice on more specifics in the future. This is too broad for me to cover all the ground in the details that was identified in the ACA discussion.
.
Quote
Isn't this when the Dims were blocking his AG selection, so Trump gave full authority to the acting AG to fulfill their duties just as if they had been appointed.
Hmm. That makes sense. I didn't put that together. It was a real-time reaction to the blocks. Interesting.

Quote
Using EO's to uddo bad EO by the previous resident is SOP, trump is not doing anything out of the ordinary.
I haven't looked at the history on this - thanks for the pointer. I'll take a look - but I believe you. It's must have been more under-the-hood in the past. It's so publicized this time - he signs the EO and it shows up in all the media.

Quote

You really need to turn off the TV and form your own opinions.
It's a sad commentary that the GOP did nothing to stop the Marxist when they had the power, which is why TRump is stuck undoing all this bull shit.
Well, I don't trust any of the media at all. I do trust you guys more than most as I think you have the principles right. But sometimes you make it hard to hang in with yall.

I agree that 's very sad the GOP weren't able to do more against the Marxists.
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 10
Powered by EzPortal