ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Trump administration , Trump controversies

Closed Thread
Old 25th April 2019, 01:04 PM   #561
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,545
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
Is it? I don't think it is as clear cut as you make out.
Yeah, it's pretty clear cut.

Quote:
If the legislature can impeach for literally any reason they choose, that opens the possibility that, if both the House and Senate, are controlled by one party they could have the president removed at will. So much for checks and balances.
Conviction in the senate requires a 2/3rds supermajority. That's an awfully big hurdle to overcome if the voting is simply along party lines (ie, the case is meritless and being pursued only for partisan gain). And even that is unlikely. Anyone elected to the presidency is going to have considerable voter support, so voting to convict in the absence of a genuine case against the president is going to be a very risky proposition for a lot of senators, so it would be hard to maintain a party-line vote in that scenario. So while arbitrary impeachment and conviction is in principle possible, it's very unlikely, which shouldn't surprise anyone seeing as how it's never happened yet.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 01:08 PM   #562
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,029
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
It IS 100% clear cut.

The Supreme Court has ZERO, NADA, ZIPPO... NO jurisdiction whatsoever over impeachment of POTUS or any other government or judiciary official. Its ONLY involvement is that the Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over the Senate trial if the House rules to impeach

SCOTUS can have no other involvement.... period!
What if the article of impeachment explicitly states it is for not committing a high crime or misdemeanor?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 01:19 PM   #563
Armitage72
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,954
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What if the article of impeachment explicitly states it is for not committing a high crime or misdemeanor?

Assuming the neccessary majority approved of the action, it would be the responsibility of the voters to not reelect them for abusing their power.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 01:20 PM   #564
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
trump Tweets

Rasmussen 50% Approval Rating, Thank you! #MAGA
rasmussen has a C rating

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...roval-ratings/
so does the one giving Trump 37-40%
Ipsos is B+
he is getting 40% there
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...04_24_2019.pdf
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 01:22 PM   #565
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,025
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
rasmussen has a C rating

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...roval-ratings/
so does the one giving Trump 37-40%
Ipsos is B+
he is getting 40% there
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...04_24_2019.pdf
I think the important number on fivethirtyeight.com is their calculation based on all the polls, weighted by quality:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...roval-ratings/

Currently 41.5%
Imhotep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 01:26 PM   #566
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,029
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
Assuming the neccessary majority approved of the action, it would be the responsibility of the voters to not reelect them for abusing their power.
It seems courts have struck down the use of power the branch did not possess. Why is this power that they do not possess an exception?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 01:32 PM   #567
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,237
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It seems courts have struck down the use of power the branch did not possess. Why is this power that they do not possess an exception?
What power that they do not possess are you referring to? They actually do have the power to impeach, period.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 01:37 PM   #568
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,840
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
It IS 100% clear cut.

The Supreme Court has ZERO, NADA, ZIPPO... NO jurisdiction whatsoever over impeachment of POTUS or any other government or judiciary official. Its ONLY involvement is that the Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over the Senate trial if the House rules to impeach

SCOTUS can have no other involvement.... period!
As far as I can tell the Supreme has already decided that it and the entire judiciary branch can't be involved in the case Nixon vs The United States (And note that case isn't about Richard Nixon).

ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 25th April 2019 at 01:43 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 01:56 PM   #569
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,029
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
What power that they do not possess are you referring to? They actually do have the power to impeach, period.
But article 2 says only treason, bribery, etc. Does that limit the power of Congress? If not, why is it there?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 02:18 PM   #570
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,545
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What if the article of impeachment explicitly states it is for not committing a high crime or misdemeanor?
This is a stupid question for multiple reasons. First, it's a pointless hypothetical, because why would an impeachment resolution say that? It wouldn't. Even if the charges are bull ****, there will still be a pretense of legitimacy.

Second, no matter what the answer is, it's irrelevant. Suppose that the answer is that such a resolution would be unconstitutional because of that statement, and so would then get tossed somehow (the details of how don't even matter). In that case, the House would simply pass it again without that language, and presto, impeachment proceeds anyways. Which is what would happen if the language wasn't an obstacle. So in no case would such a requirement on the language of the resolution, if it exists, pose any sort of impediment to impeachment.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 02:26 PM   #571
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,029
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is a stupid question for multiple reasons. First, it's a pointless hypothetical, because why would an impeachment resolution say that? It wouldn't. Even if the charges are bull ****, there will still be a pretense of legitimacy.

Second, no matter what the answer is, it's irrelevant. Suppose that the answer is that such a resolution would be unconstitutional because of that statement, and so would then get tossed somehow (the details of how don't even matter). In that case, the House would simply pass it again without that language, and presto, impeachment proceeds anyways. Which is what would happen if the language wasn't an obstacle. So in no case would such a requirement on the language of the resolution, if it exists, pose any sort of impediment to impeachment.
By having to take it out to complete impeachment, that is an impediment. Like other impediments, it can be removed (like a rock impeding your path until you move it).
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 02:30 PM   #572
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,237
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But article 2 says only treason, bribery, etc. Does that limit the power of Congress? If not, why is it there?
Maybe it's merely there as an example of possible reasons for impeachment. There's precedent: I believe some Supreme Court Justices (I am thinking specifically of Scalia) have concluded that the "Well Regulated Militia" clause of the Second Amendment is "mere surplusage".

And here's a copy of the US Constitution. I can't seem to find the word "only" in Article 2 to which you refer. Can you point it out for me?

https://constitutionus.com/

Last edited by Cabbage; 25th April 2019 at 02:31 PM.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 02:34 PM   #573
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,029
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Maybe it's merely there as an example of possible reasons for impeachment. There's precedent: I believe some Supreme Court Justices (I am thinking specifically of Scalia) have concluded that the "Well Regulated Militia" clause of the Second Amendment is "mere surplusage".

And here's a copy of the US Constitution. I can't seem to find the word "only" in Article 2 to which you refer. Can you point it out for me?

https://constitutionus.com/
Only modifies says in my sentence.


That isnt precedent. It is an explanation. The problem is it doesn't say anything about what to do when that explanation no longer applies.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 02:41 PM   #574
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,237
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Only modifies says in my sentence.
Oh, so the Constitution does NOT claim to give an exhaustive list of justifications for impeachment, huh? Gotcha!


Quote:
That isnt precedent. It is an explanation. The problem is it doesn't say anything about what to do when that explanation no longer applies.
It absolutely IS precedent for answering the question "why is it there?" with "No particular reason; it is mere surplusage."
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 02:46 PM   #575
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,545
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
By having to take it out to complete impeachment, that is an impediment. Like other impediments, it can be removed (like a rock impeding your path until you move it).
It is a trivial impediment to remove, if it even exists. So what's the point in discussing it?

Oh, because you're Bob. That's why.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 02:58 PM   #576
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,029
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Oh, so the Constitution does NOT claim to give an exhaustive list of justifications for impeachment, huh? Gotcha!
That would be an argument if one were to make it. But no one here is.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 03:02 PM   #577
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,029
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It is a trivial impediment to remove, if it even exists. So what's the point in discussing it?

Oh, because you're Bob. That's why.
I have no obligation to you to justify my question.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 03:21 PM   #578
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,312
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Classy.







Turn to them for what? They have nothing to do with the process, do they?
That all depends on their reading of the entrails of the constitution.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 04:47 PM   #579
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,237
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That would be an argument if one were to make it. But no one here is.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said that according to the Constitution, impeachment applies ONLY for treason, bribery, etc. I must have misread this:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But article 2 says only treason, bribery, etc. Does that limit the power of Congress? If not, why is it there?
My bad.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 05:05 PM   #580
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,029
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said that according to the Constitution, impeachment applies ONLY for treason, bribery, etc. I must have misread this:



My bad.
One explanation for why it is there is it is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but as a suggestion.


I haven't stated an opinion on this thread if the impeachment power is limited or not.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 05:11 PM   #581
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,237
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
One explanation for why it is there is it is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but as a suggestion.


I haven't stated an opinion on this thread if the impeachment power is limited or not.
OK
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 06:53 PM   #582
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 26,546
““I DID NOTHING WRONG,” Trump said.

Warning. I do not have conclusive or even reasonable evidence for this supposition.

The wording bothers me a bit. I’d be happier if he had said, “I did nothing illegal.” I’m worried that his concept of right and wrong does not perfectly correlate with the US’s concepts of legal and illegal. If DJT’s concept of right is anything that improves the economy (or his wallet) and laws that hinder his plans to do the “right” thing are inherently wrong, then it may be hard to convince him that his actions require a Congressional trial.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 07:21 PM   #583
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,887
As far as he's concerned, he's never done anything wrong or made any mistake in his entire life. I call that CEO syndrome.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 07:30 PM   #584
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 9,368
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
It's becoming inescapably clear that Trump hasn't read the Constitution that he swore to defend.
I like that. “Becoming” clear. Good one.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th April 2019, 10:10 PM   #585
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,545
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I have no obligation to you to justify my question.
Indeed. Just as you have no obligation to think coherently, to engage constructively, or make your posts worthwhile in any way.

I know you don't have to answer this, and you probably won't, but why are you even here?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 01:20 AM   #586
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,976
Well, if you look at America's Demographic Destiny that liberals love to exhort as a sign that America will become Just Like Europe (tm), you are going to see American politicians resemble Bolsonaro/Uribe more than Emmanuel Macron and Nick Clegg. Trump is only a taste of what is to come.
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 01:36 AM   #587
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,578
I wonder when Republicans will remember that they used to care about the debt - the debt ceiling limit expired on March 1st-
The government is running on fumes until autumn, but all the Tea Party/Fiscal Conservatives don't seem to give a damn.

I wonder why Dems are not hitting Trump harder on the fact that all he can do is lose other people's money - in this case the taxpayer's money.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 01:40 AM   #588
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,976
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I wonder when Republicans will remember that they used to care about the debt - the debt ceiling limit expired on March 1st-
The government is running on fumes until autumn, but all the Tea Party/Fiscal Conservatives don't seem to give a damn.

I wonder why Dems are not hitting Trump harder on the fact that all he can do is lose other people's money - in this case the taxpayer's money.
Because the Dems bet EVERYTHING on "Drumpf is a Russian Bot and Mueller will Lock Him Up!", and that just came crashing down in the last few weeks.
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 03:02 AM   #589
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,507
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Indeed. Just as you have no obligation to think coherently, to engage constructively, or make your posts worthwhile in any way.

I know you don't have to answer this, and you probably won't, but why are you even here?


You are a gift that just keeps giving.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 03:25 AM   #590
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 5,691
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post

I wonder why Dems are not hitting Trump harder on the fact that all he can do is lose other people's money - in this case the taxpayer's money.
The fact that the National Debt approximately doubled under Obama makes it difficult for them to justify why that was OK, but what’s going on now isn’t.

Sure, there are reasons, but not the kind that lend themselves to a sound bite.
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 04:13 AM   #591
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 5,691
I just saw an opinion piece by Judge Napolitano on Fox News Digital. It got pushed to me on Apple News.

Pretty much makes the case for obstruction.

See if this link works...

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6029505643001/
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 04:17 AM   #592
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Indeed. Just as you have no obligation to think coherently, to engage constructively, or make your posts worthwhile in any way.

I know you don't have to answer this, and you probably won't, but why are you even here?
Why are you personalising the argument, now? I have it on good authority that it's a no-no.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 04:32 AM   #593
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,200
Trump Tweets

No money was paid to North Korea for Otto Warmbier, not two Million Dollars, not anything else. This is not the Obama Administration that paid 1.8 Billion Dollars for four hostages, or gave five terroist hostages plus, who soon went back to battle, for traitor Sgt. Bergdahl!

“President Donald J. Trump is the greatest hostage negotiator that I know of in the history of the United States. 20 hostages, many in impossible circumstances, have been released in last two years. No money was paid.” Cheif Hostage Negotiator, USA!
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 04:41 AM   #594
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 5,691
“terroist”

“Cheif”

Cognitive decline? My spell-checker made it hard to even type those words!
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 04:45 AM   #595
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,737
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump Tweets

No money was paid to North Korea for Otto Warmbier, not two Million Dollars, not anything else. This is not the Obama Administration that paid 1.8 Billion Dollars for four hostages, or gave five terroist hostages plus, who soon went back to battle, for traitor Sgt. Bergdahl!

“President Donald J. Trump is the greatest hostage negotiator that I know of in the history of the United States. 20 hostages, many in impossible circumstances, have been released in last two years. No money was paid.” Cheif Hostage Negotiator, USA!
The greatest hostage negociator? Didn't he not negociate?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 04:49 AM   #596
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,578
This is the kind of information Trump LOVES: where those in the know will never tell what really happened, because the principle of not paying for hostages is much more important than whatever Trump is doing.
He can lie as much as he wants, comfortable in the knowledge that no one will officially contradict him.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 05:25 AM   #597
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,029
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Indeed. Just as you have no obligation to think coherently, to engage constructively, or make your posts worthwhile in any way.

I know you don't have to answer this, and you probably won't, but why are you even here?
The answer is we disagree on what behavior is in accordance with those.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 06:45 AM   #598
Stacko
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,837
welcome to the dumb times where a president saying kids need to get measles vaccinations is a pivot
2019 sure is something.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 07:02 AM   #599
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,507
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump Tweets

[...]This is not the Obama Administration that paid 1.8 Billion Dollars for four hostages,[...]
What? The President* is repeating a debunked conspiracy theory?

This is my shocked face.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2019, 07:08 AM   #600
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,497
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump Tweets

No money was paid to North Korea for Otto Warmbier, not two Million Dollars, not anything else. This is not the Obama Administration that paid 1.8 Billion Dollars for four hostages, or gave five terroist hostages plus, who soon went back to battle, for traitor Sgt. Bergdahl!

“President Donald J. Trump is the greatest hostage negotiator that I know of in the history of the United States. 20 hostages, many in impossible circumstances, have been released in last two years. No money was paid.” Cheif Hostage Negotiator, USA!
There's much despicable about this tweet, of course, including his calling Bergdahl a traitor. That's significant since, far as I know, the court martial is ongoing and Trump is Commander-in-Chief, but I'd like to focus on something else.

He honestly refers to POWs we've taken as hostages. Hostages. He uses that term as if there's nothing wrong with our side taking hostages rather than detaining combatants as prisoners and treating them accordingly.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.