(01-31-2017, 06:29 PM)Dill Wrote: What was her Job? Who does the AG represent?
The AG represents the United States. Her job is to supervise the day to day ops of the DOJ and carry out the duties listed in statutes and executive orders. Her job isnt to play partisan and act on her personal opinions. Shecan say her personal opinions to the right people, but not act on them. She has no say in the orders other than a legal opinion. She is there to carry them out, and make sure they actually happen...
(02-01-2017, 08:07 AM)djam Wrote: The AG represents the United States. Her job is to supervise the day to day ops of the DOJ and carry out the duties listed in statutes and executive orders. Her job isnt to play partisan and act on her personal opinions. Shecan say her personal opinions to the right people, but not act on them. She has no say in the orders other than a legal opinion. She is there to carry them out, and make sure they actually happen...
So when Yates went before the Senate to be vetted for the job, why did Jeff Sessions ask if she would be willing to stand up to the president, to say "no" if he asked for something improper?
He seems to think that in some cases, the job of the AG is to say "no", especially to the president. Was he demanding that she "play partisan and act on her personal opinions" or did he suppose this resistance to the president to rest on some other ground--like legal knowledge? After all, she represents the US, not just the president.
Did Sessions get the job description wrong when he confirmed her?
(02-01-2017, 08:07 AM)djam Wrote: The AG represents the United States. Her job is to supervise the day to day ops of the DOJ and carry out the duties listed in statutes and executive orders. Her job isnt to play partisan and act on her personal opinions. Shecan say her personal opinions to the right people, but not act on them. She has no say in the orders other than a legal opinion. She is there to carry them out, and make sure they actually happen...
Is she supposed to carry out an order if she is uncertain if it is a legal order? If she gives her opinion on the legality of an order, isn't that a personal opinion?
(02-01-2017, 10:20 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is she supposed to carry out an order if she is uncertain if it is a legal order? If she gives her opinion on the legality of an order, isn't that a personal opinion?
The AG's office defends legally questionable orders all the time, that's their job. The court's are responsible for determining the legality of enacted legislation or EO's, that's their job. Much like a defense attorney defends a large percentage of their clients whom they know to be guilty. It's their job to defend them in court to the best of their ability regardless. If they half-ass it or refuse to defend someone once they determine they are guilty then they're not doing their job properly and need to find another line of employment.
(02-01-2017, 02:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The AG's office defends legally questionable orders all the time, that's their job. The court's are responsible for determining the legality of enacted legislation or EO's, that's their job. Much like a defense attorney defends a large percentage of their clients whom they know to be guilty. It's their job to defend them in court to the best of their ability regardless. If they half-ass it or refuse to defend someone once they determine they are guilty then they're not doing their job properly and need to find another line of employment.
Just popping in with the reminder that it is not unprecedented for AGs to not defend laws that they, themselves, deem to be unconstitutional.
Though usually it is with the backing of the executive. See DOMA, I think it was.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-01-2017, 02:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just popping in with the reminder that it is not unprecedented for AGs to not defend laws that they, themselves, deem to be unconstitutional.
Though usually it is with the backing of the executive. See DOMA, I think it was.
Absolutely true. I'd replace the word usually with "almost always" but your point is valid. In your example we're also talking about two separate administrations. Would you not agree that Yates going public in the way she did was unprofessional, as was her forcing Trump to fire her instead of resigning?
(02-01-2017, 02:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely true. I'd replace the word usually with "almost always" but your point is valid. In your example we're also talking about two separate administrations. Would you not agree that Yates going public in the way she did was unprofessional, as was her forcing Trump to fire her instead of resigning?
In truth, I could make arguments either way on the professionalism involved with her making the public statement, and with the firing in all honesty. Not a very cut and dry answer to me. Looking at the situation and placing myself in several different viewpoints I can see it going a number of different ways.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-01-2017, 02:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The AG's office defends legally questionable orders all the time, that's their job. The court's are responsible for determining the legality of enacted legislation or EO's, that's their job. Much like a defense attorney defends a large percentage of their clients whom they know to be guilty. It's their job to defend them in court to the best of their ability regardless. If they half-ass it or refuse to defend someone once they determine they are guilty then they're not doing their job properly and need to find another line of employment.
pretty much.
Ag opinions are their opinions, just like an attorney giving his opinion to a client. The AGs client is the government it represents. I dont think it was originally intended to be a check against the executive branch, more of a bridge between courts and the executive branch.
but at the end of the day, ags often have to follow through on things they don't care for. When they stop, its usually for political reasons.
(02-01-2017, 02:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In truth, I could make arguments either way on the professionalism involved with her making the public statement, and with the firing in all honesty. Not a very cut and dry answer to me. Looking at the situation and placing myself in several different viewpoints I can see it going a number of different ways.
Don't presidents usually run an executive order of the "banning" type past their AGs first, along with other affected agencies like State? If that doesn't occur, the AG is blindsided.
And as I mentioned above, this AG, when vetted, was publicly held to the standard of willingness to say no to the president.
(02-01-2017, 07:45 AM)djam Wrote: Well Dill, we both know the only real fix for it no matter how frequent or infrequent are voter ID laws. If I need ID to get a can of beer, cash a check and the very many other things you have to show ID for, then showing ID to vote just seems like a no-brainer. Tell me again why the left is sooooo against voter ID laws?
I not sure we "both" know the only real fix--especially since we both don't agree there is a problem--but I'd be happy to tell you why "the left" is against voter ID laws.
There are three main reasons.
1. There doesn't seem to be much voter fraud of the sort an ID is designed to prevent. Millions upon millions of votes over years and less than a hundred actual, intentional cases. Hennepin County in Minnesota calculated the cost at over 1.4 million dollars to provide IDs for Minneapolis, and they hadn't a single case of voter fraud in over a decade.
So "leftists" oppose voter id laws because they are aimed at a non-problem, unnecessarily harass and prevent thousands from voting, and are intended to reduce Democrat turnout.
(02-01-2017, 04:36 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Reminds me of one of my favorite Rumfeld's ruminations, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
Just because you don't have any evidence of Bigfoot doesn't mean Bigfoot doesn't exist. There are millions of Bigfeet out there. They're just really good at covering their tracks. And they're undocumented I might add. Trump probably would have won they popular election by another 3-5 million if it weren't for all the undocumented, non-sandal wearing, liberal Bigfeet voting heavily in favor of Hillary.
You don't hear about it because the liberal mainstream media turns a blind eye to this problem.
The other side of this is that it's not as if the Federal Government and States haven't pursued voter fraud when rumors arise. They have regularly chased down the rumors to a few isolated incidents or none. Yet this news is always still born. It has no traction. It is not what a certain demographic wants to believe.
But let someone announce "5,000 voting irregularities" in Colorado and its all over Breitbart, WND, Drudge and two dozen conservative blogs, not to mention Facebook and Fox. Suddenly people solemnly tell you everyone KNOWS its there, whether anyone can prove it or not. As you said--we hear it claimed the "lame stream" media turns a blind eye.
It's one thing when Joe the Plumber KNOWS about illegal voting. Quite another when it's the Commander-in-Chief, upon whose judgment the blood and treasure of the nation depends.
(02-01-2017, 04:40 PM)Dill Wrote: I not sure we "both" know the only real fix--especially since we both don't agree there is a problem--but I'd be happy to tell you why "the left" is against voter ID laws.
There are three main reasons.
1. There doesn't seem to be much voter fraud of the sort an ID is designed to prevent. Millions upon millions of votes over years and less than a hundred actual, intentional cases. Hennepin County in Minnesota calculated the cost at over 1.4 million dollars to provide IDs for Minneapolis, and they hadn't a single case of voter fraud in over a decade.
So "leftists" oppose voter id laws because they are aimed at a non-problem, unnecessarily harass and prevent thousands from voting, and are intended to reduce Democrat turnout.
(02-01-2017, 04:40 PM)Dill Wrote: I not sure we "both" know the only real fix--especially since we both don't agree there is a problem--but I'd be happy to tell you why "the left" is against voter ID laws.
There are three main reasons.
1. There doesn't seem to be much voter fraud of the sort an ID is designed to prevent. Millions upon millions of votes over years and less than a hundred actual, intentional cases. Hennepin County in Minnesota calculated the cost at over 1.4 million dollars to provide IDs for Minneapolis, and they hadn't a single case of voter fraud in over a decade.
So "leftists" oppose voter id laws because they are aimed at a non-problem, unnecessarily harass and prevent thousands from voting, and are intended to reduce Democrat turnout.
LOL. I'm sorry dude, but if you really buy into the crap in those articles, I feel sorry for you. Here's the deal. If someone really wants to vote, they can get ID just the same as they get anything else. These articles are basically opinions from weak-minded guilty-white-liberal types who "assume" that minorities are too helpless to get themselves a freaking ID, which is a very racist assumption in itself if you ask me. These people are actually a lot more capable than their self-proclaimed-intelligent, guilty-white-liberal, social-justice-warrior, weakling liberal minded democrat pals think they are. But thats pretty much what you guys always do, is assume blacks and hispanics, etc, cant do anything for themselves. It's racist and it's a stupid assumption and the numbers in those pathetic articles are nothing more than an extremely biased guess made by people who have a vested interest in NOT having voter ID laws.
Lets be real here, democrats know that without illegal voters, they would not win very often or ever, and voter ID would cut out a lot of illegal votes. Everybody with 1/4 of a brain knows this --its been this way for years and its funny to see the left's ultra-predictable reactions (like yours) when asked about it (which I often do on purpose just to laugh at the predictable reaction). You cheeseheads are still trying to hide the real reason you are against voterID, and its not fooling anyone on the other side, or any non-biased outsiders. The only people you guys really fool are yourselves. If you lie enough eventually you'll really believe it. That should be the motto of the left.
I suppose this video is made up of all camera tricks eh --3D animation of Scott Foval? Of course so.....
(02-02-2017, 09:06 AM)djam Wrote: These people are actually a lot more capable than their self-proclaimed-intelligent, guilty-white-liberal, social-justice-warrior, weakling liberal minded democrat pals think they are. But thats pretty much what you guys always do, is assume blacks and hispanics, etc, cant do anything for themselves. It's racist and it's a stupid assumption and the numbers in those pathetic articles are nothing more than an extremely biased guess made by people who have a vested interest in NOT having voter ID laws.
Lets be real here, democrats know that without illegal voters, they would not win very often or ever, and voter ID would cut out a lot of illegal votes. Everybody with 1/4 of a brain knows this --its been this way for years and its funny to see the left's ultra-predictable reactions (like yours) when asked about it (which I often do on purpose just to laugh at the predictable reaction). You cheeseheads are still trying to hide the real reason you are against voterID, and its not fooling anyone on the other side, or any non-biased outsiders. The only people you guys really fool are yourselves. If you lie enough eventually you'll really believe it. That should be the motto of the left.
Hmm you asked a question and got a civil, substantive answer, based upon DOJ studies and court records.
These records you dismiss as "opinion" and an "extremely biased guess." Forget statistics gathered by bipartisan investigations, you still know, somehow, that millions vote illegally.
So what is your evidence to counter these records and studies? You repeat right wing talking points about Democrat dependence upon illegal voters, then call me "predictable" and imagine yourself as somehow in control of others dialogue by manipulating them for a laugh.
Why is the claim millions voted illegally not an "extremely biased guess," a claim which no records can confirm?
Because "everyone knows" and you say it is. And it is "predictable" that those who don't agree with you rely on evidence, records, and logic.
(02-02-2017, 01:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmm you asked a question and got a civil, substantive answer, based upon DOJ studies and court records.
These records you dismiss as "opinion" and an "extremely biased guess." Forget statistics gathered by bipartisan investigations, you still know, somehow, that millions vote illegally.
So what is your evidence to counter these records and studies? You repeat right wing talking points about Democrat dependence upon illegal voters, then call me "predictable" and imagine yourself as somehow in control of others dialogue by manipulating them for a laugh.
Why is the claim millions voted illegally not an "extremely biased guess," a claim which no records can confirm?
Because "everyone knows" and you say it is. And it is "predictable" that those who don't agree with you rely on evidence, records, and logic.
(02-02-2017, 01:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmm you asked a question and got a civil, substantive answer, based upon DOJ studies and court records.
These records you dismiss as "opinion" and an "extremely biased guess." Forget statistics gathered by bipartisan investigations, you still know, somehow, that millions vote illegally.
So what is your evidence to counter these records and studies? You repeat right wing talking points about Democrat dependence upon illegal voters, then call me "predictable" and imagine yourself as somehow in control of others dialogue by manipulating them for a laugh.
Why is the claim millions voted illegally not an "extremely biased guess," a claim which no records can confirm?
Because "everyone knows" and you say it is. And it is "predictable" that those who don't agree with you rely on evidence, records, and logic.
The statistics? The statistics show that with voter ID's the democrats would probably never win. That actually says a lot, and thats part of the problem with the democrat party. It shouldn't be that way and its pretty sad that is it. I dont trust either side when it comes to voter fraud, but I do believe that the democrat party would benefit from it big time compared to the republican party. Otherwise the left would want voter ID's. In fact if the majority of minority voters voted republican you'd be all about voter ID's and feel like its stupid to not have them for something as important as voting.
And as far as that video goes, I think it shows a small glimpse into how bad it is.
(02-02-2017, 04:24 PM)djam Wrote: The statistics? The statistics show that with voter ID's the democrats would probably never win. That actually says a lot, and thats part of the problem with the democrat party. It shouldn't be that way and its pretty sad that is it. I dont trust either side when it comes to voter fraud, but I do believe that the democrat party would benefit from it big time compared to the republican party. Otherwise the left would want voter ID's. In fact if the majority of minority voters voted republican you'd be all about voter ID's and feel like its stupid to not have them for something as important as voting.
And as far as that video goes, I think it shows a small glimpse into how bad it is.
then why were top republican leaders coming out and saying the trumps accusations of voter fraud were unwarranted and an investigation wasnt needed (shortly after it came out that top people or people related were all registered to vote in multiple states.)
(02-02-2017, 04:24 PM)djam Wrote: The statistics? The statistics show that with voter ID's the democrats would probably never win. That actually says a lot, and thats part of the problem with the democrat party. It shouldn't be that way and its pretty sad that is it. I dont trust either side when it comes to voter fraud, but I do believe that the democrat party would benefit from it big time compared to the republican party. Otherwise the left would want voter ID's. In fact if the majority of minority voters voted republican you'd be all about voter ID's and feel like its stupid to not have them for something as important as voting.
And as far as that video goes, I think it shows a small glimpse into how bad it is.
Again, what statistics? You were asked for hard examples of voter fraud and gave none, instead replying with answers like "everybody knows" and a bunch of token stock alt right name calling. I could counter your ridiculous video by saying that "everybody knows" that hack Republican operatives like James O'Keefe regularly stage such "gotcha" journalism to support their own narratives.
Are you at some point going to provide something of substance or are you just going to keep telling us about how you and your social justice for butthurt white people warrior websites (I mean, "let's be real", right, bro?) just magically know that all evidence to the contrary is wrong?
Admit it. You've done zero research. You're just don't want you're widdle feewwings/ego to get bruised by admitting you're a hack. Get outta here with that crap.
(02-02-2017, 04:24 PM)djam Wrote: The statistics? The statistics show that with voter ID's the democrats would probably never win. That actually says a lot, and thats part of the problem with the democrat party. It shouldn't be that way and its pretty sad that is it. I dont trust either side when it comes to voter fraud, but I do believe that the democrat party would benefit from it big time compared to the republican party. Otherwise the left would want voter ID's. In fact if the majority of minority voters voted republican you'd be all about voter ID's and feel like its stupid to not have them for something as important as voting.
You BELIEVE that the Democrat Party would benefit, therefore THERE MUST BE millions of fraudulent voters. That is the whole foundation of your argument. Never mind that just believing doesn't make it so, and that ANY party would benefit from millions of fraudulent votes.
If my argument were simply the mirror of yours, I would be saying that because millions of fraudulent votes would help Republicans, then THERE MUST BE millions of fraudulent votes. But my argument is not the mirror of yours, because my claims require the sort evidence that can be substantiated by independent parties regardless of what anyone believes.
The statistics, which you now seem to grant, show that in some places (not all) Republicans could shave percentages off vote totals to win using voter id laws.
The "problem" here is, therefore, for the Republicans, who cannot get those vote totals when all who can and want to vote do vote. If you truly recognized the right of all adult citizens to vote, it would not appear "sad" that Democrats can win when all who want to vote do vote. It would appear sad that some Republicans advance undemocratic solutions when they cannot persuade enough voters to win.
In your final statement, you are again flipping your position and values and projecting them onto your opponents.
(01-31-2017, 12:53 AM)Dill Wrote: This follows up recent threads posted by Dino and Pat over the most current scandal/crisis of the not-yet-two-week- old Trump presidency. The firing of an acting attorney general amidst the general confusion of an unconstitutional Muslim ban deserves its own thread. I am old enough to remember Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." This does not rise to that level--yet--but it is amazing, unprecedented and chaotic--the three words which journalists will be wearing out over the next few months as the extent of incompetence becomes plain.
Taking action in an escalating crisis for his 10-day-old administration, Mr. Trump declared that Sally Q. Yates had “betrayed” the administration. . . .
The extraordinary legal standoff capped a tumultuous day in which the White House confronted an outpouring of dissent over Mr. Trump’s temporary ban on entry visas for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, went so far as to warn State Department officials that they should leave their jobs if they did not agree with Mr. Trump’s agenda, after State Department officials circulated a so-called dissent memo on the order.
Over the weekend, four federal judges temporarily blocked part of the executive order, prohibiting the government from sending people back to their home countries.
President Donald Trump further reorganized the National Security Council on Monday after he came under sharp criticism for ousting the country's most senior intelligence and military officials as regular members of the Principals Committee -- and installing one of his top political advisers on the key panel.
Former acting CIA chief Michael Morell on Monday sharply criticized the move to add Bannon to the group while limiting the involvement of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and DNI, calling it "unprecedented" in an appearance on "CBS This Morning."
I'm not sure if the ban is constitutional or not, but come on now... calling it a "Muslim Ban" is getting kind of ridiculous, isn't it? I realize that "Muslim Ban" is more provocative and exciting than "countries that are training or arming terrorists, or are otherwise unstable and hate us ban". Not even mentioning the fact that it bans all people from those countries, regardless of religion (10% of Syrians aren't Muslim). Here's this....
That's the top-5 countries in the world by Muslim population. None of them are on the banned list. On the other hand, those seven countries? They are only 12.2% of the world's Muslim population.
That means 87.8% of the world's Muslims can still enter and leave and enter the US again.
So seriously. Stop propagating the "Muslim Ban" term. It may not be found unconstitutional, and heck, I may not even agree with all those countries being on the list, but it's not a Muslim Ban.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(01-31-2017, 11:38 AM)djam Wrote: Which is all the more reason we need voter ID laws. Both parties commit voter fraud in every single election. We just need to accept it and do something about it.
(01-31-2017, 11:43 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Nice back step. You mean like voter suppression? That seems like the only coordinated fraud of the American public.
And I thought I read on breitbart that national ID's would lead to a bunch of FEMA coffins or something... or is that no longer the case because daddy's a white guy?
You now need a background check in order to purchase ammo in California... but you think you shouldn't have to prove your identity in order to vote in our President? That seems like a rather silly stance.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 6QSgU8D.gif?1]](https://i.imgur.com/6QSgU8D.gif?1)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
