2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidJust like it's "totally acceptable" for a lawyer at a firm to accept civil cases against rioters and to offer advice to prosecutors (in cases where they are not representing the defendant, of course).
I do indeed like hypos, thank you. Debaters who incorporated succinct hypos into an issue got extra marks from me.
Easy one. If a pres has an EO like this, his/her whole basis being that he/she does not like a totally acceptable slogan on a widget, the President needs a whipping.
What do you take me for.
Yet, the President you support wants to try to punish law firms and their clients using the power of government for doing such "totally acceptable" things.
@no1marauder saidI think you are saying that Trump wants to punish firms and clients, who are doing acceptable things.
Just like it's "totally acceptable" for a lawyer at a firm to accept civil cases against rioters and to offer advice to prosecutors (in cases where they are not representing the defendant, of course).
Yet, the President you support wants to try to punish law firms and their clients using the power of government for doing such "totally acceptable" things.
If he is, he needs a whipping.
We agree of course, but is not our issue a stream of things you wrote a few clicks back that you hold out as factually legal?? A question for the courts, I would think. No jury required. If you have a court battle going on between extremely prepared lawyers, it is not likely you and I cannot write a para here to 'wrap it up.'
Get real. Why the courts? Exactly.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidIt's a "matter for the courts" only because no President before Trump would have dreamed of trying to do such a thing esp. by an Executive Order. That's what makes it tie in with the definition I gave you:
I think you are saying that Trump wants to punish firms and clients, who are doing acceptable things.
If he is, he needs a whipping.
We agree of course, but is not our issue a stream of things you wrote a few clicks back that you hold out as factually legal?? A question for the courts, I would think. No jury required. If you have a court battle going on between ...[text shortened]... likely you and I cannot write a para here to 'wrap it up.'
Get real. Why the courts? Exactly.
"oligarchy, government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes."
Trump's EO is the very epitome of corruption; a dishonest act by someone in authority for personal benefit.
@no1marauder saidI gave you the def a page back. Governed by a few, some such. Right. Oligarchy. Don't TELL me you think that Robert Kennedy (rrrrriiiiiiicccchh) will go along with all the cabinet and take over the US in a few years.
It's a "matter for the courts" only because no President before Trump would have dreamed of trying to do such a thing esp. by an Executive Order. That's what makes it tie in with the definition I gave you:
"oligarchy, government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes."
Trump's EO is the very epitome of corruption; a dishonest act by someone in authority for personal benefit.
Tell us right now that you are not saying or implying that Trump and his friends are planning to take over the USA.
Tell us.
Edit: Should Trump be put down if he is acting dishonestly? Yes. Who will decide that if it gets that far?? The courts. We are saying the same thing. You act as tho you are trying to trap me but I keep getting away?
The courts, man.
@AverageJoe1 saidNo, we don't agree.
I gave you the def a page back. Governed by a few, some such. Right. Oligarchy. Don't TELL me you think that Robert Kennedy (rrrrriiiiiiicccchh) will go along with all the cabinet and take over the US in a few years.
Tell us right now that you are not saying or implying that Trump and his friends are planning to take over the USA.
Tell us.
Edit: Should Tru ...[text shortened]... same thing. You act as tho you are trying to trap me but I keep getting away?
The courts, man.
Presidents shouldn't do clearly unconstitutional things and then rely on the courts to fix it (all the while fighting the cases in court using the People's resources).
Not sure what else you mean; Trump and Musk have "took over the USA" in fact. That they are trying to override the law and Constitution to usurp power that they do not legitimately possess is a fact, not an opinion.
@Torunn saidTry typing in President Trump holds cabinet meeting with Elon Musk on you tube if you want to learn the truth on things instead of listening to short clips and biased news that we all know which side their on.. it last 45 minutes and will answer you questions I would post the link but their not letting me.
Transparent or not - Donald Trump is a mad man. Read in the news today "Trump says, we must have Greenland." Apart from all other oddities that man has, what else is wrong with him? Aren't the Americans ashamed of him?
@mike69 saidI have read enough and heard enough about him, I wouldn't bother to learn more.
Try typing in President Trump holds cabinet meeting with Elon Musk on you tube if you want to learn the truth on things instead of listening to short clips and biased news that we all know which side their on.. it last 45 minutes and will answer you questions I would post the link but their not letting me.
@Very-Rusty saidYou seem to like running your mouth like a little🤡
@mike69,
You seem to enjoy getting yourself on the wrong side of a debate!
Is it the attention?
-VR
@Very-Rusty saidThat’s why lost to big to rig, and at 27% approval rating , people are sick you and your woke bs.
Your posts make you look like the icon you use!!! 😛
It should have been running my fingers not my mouth.....LOL...
Someday you are going to get something correct, I just know it!!!
-VR