• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lol Trey Gowdy trying to pin Brennan on the Dossier. Said CIA never used the dossier; and none of the conclusions under his watch were a result of the dossier.
 
Muellers going to be

good-reboots-dredd.gif
 
Obviously not a credible source here but a conservative friend wants me to refute this article about Obama and I just don't have the time to look over all of it right now. Any help would be great.

http://bit.ly/2f3B1s9

That list is hilarious. If it's not supported by inforwars, it's just the authors misinformed opinion.

7) Carried out military interventionism in Libya without Congressional approval

Obama violated the Constitution when he launched military operations inLibya without Congressional approval.

Hmmm kinda like how Trump launched missiles at Syria without congressional approval.
 

Plumbob

Member
Obviously not a credible source here but a conservative friend wants me to refute this article about Obama and I just don't have the time to look over all of it right now. Any help would be great.

http://bit.ly/2f3B1s9

#2 was an initiative to investigate the financial relationship between financial institutions and organizations at high-risk of being involved in crime. Did not target gun shops.

#3 is false http://www.snopes.com/dhs-quietly-vanloads-border/
lkjs#4 Criminal background checks before purchasing fire arms are good? and none of these initiatives actually passed

#5 the IRS wasn't targetting conservatives https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...e-irs-didnt-target-just-conservatives/276536/

#6 You may disagree with the subpoena of journalists' phone records as part of a criminal investigation into a terrorism incident, but you can't do so while supporting Trump.

#7 Libya intervention. We haven't declared war since WWII. And it's certainly not unique to Obama or any president of the last 50 years to introduce troops to a foreign country without congressional approval.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-obamas-libya-offensive-constitutional/

Which raises the question: Is it Congress or the president that has the power to authorize military action?

The answer is that, to some extent, they both claim it. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, explicitly states that "The Congress shall have Power To...declare War." But in Article II, Section 2, the Constitution says that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." So while only Congress can technically declare war, the president is in charge of the military - and can decide when and where it is deployed.

#8 sounds like supporting faith-based organizations that administer social support programs. Doesn't sound unconstitutional necessarily.
 

Ogodei

Member
Well that sucks. They at all close to being able to pass amendment to their state constitution?

They would probably need to get rid of LePage, and this ruling makes it harder to do that (of course, the Dems and left-independents could just get their shit together and field one candidate instead of two, but nah...)
 

dakini

Member
Yeah. It's a beautiful place but there's nothing there except Cheyenne.

Casper's the same size as Cheyenne, but yeah I don't think I could make it in Wyoming and I live in Nebraska lol.

I love driving through the state tho. Big Sky Country could just as easily fit Wyoming as it does Montana.
 
Honestly, first thing that should be done once we get the GOP is restructuring the House to be more balanced. It's borderline absurd that California has 66x the people of Wyoming yet gets 13 less seats then what it could get underneath a better system. Same goes for Massachusetts, which could fit 11 Wyoming's but gets only 9 seats.
 
Yeah I'm starting to believe those rumors that Melania wanted to leave Trump after the election. I've never seen such blatant "I don't want to be with you" since my ex that ditched me at fucking PAX East.
 

Blader

Member
If Flynn gets immunity it's to take Trump down, period.

He's not turning on Trump at all. Giving Flynn immunity would be disastrous. It'd protect from the consequences he deserves and he wouldn't do anything to bring Trump down. Maybe he has some dirt on other people in the administration, but he and Trump are too close for Flynn to turn on him.
 
Honestly, first thing that should be done once we get the GOP is restructuring the House to be more balanced. It's borderline absurd that California has 66x the people of Wyoming yet gets 13 less seats then what it could get underneath a better system. Same goes for Massachusetts, which could fit 11 Wyoming's but gets only 9 seats.
That and get rid of the Electoral College, though that would require a constitutional amendment to implement (not convinced the interstate compact would hold up in courts, not to mention states could withdraw at any time).

Don't know how anyone can argue that the EC is beneficial to our democracy when it alone installed a Russian patsy to the top executive office in the country.
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
He's not turning on Trump at all. Giving Flynn immunity would be disastrous. It'd protect from the consequences he deserves and he wouldn't do anything to bring Trump down. Maybe he has some dirt on other people in the administration, but he and Trump are too close for Flynn to turn on him.

If the FBI is going to put you in jail for the rest of your life vs testifying against your boss who is probably also nailed and you've got a get out of jail free card, you're telling me you wouldn't flip on a good friend? There's loyalty and then there's abject stupidity
 

royalan

Member
Yeah I'm starting to believe those rumors that Melania wanted to leave Trump after the election. I've never seen such blatant "I don't want to be with you" since my ex that ditched me at fucking PAX East.

I've been saying this since day 1.

Melania married Trump for the status/money. She wants to be a socialite, not the damn FLOTUS.

Someone should let it slip that divorcing the current and most hated president would make her the most famous, sought-after woman overnight.
 

Blader

Member
If the FBI is going to put you in jail for the rest of your life vs testifying against your boss who is probably also nailed and you've got a get out of jail free card, you're telling me you wouldn't flip on a good friend? There's loyalty and then there's abject stupidity

Well, for one thing, Flynn has taken a steep detour into stupidity over the last two years.

I mean, Flynn's not going to prison, who are we kidding? He can be charged with crimes but Trump will pardon him, and they both know it. And, I'm not completely sure about how immunity deals are arranged, but doesn't he need to be granted immunity before sharing what he knows? Couldn't be obtain immunity and then, free from prosecution, spill the beans that just so happen not to implicate Trump in any way?
 

Wilsongt

Member
I've been saying this since day 1.

Melania married Trump for the status/money. She wants to be a socialite, not the damn FLOTUS.

Someone should let it slip that divorcing the current and most hated president would make her the most famous, sought-after woman overnight.

Melania might be a kind of decent human being if she wasn't attached to Trump.

She could take Barron and run away to give the kid a chance so he doesn't end up like his greasy haired slime ball half brothers.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
If Flynn gets immunity it's to take Trump down, period.
No reason to give him immunity otherwise from an FBI standpoint. BUT from a republican on a committee standpoint giving him immunity for worthless testimony just to protect him from embarrassing criminal proceedings for the administration could be the gambit here.
 
If you read the article, he resigned because there was so much resistance to him working with the freedom caucus. He's not showing remorse for what he did. He thinks he did the right thing and is mad the group didn't back it more.
 
He's not turning on Trump at all. Giving Flynn immunity would be disastrous. It'd protect from the consequences he deserves and he wouldn't do anything to bring Trump down. Maybe he has some dirt on other people in the administration, but he and Trump are too close for Flynn to turn on him.

Maybe ... maybe Trumps loyalty is a show because he knows Flynn could take him down. I don't want Flynn given immunity unless Mueller is willing to give it.
 

Blader

Member
Rep. Tom MacArthur resigns as leader of the Tuesday group.

http://www.politico.com/states/new-...r-resigns-as-co-chair-of-tuesday-group-112255

It's probably a fallout from his involvement with getting AHCA passed.

Not surprising. He was acting as the figurehead for the Tuesday Group during amendment negotiations, but it was reported that he wasn't even consulting with Tuesday Group members during the process at all.

Maybe ... maybe Trumps loyalty is a show because he knows Flynn could take him down. I don't want Flynn given immunity unless Mueller is willing to give it.

From everything I've read, Trump seems to genuinely like Flynn. They bonded on the campaign trail. Trump respected and appreciated Flynn's support when the rest of the national security establishment were putting their names on anti-Trump petitions. He hated firing him (and couldn't even bring himself to do it; he had Bannon pull the trigger). And Flynn keeps talking warmly about Trump in private. I think the two genuinely like each other, and Flynn knows that at the end of the day, he has a presidential pardon waiting to shield him from facing any consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom