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

a reply to: TrueBrit

The right's rallying towards the Constitution was just political rhetoric to them. Most hadn't even read it and if they had hadn't taken the time to truly understand the words written or underlying political arguments about them. As long as the 2nd is maintained, that is all they care about.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

That Marketwatch article isn't making these lawsuits go away.

No, the LAW will do that all by itself.

Yes and what happens when the law disagrees with you? Going to go find another Marketwatch article that says the outcome should have been different so you can validate your misery? You do an awful lot to dismiss these things before they've even worked their course. You are in many developing threads on Trump's investigations doing this. That tends to be the behavior of someone uneasy about the direction these events are proceeding.

Where in the constitution is the part about presidents owning businesses? LOL, you have spent the thread doing exactly what you keep crying the others are doing to you. Support your side, or admit you just "WANT" this to work but have no idea how. Where is the constitutional law that covers this?

a reply to: network dude
I'm not telling you to support my side. I'm telling you not to jump to conclusion and say this investigation won't go anywhere. There is a HUGE world of positions to take on an argument outside of two sides you know?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Plus they'll use that behavior as justification to validate their beliefs about liberals. "See you liberals are all whiny, triggered babies!" I really hate this mentality of trolling with strawmans and nastiness then acting coy when people retaliate that underlies most conservative arguing.

I hate that as well. Apparently disagreeing with them or pointing-out something they do not like equates to being a "whiny liberal".

Doesn't make much sense.

I wouldn't so much call it a measure of their age or intelligence though. It's just an example of group speak or mob mentality. The problem is that it can lead to some VERY nasty and inhumane actions that are regretted by later generations. This is the same kind of poor reasoning that led to witch burnings or even excusing Hitler's actions in WWII.

Perhaps you are correct. I think that it can be immature, though. As far as their intelligence, I suppose I should not be so harsh.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude
I'm not telling you to support my side. I'm telling you not to jump to conclusion and say this investigation won't go anywhere. There is a HUGE world of positions to take on an argument outside of two sides you know?

what you aren't telling me is what the # I asked you. Why is that not happening? It's a simple question and plays right into what you have been claiming this whole thread. If you can't answer it, perhaps more than you just don't know, you are just manufacturing some outrage over the fact that this article is a joke, there is no constitutional law to cover this, the article I brought up states it clearly, and you are angry that everyone sees you for what you are. Where is this at in the constitution?

a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

Could you cogently explain just exactly how "your tax dollars" are lining Trumps pocket?

Act like I'm from Missouri and lay out that path for all to see.

Show us something that is proof he's benefitting any more than he would as private citizen Trump.

While the president is not legally allowed to receive emoluments from foreign governments, he is allowed to receive emoluments from foreign private individuals. There is nothing in the constitution that says the president is not allowed to own and operate a private business. In fact, George Washington was the first businessman president. Get over it.

a reply to: network dude

Why isn't what happening? I have no idea what you are referring to with that question.

a reply to: Phoenix

Rather than take a definitive stance on such things as budget, taxes, debt, economy, healthcare, immigration, infastructure, foreign relations and honestly debate cost/benefits of such, what I see is "Muh Russia" and crap like this OP is based upon.

We can discuss policies on any of those issues and the current Trump issues as well. The Russia aspect and the OP are relevant, current issues that are of Trump's own making. The Left didn't just make things up for the sake of partisanship.

Attempting to apply logic where none really deserved, I can only surmise that when one knows their stance has no weight with the majority then the resort left is to charge windmills.

Deserving has nothing to do with it and neither does your broad partisanship against the Left.

You are doing exactly that which I pointed-out in my first post.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I laugh at those calling out "Oh, those whining Dems again!".

Its almost like the gobby "patriot" hypocrites do not understand their own constitution. Mind you, the ability to do so does also require an attention span longer than six seconds, and the ability to read... so I can see where their misunderstanding might have come in.

Democrats are trying to do with the courts what they failed to do at the ballot box. Its not a violation of the Constitution.

Going to be lots of time and money for something without a punishment. Mid terms it's going to be HOW MUCH MONEY DID THEY WASTE!!!!

a reply to: introvert

I hate that as well. Apparently disagreeing with them or pointing-out something they do not like equates to being a "whiny liberal". 

Doesn't make much sense. 

Boy who cried wolf.

They ruined it for themselves by complaining and protesting EVERYTHING since his inception. Why should we take this seriously when the last 1000 times weren't? I doubt this one is any different.

Perhaps you are correct. I think that it can be immature, though. As far as their intelligence, I suppose I should not be so harsh.

Speaking of witch hunts and mob mentalies..

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

They ruined it for themselves by complaining and protesting EVERYTHING since his inception. Why should we take this seriously when the last 1000 times weren't? I doubt this one is any different.

Everything? This is the sort of hyperbole and dramatics that can be exhausting when trying to have a logical discussion.

Also, you did not address the point I made. Instead of addressing the issue presented, they whine about whiny liberals. All because they don't like the topic or the potential consequences of it.

Much like what you are doing here. You're deflecting to the Left.

Speaking of witch hunts and mob mentalies..

Ya, what about it? Need to borrow a pitchfork?

Just another example of orange skin prejudice from the left.
I find it doubtful this will go anywhere. Considering the word "alleging" was peppered throughout the article and the Washington post seems to be the only media outlet reporting this.

a reply to: JAY1980

Um... That's because the AGs are from Maryland and DC and they reported what they were doing directly to WaPo (a Washington DC based newspaper). It wouldn't make sense to report to CNN or NYT since they aren't in DC now would it? The article is pretty clear about them being the first source of this story. Give it a few hours, the other outlets will pick it up and reshare the story.

The lawsuit, a signed copy of which Racine and Frosh provided to The Washington Post on Sunday night,

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am sure you can show me precedent for this exact scenario, which has already been decided by a supreme court, which states as much then, can't you Xcathdra?

A link would be great!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Why isn't what happening? I have no idea what you are referring to with that question.

LOL, playing dumb won't excuse you this time. Look at the title of the thread. Now look through your conversations here. Hell, look right here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The right's rallying towards the Constitution was just political rhetoric to them. Most hadn't even read it and if they had hadn't taken the time to truly understand the words written or underlying political arguments about them. As long as the 2nd is maintained, that is all they care about.

What is it in the constitution that we just don't get? You have the floor, it's your thread. You placed the title on it. You are defining it. Now, if you aren't mentally capable of explaining it, perhaps you should find another member here who is.

Where in the US Constitution does it cover a President and his business dealings?
constitutionus.com...

I think that some people here need a break away from this subject of topic.
I suggest reading a good book,baking a batch of cookies,wrapping your hands
around a mug of cocoa,finding ways to relax and calm your moods.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think that with all the fanfare and hatred of Trump, pretending that every allegation needs to be spoken to is absurd.

The media and far left have done nothing but bluff and point fingers.

Its the boy who cried impeachment and secession.

Everyone from this school of thought can bite me.

I get it, Trump bad.