Will Republicans Sanction Russia or Prove Their Treason with Inaction

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Greven

I'm advocating the President follow his duty. He doesn't get to decide what laws he follows. He executes the laws.

Like immigration laws?

Ah, yet another new challenger.

Yes. Now answer the question:

"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
Yes or No.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: DBCowboy


are you telling me we meddled to the same degree in russia, and putin did nothing??

really?

you got a link?

We probably did worse.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I guess the leftists in this thread are indeed insisting that we nuke Russia.

Then they can call Trump a war-monger.

This is starting to make sense now.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Greven

Chalk me up as another. What's this Constitutional duty he's supposed to perform? Kowtow to the "loyal" opposition, and slap sanctions on a country that hasn't been proven to have done anything wrong, only accused?

So, what's the duty, again?

It's been repeated in the thread three times now.

Simply put, the Constitution requires that the President faithfully execute laws. You know - the 'Execut'-ive branch.

President Trump is refusing to execute the law that puts sanctions on Russia, in violation of his duty under the Constitution.

Obama failed to execute laws when he disagreed with them and even wrote an unconstitutional EO in order to attempt to refuse to execute those laws. DACA was an unconstitutional attempt to refuse to execute the law of the land in regards to deporting noncitizens. I guess you really were up in arms when he did that. No?

Yes, I was, though perhaps I didn't post much about that here.

Please answer the simple question, now that your deflection is moot.

I already did. Presidents have done so in the past and for good reason.

So your answer is that the Constitution of the United States of America is wrong?

Was Theodore Roosevelt wrong when he went beyond his constitutional rights?

Assuming he went beyond his constitutional rights, then yes he was.

The United States of America is a nation of laws, not feelings.

A quick peruse through any media publication would determine that to be a false statement.

Sad but true.

a reply to: DBCowboy


so, we've done worse, and putin did nothing?

it's hard for me to believe he's that weak..

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Khaleesi

Where he overreached, he violated his duty to the Constitution.

You did not answer my question with a "yes" or a "no" but a deflective "other people did it." I've answered repeatedly your deflective questions.

Answer my question:
"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
Yes or No.

Oh FFS I already answered yes and you even quoted me answering yes. Can you not read? YES there are times when, in the best interest of the country a president must look at what is right vs wrong, not what the law is.

My apologies; you are correct - this thread has moved rather quickly.

You are the only one yet to answer, and your answer is that you think it is okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his Constitutional duty.

I disagree.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Khaleesi

Where he overreached, he violated his duty to the Constitution.

You did not answer my question with a "yes" or a "no" but a deflective "other people did it." I've answered repeatedly your deflective questions.

Answer my question:
"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
Yes or No.

Oh FFS I already answered yes and you even quoted me answering yes. Can you not read? YES there are times when, in the best interest of the country a president must look at what is right vs wrong, not what the law is.

My apologies; you are correct - this thread has moved rather quickly.

You are the only one yet to answer, and your answer is that you think it is okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his Constitutional duty.

I disagree.

There are times when the law is wrong. In some instances the president has a moral obligation to disobey the law.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: DBCowboy


so, we've done worse, and putin did nothing?

it's hard for me to believe he's that weak..

It's quid pro quo.

They do us, we do them, rinse and repeat.

a reply to: aethertek

Maybe they should arrest Antifa since the Kremlin is funding them to create discourse.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Greven

Chalk me up as another. What's this Constitutional duty he's supposed to perform? Kowtow to the "loyal" opposition, and slap sanctions on a country that hasn't been proven to have done anything wrong, only accused?

So, what's the duty, again?

It's been repeated in the thread three times now.

Simply put, the Constitution requires that the President faithfully execute laws. You know - the 'Execut'-ive branch.

President Trump is refusing to execute the law that puts sanctions on Russia, in violation of his duty under the Constitution.

Obama failed to execute laws when he disagreed with them and even wrote an unconstitutional EO in order to attempt to refuse to execute those laws. DACA was an unconstitutional attempt to refuse to execute the law of the land in regards to deporting noncitizens. I guess you really were up in arms when he did that. No?

Yes, I was, though perhaps I didn't post much about that here.

Please answer the simple question, now that your deflection is moot.

I already did. Presidents have done so in the past and for good reason.

So your answer is that the Constitution of the United States of America is wrong?

Was Theodore Roosevelt wrong when he went beyond his constitutional rights?

Assuming he went beyond his constitutional rights, then yes he was.

The United States of America is a nation of laws, not feelings.

A quick peruse through any media publication would determine that to be a false statement.

Sad but true.

I disagree.

For example, people willfully violate the law in order to protest, and such protest can bring changes to the law.

People can speak however they want, but as soon as they cross the legal threshold, they are reprimanded.

If we were not a nation of laws, those people would not have violated the law.

Perhaps more relevant to this week's incident - if we were a nation of feelings, gun control would have happened long ago.

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Khaleesi

Where he overreached, he violated his duty to the Constitution.

You did not answer my question with a "yes" or a "no" but a deflective "other people did it." I've answered repeatedly your deflective questions.

Answer my question:
"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
Yes or No.

Oh FFS I already answered yes and you even quoted me answering yes. Can you not read? YES there are times when, in the best interest of the country a president must look at what is right vs wrong, not what the law is.

My apologies; you are correct - this thread has moved rather quickly.

You are the only one yet to answer, and your answer is that you think it is okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his Constitutional duty.

I disagree.

There are times when the law is wrong. In some instances the president has a moral obligation to disobey the law.

You advocate for a nation where laws are malleable for those with whom you agree.

That is dangerous territory.

a reply to: DBCowboy


but, you'd at least increase you defense and you'd strengthen your voting poll.

trump has done nothing but worry about himself. nada.


i'm sure putin wouldn't be that dumb.

a reply to: Greven

Then why is illegal immigration a problem? Why did the government bailout corporations with taxpayer dollars? Why does the FED get a license to print (launder) money?

I get what your saying and the premise of it. The application however falls woefully short of the reality.

You do realize that there are already gun laws on the books? Take the gun out of the equation. Murder is still illegal and that happened and still happens.

a reply to: Willtell

Obama gave the bankers 1 trillion dollars one decade ago.... you people have some sort of mental issues

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Khaleesi

Where he overreached, he violated his duty to the Constitution.

You did not answer my question with a "yes" or a "no" but a deflective "other people did it." I've answered repeatedly your deflective questions.

Answer my question:
"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
Yes or No.

Oh FFS I already answered yes and you even quoted me answering yes. Can you not read? YES there are times when, in the best interest of the country a president must look at what is right vs wrong, not what the law is.

My apologies; you are correct - this thread has moved rather quickly.

You are the only one yet to answer, and your answer is that you think it is okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his Constitutional duty.

I disagree.

There are times when the law is wrong. In some instances the president has a moral obligation to disobey the law.

You advocate for a nation where laws are malleable for those with whom you agree.

That is dangerous territory.

No I do not. Do not put words in my mouth. Your type of thinking is what leads to a defense of "Just following orders." Laws are not always right or just.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: DBCowboy


but, you'd at least increase you defense and you'd strengthen your voting poll.

trump has done nothing but worry about himself. nada.


i'm sure putin wouldn't be that dumb.

How do you know Trump has done nothing?

Good heavens!

It's not like everything that the government does is on the internet.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greven

OK, first explain who we are sanctioning and why?

Remember these are 13 Russian citizens and not the Russian government as a whole according to the indictments.

So, are you in favor of sanctioning an entire country for what some of its citizens did on social media?

I indulged your question and you wish to further evade the simple question I've asked instead in hopes of getting away from the answer which is already given by the Constitution of the United States of America.

No more deflections.

"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
"Yes" or "No."

What was Obama's constitutional duty in regards to DACA? He did not have the constitutional right to write an EO establishing DACA. Will you vilify him for doing so? Basically, if you can not admit that Obama stepped WAAAAAAY out of bounds when he did that, you have no moral high ground.

Yet another challenger who cannot answer a yes/no question, but wishes instead to deflect to Obama under the mistaken assumption that I am a Democrat.

I've already answered that when ketsuko tried to deflect. Read the thread. So many are not doing that.

Then answer the question:
"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
Yes or No

Yes and by your logic Obama should have been impeached for failure to do so.

Perhaps so, but it's a bit late for that.

Answer the question. Yes or No.

ok we get it mr kristol you hate POTUS
don't you have neocon opinion pieces to finish before press time?

a reply to: DBCowboy

shouldn't he let the American people know? is that too hard?

no, he's not doing anything, if he were, he'd be bragging about.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Greven

Then why is illegal immigration a problem? Why did the government bailout corporations with taxpayer dollars? Why does the FED get a license to print (launder) money?

I get what your saying and the premise of it. The application however falls woefully short of the reality.

You do realize that there are already gun laws on the books? Take the gun out of the equation. Murder is still illegal and that happened and still happens.

Jobs, threats of death, family... many reasons exist for immigrants to want to come to the United States. Many problem we could even have caused, such as the drug cartels and trafficking in part by the CIA. Other clandestine actions created Al Qaeda, which came back to bite us pretty badly. Hell, we sold nerve gas to Saddam Hussein so he could fight Iran - who didn't like us very much since we had overthrown their government.

The government should not have bailed out the banks... if anything, they should have bailed out the people. But, people don't have much power these days what with rising economic inequality.

The FED was created by Congress. They could get rid of it if they wanted. Yet, who would be left to manage money but the politicians paid off by banks and corporations? It's a difficult problem, deeply entrenched these days.

Sure, there are a few gun laws. Murder happens in the U.S. far more than most developed nations - even countries with high firearm ownership. Crime in general appears to rise where economic issues exist, and economic inequality in the U.S. is pretty bad. Still, crime rates appear lower than a few decades ago - despite apparent inequality increasing.

I don't have all the answers, but I know one thing that is not an answer is shrugging off the chief executive of our country ignoring his duty under our Constitution.

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Khaleesi

Where he overreached, he violated his duty to the Constitution.

You did not answer my question with a "yes" or a "no" but a deflective "other people did it." I've answered repeatedly your deflective questions.

Answer my question:
"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
Yes or No.

Oh FFS I already answered yes and you even quoted me answering yes. Can you not read? YES there are times when, in the best interest of the country a president must look at what is right vs wrong, not what the law is.

My apologies; you are correct - this thread has moved rather quickly.

You are the only one yet to answer, and your answer is that you think it is okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his Constitutional duty.

I disagree.

There are times when the law is wrong. In some instances the president has a moral obligation to disobey the law.

You advocate for a nation where laws are malleable for those with whom you agree.

That is dangerous territory.

No I do not. Do not put words in my mouth. Your type of thinking is what leads to a defense of "Just following orders." Laws are not always right or just.

I agree that there are times the law is wrong - that they are not always just or right. Yet, those times demand that the law first be changed. A president may even issue pardons for people who violated a law prior to it being changed.

What you wrote does not consider its implications. If laws are malleable for actions which you agree with, then they are malleable for actions which I agree with, and so on and so forth.

At that point, laws are no longer laws, but merely suggestions.