The Trump Presidency

[Julio3000]

Why would we do that when we have done such a great job reducing drug flow and illegal immigration. You put walls up in strategic spaces and you are guaranteed a strong layer of protection for this country. Walls have been used since the dawn of civilization. People put walls (fences) around their homes to protect themselves. To construct an argument that a wall would not make us safer spits in the face of everything that we have known for thousands of years.

I have a fence on my property because I don't particularly want my dog to roam or for my neighbors to see what goes on in my back yard, not because I'm afraid of invasion.

 

[thethe]

I have a fence on my property because I don't particularly want my dog to roam or for my neighbors to see what goes on in my back yard, not because I'm afraid of invasion.

Walls are a great physical order for many reasons

 

[Julio3000]

Walls are a great physical order for many reasons

Well, they do hold up ceilings. Ceilings are also handy. Doors, I find, are nearly indispensable.

Glad we're making immigration policy based on basic construction principles.

 

[thethe]

Well, they do hold up ceilings. Ceilings are also handy. Doors, I find, are nearly indispensable.

Glad we're making immigration policy based on basic construction principles.

How is a border wall part of an immigration policy

 

[Krgrecw]

Stephen Miller was again on point today in the white house press briefing. Absolutely made a fool of Jim Acosta.

That was impressive.

 

[Julio3000]

Do you get the difference between liquidating stocks to avoid the appearance of impropriety and donating to a political campaign? Cui bono, mang.

Why do you think Jared Kushner hired Jamie Gorelick if being an actual Clinton appointee, not merely a donor, would disqualify her from impartially doing her job?

 

[sturg33]

Except, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, they were not.

LOL no words

 

[thethe]

Do you get the difference between liquidating stocks to avoid the appearance of impropriety and donating to a political campaign? Cui bono, mang.

Why do you think Jared Kushner hired Jamie Gorelick if being an actual Clinton appointee, not merely a donor, would disqualify her from impartially doing her job?

The matters that she represents Kushner for are not political in nature.

 

[thethe]

LOL no words

Alternate reality.

Even someone as brilliant as Julio is blinded by Obama.

 

[Julio3000]

How is a border wall part of an immigration policy

Because it was literally the first bullet point in the DJT campaign immigration plan, which is freely available for public viewing?

 

[thethe]

Because it was literally the first bullet point in the DJT campaign immigration plan, which is freely available for public viewing?

To me it has nothing to do with it.

It's a matter of homeland security.

 

[Julio3000]

LOL no words

Ugh, how many times have JPX or someone else, or me for that matter, taken pains to explain our problems with O administraton policy on issue X, Y, or Z. Give me some specifics or save it.

Drone policy? AUMF and foreign adventurism in general? Deportation policy? Executive power? Health care? Wall Street? We've had conversations on all of those issues and more.

 

[Julio3000]

The matters that she represents Kushner for are not political in nature.

His job as senior advisor to the president is not political in nature?

 

[thethe]

His job as senior advisor to the president is not political in nature?

He has issues that require legal representation outside of political office. He retains additional legal counsel as do most important people.

 

[sturg33]

Ugh, how many times have JPX or someone else, or me for that matter, taken pains to explain our problems with O administraton policy on issue X, Y, or Z. Give me some specifics or save it.

Drone policy? AUMF and foreign adventurism in general? Deportation policy? Executive power? Health care? Wall Street? We've had conversations on all of those issues and more.

jpx has been a consistent critic.

The rest of you will give your lip service when called out, but are foaming at the mouth of any piece of "evidence" on DJT to take him down, when quite frankly, to date, he has been a much less destructive President than the god

 

[Hawk]

Do you get the difference between liquidating stocks to avoid the appearance of impropriety and donating to a political campaign? Cui bono, mang.

I get your point, but it's not as clear cut as you are trying to sell it. You are also placing way, way, way too much faith in a professional code of conduct.

Courts are still relatively torn over whether a campaign donation constitutes a conflict of interest. It's certainly a questionable practice in this instance - especially when you think about why attorneys who orbit in the DC legal sphere likely donate to campaigns to begin with.

Mueller and Co. should be projecting neutrality here, not inviting questions about bias. It's some damn bloody red meat.

People rail on and on about obvious points of campaign finance inequity, like soft money, but donations from government officials/professionals/future employees is also an area of reform that is long overdue clarity/scrutiny.

 

[thethe]

The more I read about this new immigration policy the more I'm happy DJT is our president.

This is great news for the country.

 

[Runnin]

But, er, the thing is, these ethical standards already exist. You don't get to decide what they are. The DoJ ethics lawyers said that Sessions's case was a clear-cut one for recusal.

As did Sessions himself.

 

[Julio3000]

I get your point, but it's not as clear cut as you are trying to sell it. You are also placing way, way, way too much faith in a professional code of conduct.

Courts are still relatively torn over whether a campaign donation constitutes a conflict of interest. It's certainly a questionable practice in this instance - especially when you think about why attorneys who orbit in the DC legal sphere likely donate to campaigns to begin with.

Mueller and Co. should be projecting neutrality here, not inviting questions about bias. It's some damn bloody red meat.

People rail on and on about obvious points of campaign finance inequity, like soft money, but donations from government officials/professionals/future employees is also an area of reform that is long overdue clarity/scrutiny.

That's certainly not unreasonable, though it's a drop in the bucket, and a visible drop with a paper trail, compared to other campaign finance abuses. True enough, though.

Ima ask you, though: is Mueller going to run a personal, partisan witch hunt?

 

[Julio3000]

I get your point, but it's not as clear cut as you are trying to sell it. You are also placing way, way, way too much faith in a professional code of conduct.

Courts are still relatively torn over whether a campaign donation constitutes a conflict of interest. It's certainly a questionable practice in this instance - especially when you think about why attorneys who orbit in the DC legal sphere likely donate to campaigns to begin with.

Mueller and Co. should be projecting neutrality here, not inviting questions about bias. It's some damn bloody red meat.

People rail on and on about obvious points of campaign finance inequity, like soft money, but donations from government officials/professionals/future employees is also an area of reform that is long overdue clarity/scrutiny.

FWIW I said from the jump that the various IC statutes over the years can be and have been abused by politicization. I also think, post-Nixon, that it's prudent to have them, warts and all. thethe is jumping to the conclusion that this investigation is already compromised by politics, on the grounds that some hires are D campaign contributors. I just can't make that leap, not least because it's a central part of the WH pushback messaging.