Search found 11 matches

by srothstein
Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:11 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3569
Views: 198192

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

I, for one, am very glad to see all of the committees investigating the president and most of the administration. I want to see them do as thorough an investigation as they can. I would prefer to not see them spending any money on it, but you can't have everything and investigations do cost money.

But as long as these committees are busy investigating the president, they are not out there thinking up new laws to interfere with the people and business. And that is good for me and good for the country. Proof that this is good for the country is how well the economy has been doing when all the Democrats do is investigate Trump. The fewer laws they are busy passing, the better off we are.
by srothstein
Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:52 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3569
Views: 198192

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

carlson1 wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:31 pm
Concerning Trump’s taxes and the family taxes is there a law where they have to turn over their taxes or was it just a precedence?

If that is the case how in the world can you subpoena to see anyone’s taxes?
It has recently been customary for candidates to make their returns public, though I have no idea why or what the benefit is. There is no law requiring it of any candidate.

There is a law making all tax returns to IRS confidential. Looking at IRS records, including returns, without authorization is a crime. The flaw is that the law was written by congress and they left a loophole in the law. It allows the committee to subpoena any tax records necessary so they can check if the IRS is performing its functions properly. It is part of the oversight function of congress. The committee making the request is claiming this law allows it.

As I understand it, the IRS has refused to comply because their interpretation of the law is slightly more restrictive. They believe there has to be some question of misbehavior on the IRS' part, not on the part of the taxpayer.
by srothstein
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:37 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3569
Views: 198192

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philbo wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:09 am
just pointed out that collusion was never used by anyone
I am not sure that the word collusion was only used by Trump and his associates, but I agree it was not used in the letter appointing Mueller as special counsel. But I also noted that you seem to have missed a significant point in the appointment that might make a difference. It says, as the primary purpose of the investigation:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;
Now, I may not be an employee of Merriam-Webster but it seems to me that the term collusion is another way of saying "links and/or coordination". For a very interesting article on what collusion means, I suggest this one from the Columbia Journalism Review: https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/wha ... russia.php. And this article from Politico magazine is proof that someone other than Trump and his associates use the term collusion for the investigation target: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ion-215366 (and for everyone, this helps explain exactly which laws might have been broken and what other than just talking with the other side is needed).

It also seems to me that your not mentioning the first clause in your denials of the accusation being collusion is very misleading. I do not know if it was a deliberate attempt to mislead or not, and I try to not attribute to evil those actions which are properly attributed to incompetence. But I will point out that incompetence hurts your credibility as much as evil intent would. While admitting my bias based on my belief that the investigation is just more politics as usual, I must say that you do not seem to be winning this debate at this time. You have scored on some points, but you have been scored against on more of them, IMO. Considering the subject of this forum, your having won some points is more surprising to me than your having lost more.
by srothstein
Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:37 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3569
Views: 198192

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philbo wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:30 am
But wait, there's more. Now tRump is wanting more troops to the border (where they are legally prohibited from engaging in police activites) and suggesting they have the authority to shoot anyone throwing rocks at them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 5ad5878e58
I strongly suggest that you do better research on your points. When you repeat false claims it really hurts your credibility in all other arguments. The military is not prohibited from all police activities in the US. The law prohibiting this is called the Posse Comitatus Act and it is in the US code in Title 18, section 1385. The wording of the law forbids the military from being used as a posse except for where authorized by the Congress (among other exceptions).

One of the known exceptions, for example, is that the military can be used to help enforce drug laws. This was how the military was used in several recent encounters against US citizens, with the most notable in our area being in Waco against the Branch Davidians (the ATF told the AG and our Governor that they suspected them of having drugs). Another one, used and favored by the Democratic Party, is that the President may order the military out to enforce federal law. The example of this being favors by the Democrats is when the 101st Airborne Division was ordered out to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Ark in 1957.

I could be wrong, but I understand after some very brief research that the deployment of military troops to the border to enforce federal law is within the legal authority of the president. If you want to argue against it, you might use the example of what happened when Marines were assigned to patrol the border. That resulted in them shooting Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., a US citizen on his own property. You might not want to use it as an example though, because that was in 1997 when a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) assigned active duty troops to patrol our southern border to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in while carrying drugs. Kind of cuts against your argument of it being illegal to use troops to enforce the law.
by srothstein
Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:30 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3569
Views: 198192

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philbo wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:49 pm
In either the most arrogant display of ignorance concerning the US Constitution, or the newest in a long line of absurd pronouncements to distract the populace just days before the mid-term elections, tRump proposes to end birthright citizenship protected in the 14th Amendment with an executive order... Yep, winning as only tRump knows how.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1N41MD
I just wanted to point out that any president can issue any executive order he wants. It has no bearing on law, just as directives to how the agencies he is responsible for will act. What this president might due is issue an executive order telling the immigration services how to interpret the clause in the 14th Amendment that says that birthright citizenship applies to people who are under the jurisdiction of the US. For example, he can point out that a person who entered the country illegally is not under our jurisdiction and therefore their children are not citizens.

Obviously, as with many other executive orders in recent years, people with opposing political issues will file a lawsuit to hold up the implementation of the order. While I do not necessarily agree with the president on this issue, I have to admit that I like the strategy of forcing the courts to decide exactly what that phrase does mean. My question is if the Democrats will be willing to take this chance with the SCOTUS or if they will compromise with the president on some other issue. I don't know what other issues he may want to deal on, but given his faith in his negotiating skills this seems like his type of an opening gambit. Always negotiate from a position of strength.
by srothstein
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:19 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3569
Views: 198192

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

strogg wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:55 pm
3. By design, since it was such a long time ago with no witnesses or video tapes or audio recordings or whatever, the card is literally a he-said-she-said game. Also with such a large gap between the supposed event and anyone hearing about it, there's no way anyone would be convicted of that crime no matter what public profile the defendant has. So what's the point?
The left expected this too work because they have had so much success with it in the recent past. It has all been civil so far, and in the private sphere with companies taking action against individuals, and others jumping on the bandwagon to help. Look at how many people have been taken down by the claims of sexual harassment recently.
7. Lastly, it looks like an all-out civil war is occurring with this political battle. Seriously. It really does look that way.
I see this as a strong sign that a real civil war is coming. One with both sides fighting, and by fighting I mean armed combat in the streets. I have seen our country being pulled apart politically, and I think this is by design. I think it is planned to lead to a civil war and a breakup of the US. We are falling right into their trap too, because we are becoming more strident in our divisions. I keep hoping we can avoid it, but I am more and more sure it is coming and unavoidable.

The two sides are both being controlled by their extremes and neither side is willing to talk or discuss things with the other side. Look at the protests that occurred after Trump won the election, even though there was no disputing that he had won. Now we get similar protests after a nomination. How soon until the protests turn into riots and spread around the country? I really want to avoid this and keep our country intact, but I am also not prepared to give in on my civil rights just to get to that point. If the other side is feeling the same way I do about their points, and feel it is their civil rights, combat is coming.
by srothstein
Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:34 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3569
Views: 198192

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

jason812 wrote:
Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:35 am
philip964 wrote:
Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:32 am
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh- ... fends-her/

Its gotten this bad.

At Kavanaugh hearing Zina Bash (the attractive lady with black hair) appears to make White Power sign behind Kavanaugh.

I didn't know there was a white power symbol, its apparently the OK hand gesture.

Her husband defends her.

Other media outlets like WaPo say its nonsense.

But Time and CBS both ran the story.

So I can't use the OK hand gesture anymore without being racist?

https://www.adl.org/blog/no-the-ok-gest ... ate-symbol

Apparently its a 4 chan hoax.
Apparently she was born in Mexico to Holocaust survivors. So would that make her a Jewish Mexican? I don't think the white supremacist will let her in their gang.

All the left has is hate.
Sorry to move the talk away from Trump for a minute, but can I ask which one of you has the time machine? I am curious how a post made at 7:35 can quote a post to be made an hour later.
by srothstein
Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:09 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3569
Views: 198192

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philip964 wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:44 pm
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-mentally ... ys-1101539

Doctor and former governor of Vermont says Trump is mentally ill.
This makes me curious about two things. My first question is what Dr. Dean's specialty was. The article just says he was a physician. To properly make this judgement, he would need to be a psychiatrist, wouldn't he? The closest I can find is a line in Wikipedia that says he was in a family practice with his wife as his partner. Without the proper training, he is no more qualified than I am to say someone is mentally ill (not that I haven't called people crazy, and in some I especially like the diagnosis of guano loco that I learned on this board).

The second, and much more important question, is when he (or the actual psychiatrist mentioned in the article, Dr. Lee) conducted his medical examination of the president. I could be wrong, not being medically trained, but it was my understanding that before any doctor could render a diagnosis, they must make an examination of the patient. This is based on many court trials I have observed or read about where the doctors testifying about the sanity of the defendant are always cross examined on the number of office visits and the length of those visits with the defendant.

All of which raises the question of whether or not the statements by the doctors constitutes malpractice and if they can be sued or complained on about it.
by srothstein
Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:24 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3569
Views: 198192

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philbo wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:45 am
Long story short, Manafort was out of jail awaiting trial under a set of terms established by the court. Manafort violated those terms and after a hearing and due process, was placed in jail pending trial. Treated as any other citizen under indictment for a crime.
I have not studied this case very much, but I have a problem with the basic philosophy of what you posted. Not only should Manafort not have been brought back in and held in jail, but there should have been no conditions on his release. If a person is indicted, he is only accused of a crime. He is not convicted yet. So, how do we justify "house arrest" with a GPS monitoring system for him? And that was after he posted bail too.

The only purpose of holding someone in jail before a trial should be to ensure they show up at trial. It must be based on probable cause to believe he would flee if he were not held. If there is no evidence to suggest he would flee, there should be no bail required. If there is some evidence to suggest it, then I can see requiring enough bail to ensure he will show up (and enough bail is a flexible term based on the assets of the accused and the seriousness of the charge). There should be no other conditions on the release.

As I understand it in this case, the conditions on Manafort included the house arrest but also something about not attempting to influence the other witnesses. Using this system, it is an abuse of his rights because it allows them to punish him for contacting the witnesses based on just rumor or suspicion, not a trial and conviction. And tampering with witnesses is already a crime, so this was in effect saying we will make it a condition of your release that you don't commit a crime.

And just so you know, I have these beliefs for everyone, not just in this case. Our system of bail and pre-trial detention is broken and needs to be fixed. It has been shown to work to pressure people into plea bargains that might not be their best option. I am not a big believer that the people who took the bargains were not guilty, but I do believe they would have been better treated by going to trial later and not being held in jail. And yes, I admit some would commit more crimes while out on bail, but that is not what bail is for.
by srothstein
Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:54 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3569
Views: 198192

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

philbo wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:07 am
4. “I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law.”
This is false. As part of its border crackdown, the Trump administration is separating undocumented immigrant children from their parents largely due to a “zero tolerance” policy implemented by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. No law requires these separations. The government must release rather than detain immigrant children under a 1997 federal consent decree and a bipartisan human trafficking law from 2008. But neither of these requires family separations. This could be ended with a call to DHS, stated Republican Lindsey Graham.
I disagree, at least in part. The law does require these separations. I agree that the separations are a result of the zero tolerance policy, which can be debated separately. But, when any adult is arrested, he or she must go to jail. Children (under 17 in Texas, under 18 in some states, I think under 18 for federal law) are not allowed to go to jail.They may be taken to various juvenile detention centers, but adults and juveniles are not allowed to be taken to the same criminal detention center. Along with this, males and females are also separated, in both adult and juvenile detention centers. Children may go to shelters together if they are not being criminally charged.

Yes, families could be detained together if they are being taken to a civil detention facility pending deportation. But under Sessions zero tolerance policy, the adults are being criminally charged with entering the US illegally. By law, the children MUST be separated from them, whether the children are being charged or not. The argument over the separation is, at best, a smokescreen for arguing whether we should be criminally charging people who break criminal laws by entering the country.

I have, and other police officers still do, separated children from their parents when I arrested the parents. If I could not get another family member to come get them, the children went to various shelters or to CPS (especially to CPS if the kids were victims of the crime). As a separate point that came to me as I typed this, Texas CPS has separated many more children from their parents than DHS has. And has a worse record of caring for them and the reasons for the separations.

To me, the arguments over separating the children from their parents are all a lie used to attack the president's actions since the left is realizing most Americans do not support illegal immigration as much as the left does. It is a way of getting the useful idiots involved and politically turned against the President.

And the arrests also prove one other point the left has been arguing for years is a lie. How many times have we heard that illegally entering the US is not a crime, but a civil offense? Sessions zero tolerance policy shows that it really is a crime that the people go to jail for.
by srothstein
Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:55 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3569
Views: 198192

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

From what I have been able to find, the problem is that Obama did not do this very much, even though it was the law and policy. The uproar started when Sessions started a new policy of zero tolerance for illegals crossing the border. He has ordered the Dept of Justice to file criminal charges against every adult who is caught crossing the border illegally. Obama, of course, did not enforce the law. He used civil deportation procedures instead of the criminal laws.

Of course, in any case where a person is arrested, it is illegal to place children in the same facility as adults. It is also illegal to keep males and females in the same facility. So, if a family of four (mother, father, son, and daughter) comes across the border, they get separated. Under the current policy, the mother goes to one facility for adult females, the father goes to a second facility for adult males, the son goes to a third facility for juvenile males, and the daughter to a fourth facility for female juveniles. If the children are young enough or not charged with any crimes, they might go to a children's shelter together instead of being split apart farther.

I think the people organizing the protests know this and are using the child separation argument as a disguised attack on the criminal charges part. They not only do not want the charges but they also do not want them deported. Most of the protesters may not be aware and are just the "useful idiots" that usually get used like this.

Return to “Today in Trump's new term as President”