D.C. and Maryland to sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not taking this garbage, I want to see you clearly complaining about emoluments before you knew the name Trump.

Ha.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Is there a point to you being 2012 member in this conversation if you cannot?

No, no there isn't.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Is there a point to you being 2012 member in this conversation if you cannot?

No, no there isn't.

Dude, I am questioning YOUR lack of outrage before Trump.

Keep up.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So you lied about previously complaining about this then. Or rather just cannot prove you did, but as soon as Trump is questioned, you remember.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So you lied about previously complaining about this then. Or rather just cannot prove you did, but as soon as Trump is questioned, you remember.

Please chill. Seriously. You are kind of making yourself look silly.

Anyone who has been around these forums has seen MotherMayEye call out corruption in government, no matter who it is, for years.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So you lied about previously complaining about this then.

Nope. I never did that. That's totally your own invention.

***

BlueAjah, thanks, btw.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Reeks of partisanship, you're kidding.


The 'both sides narrative' is her tool for comparing every minor thing one side does, to every major thing the other does. I've read plenty of posts.

It's the worst kind of hackery, as it attempts to display itself as bipartisan when it's clearly not.

She DEMANDS equal outrage, all I WANT TO SEE, IS HER FIRST OUTRAGE, otherwise she's just gasoline CORRECT?

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
She DEMANDS equal outrage, all I WANT TO SEE, IS HER FIRST OUTRAGE, otherwise she's just gasoline CORRECT?

Here is the outrage I referenced in this thread when I mentioned Obama DEFRAUDING the People:

Link

And WHY would I have mentioned the Emoluments Clause and Obama and 'equal outrage' when I am NOT outraged about Trump and any possible Emoluments Clause violations? Now THAT would undermine my whole point about selective outrage.

I wasn't so outraged about it with Obama and his book royalties and I am not so outraged about it with Trump and his hotels.

See? That is called the equal application of the law as far as my personal outrage goes.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

Please.

Personally, as a Trump supporter, I have occasionally found it annoying when MotherMayEye goes after Trump.

But, I have always respected that MotherMayEye gives reasonable and logical support for his/her points of view.

And his/her points of view have never favored any particular party. In fact, I don't think MotherMayEye has much trust for government in most cases.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 08:59 PM

You get 3/10th credit. I'll drop it however.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

Personally, as a Trump supporter, I have occasionally found it annoying when MotherMayEye goes after Trump.

Who else starred this besides me?



I have my suspicions!!!

a reply to: MotherMayEye





I'm starring all familiar names that have sensible posts !

a reply to: xuenchen

I can live with that.



(I'm not good at meme-ing)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Newsflash for MD and DC: Trump is not getting any perks from foreign nations for being President.

How do you know? Because you think it is true?

How do you know Obama didn't? Or Clinton? Or Carter?

If there was even a whiff that something like was possible, don't you expect we would have heard something with all the leaks?

Seriously.

Whole lot of *nothing.*

If they want a chance at winning a lawsuit against Trump, they better have evidence of where when who and how much emolument Trump took. They can't just guess Trump took emoluments. They have to show the amount and what time and what place and from who.

a reply to: BlueAjah

George Washington was the first businessman president. Presidents are not kings. They are not born to be presidents. There is nothing in the constitution that forbids the president of being a businessman.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You said the phrase not me. If you weren't talking about them, then why even mention it in the first place? To obfuscate the topic? Because that would be trolling.

Nice try, but we both know AG's aren't judges. Now I'm wondering if you're trolling me.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

No not correct, not in the slightest.

MotherMayEye gets just as angry with the one side over serious violations of good practice, ethics and standards of performance, not to mention violations of the law, as she does with the other. Her preference is that whomever deems themselves fit to lead, actually is fit to lead, and when they are not, that is when you will see MME get the pitchforks out, and too bloody right as well!

Wind your neck in.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

At least I have not heard it reported that he called the U S Constitution "just a G** D*** piece of paper".

After I heard this from another president, I had a real falling out with politics.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CynConcepts

2018? Why not now? Sounds like a carrot on a stick to me, but what do I know? I'm a Trump hater right? I guess you like running straight first at that carrot with blinders on. "BUT BUT Trump SAID he's doing this in 2018! It's fine guys. Nothing to worry about."

Guilty until proven innocent... got to love the new America we live in.

There is no "guilty" or "innocent" involved with this lawsuit, so what are you talking about? It's just a lawsuit to force compliance with the Constitution.