President Donald J. Trump

Started by The General, February 11, 2011, 01:33:34 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jackstar

At last, you and I: under one sky.


Quote from: 136 or 142 on November 06, 2017, 03:53:45 AM
And the law professors who I sourced are also experts in their field.  The difference is Dershowitz is now a laughable egomaniac who continues to seek the spotlight and, presumably, they aren't.

Of course, if you claim that he's been an emminent lawyer for 50 years and, therefore, only his views should be regarded, I could go back to about 20 or so years ago before Dershowitz got caught up in his celebrity and quote when he criticized the rulings of the Renhquist Court.  I know your reply would boil down to "Dershowitz is correct when he defends a Republican or bashes a Democrat, but is not correct any other time."

Since this is a partisan source, it doesn't really add anything, other than it shows that I'm far from the only person who regards Dershowitz as nothing more than an egomaniac these days, however, I thought I came up with the pejorative of 'television lawyer.'  I actually first used that myself to describe the laughable and wrong about everything Larry Kudlow as a 'television economist.'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029100204

7. Very disappointing.

Any way he is one of many tv lawyers.

I haven't always agreed with Dershowitz but I've always respected his views.  You, on the other hand, make up the law as you see fit.  You trash those that don't line up with your principles while elevating other personalities who are not deserving.


Little known fact about Dershowitz.

At the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in Harvard's history

Jackstar

The difference is, I would actually flip for kidno, but Swishy will always be a sorry bottom.

Jackstar

Quote from: 21st Century Man on November 06, 2017, 04:22:01 AM
Little known fact about Dershowitz.


Also: I legitimately respect Swishy's opinion on legal matters more than I do Dershowitz's. Fuck that guy. Whose kid are you? Read more books.

Kidnostad3

Quote from: 136 or 142 on November 06, 2017, 03:53:45 AM
And the law professors who I sourced are also experts in their field.  The difference is Dershowitz is now a laughable egomaniac who continues to seek the spotlight and, presumably, they aren't.

Of course, if you claim that he's been an emminent lawyer for 50 years and, therefore, only his views should be regarded, I could go back to about 20 or so years ago before Dershowitz got caught up in his celebrity and quote when he criticized the rulings of the Renhquist Court.  I know your reply would boil down to "Dershowitz is correct when he defends a Republican or bashes a Democrat, but is not correct any other time."

Since this is a partisan source, it doesn't really add anything, other than it shows that I'm far from the only person who regards Dershowitz as nothing more than an egomaniac these days, however, I thought I came up with the pejorative of 'television lawyer.'  I actually first used that myself to describe the laughable and wrong about everything Larry Kudlow as a 'television economist.'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029100204

7. Very disappointing.

Any way he is one of many tv lawyers.

Who is this hyper-neurotic compulsive handwasher and self hating Jew to criticize a man of Dershowitz’s renown?  Your gayness is not a credentialâ€"it’s a sign of poor potty training.

136 or 142

Quote from: 21st Century Man on November 06, 2017, 04:22:01 AM
I haven't always agreed with Dershowitz but I've always respected his views.  You, on the other hand, make up the law as you see fit.  You trash those that don't line up with your principles while elevating other personalities who are not deserving.


Little known fact about Dershowitz.

At the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in Harvard's history

Dershowitz is the one who is making up the law to fit his biases, not me.  How can you not always agree with him if you agree with him on this without even commenting on the substance of the issue?  You and whoever first brought this up essentially said "this is what Dershowitz says, so that's the law."    If that standard goes for this case, how can it not go for every case?

Who have I elevated who is not deserving?

Would I be wrong in predicting that your response will be "I have to have dinner now" or "I've got other things to do."?

136 or 142

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on November 06, 2017, 04:27:05 AM
Who is this hyper-neurotic compulsive handwasher and self hating Jew to criticize a man of Dershowitz’s renown?  Your gayness is not a credentialâ€"it’s a sign of poor potty training.

Swishypants couldn't have said it any better or any differently!

Kidnostad3

Quote from: Jackstar on November 06, 2017, 04:07:47 AM
Still--superior to a Clinton presidency.

A Carrington event would be preferable to a Clinton presidency. 

Quote from: 136 or 142 on November 06, 2017, 04:31:51 AM
Dershowitz is the one who is making up the law to fit his biases, not me.  How can you not always agree with him if you agree with him on this without even commenting on the substance of the issue?  You and whoever first brought this up essentially said "this is what Dershowitz says, so that's the law."    If that standard goes for this case, how can it not go for every case?

Who have I elevated who is not deserving?

Would I be wrong in predicting that your response will be "I have to have dinner now" or "I've got other things to do."?

Those lawyers who disagree with Dershowitz.  Get back with me when you can recommend lawyers other than those in the Bush league. I've said my piece.  I may get back to you if you say something worthy of attention.  We'll see how it goes.

136 or 142

Quote from: 21st Century Man on November 06, 2017, 04:46:54 AM
Those lawyers who disagree with Dershowitz.  Get back with me when you can recommend lawyers other than those in the Bush league. I've said my piece.  I may get back to you if you say something worthy of attention.  We'll see how it goes.

So, just to check: who were the lawyers who disagree with Dershowitz and what is your evidence they're 'in the bush league.'  An argument from authority, or a heightened authority, when that authority is misplaced, is also a logical fallacy.  That is the case here because Dershowitz is using his authority to state nonsense in the belief that it can't be challenged.

Also, as usual you said nothing but expressed OUTRAGE! "How dare you question Dershowitz!"

Quote from: 136 or 142 on November 06, 2017, 04:51:08 AM
Who were the lawyers who disagree with Dershowitz and what is your evidence they're 'in the bush league.'  An argument from authority, or a heightened authority, when that authority is misplaced, is also a logical fallacy.  That is the case here because Dershowitz is using his authority to state nonsense in the belief that it can't be challenged.

Those lawyers who you quote from to counter Dershowitz's claims.  Small time bush league wannabees.  Dershowitz is on solid constitutional ground.  You are not.  "Nuff Said.  Toodle-ooo!

136 or 142

Quote from: 21st Century Man on November 06, 2017, 04:53:47 AM
Those lawyers who you quote from to counter Dershowitz's claims.  Small time bush league wannabees.  Dershowitz is on solid constitutional ground.  You are not.  "Nuff Said.  Toodle-ooo!

Who are they and what are their positions?  I ask this because I already know from prior situations that you comment on things you haven't even read.

Seriously, I doubt you even know what Dershowitz's arguments are.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on November 06, 2017, 04:51:08 AM
So, just to check: who were the lawyers who disagree with Dershowitz and what is your evidence they're 'in the bush league.'  An argument from authority, or a heightened authority, when that authority is misplaced, is also a logical fallacy.  That is the case here because Dershowitz is using his authority to state nonsense in the belief that it can't be challenged.

Also, as usual you said nothing but expressed OUTRAGE! "How dare you question Dershowitz!"

Didn't this start with someone posting that Dershowitz says Trump isn't violating the emolunts clause, and these other lawyers are saying he is?

Yes, they are bush league if their esteemed opinion is no one from the private sector should run for office unless they close down their businesses.  That isn't what the emolents clause is about, and any unbiased reading will tell you that.  Any contemplateion of whether the Framers intended for a citizen government to require that would tell you that.

Go back to overanalyzing germs.

136 or 142

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 04:59:10 AM
Didn't this start with someone posting that Dershowitz says Trump isn't violating the emolunts clause, and these other lawyers are saying he is?

Yes, they are bush league if their esteemed opinion is no one from the private sector should run for office unless they close down their businesses.  That isn't what the emolents clause is about, and any unbiased reading will tell you that.  Any contemplateion of whether the Framers intended for a citizen government to require that would tell you that.

Go back to overanalyzing germs.

As usual, everything you wrote here is wrong, hopeless retard.  It's amusing you think you're both intelligent and knowledgeable when you're actually brain-dead.

If you want to discuss this further, you can take it up with the same thing you have in your head: a rock.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on November 06, 2017, 04:54:50 AM
Who are they and what are their positions?  I ask this because I already know from prior situations that you comment on things you haven't even read.

Seriously, I doubt you even know what Dershowitz's arguments are.

I've listened to Dershowitz on the very subject so don't you dare tell me what I have or haven't read or watched.  Go back to fucking school.  I'm not engaging with you any further today.

136 or 142

Quote from: 21st Century Man on November 06, 2017, 05:04:31 AM
I've listened to Dershowitz on the very subject so don't you dare tell me what I have or haven't read or watched.  Go back to fucking school.  I'm not engaging with you any further today.

Ohhh, aren't you OUTRAGED! You're such a loser snowflake. 

I'll tell you what I know to be true, and if you don't like it, you can leave here.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on November 06, 2017, 05:01:02 AM
As usual, everything you wrote here is wrong, hopeless retard.  It's amusing you think you're both intelligent and knowledgeable when you're actually brain-dead.

If you want to discuss this further, you can take it up with somebody who is both interested and who is the same thing that you have in your brain: a rock.

Libtards are frightened at the idea of personal freedom, and have a strong need for a government that takes their money, spends it for them and tells them what to do.  Which is fine, except they demand that for the rest of us as well.  So they spend their time self selecting information that confirms their biases, and absolutely refuse to think for themselves.

I'm certain when 139 was released from the asylum, at first he was happy and felt free, but quickly became frightened and longed for the security of knowing he was restrained, monitored, provided for, and having his activity determined by others. 


136 or 142

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 05:16:24 AM
Libtards are frightened at the idea of personal freedom, and have a strong need for a government that takes their money, spends it for them and tells them what to do.  Which is fine, except they demand that for the rest of us as well.  So they spend their time self selecting information that confirms their biases, and absolutely refuse to think for themselves.

I'm certain when 139 was released from the asylum, at first he was happy and felt free, but quickly became frightened and longed for the security of knowing he was monitored, provided for, and having his activity determined by others.

Unoriginal.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on November 06, 2017, 05:17:12 AM
Unoriginal.

You've heard this before?  You may want to take it to heart.

136 or 142

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 05:17:58 AM
You've heard this before?  You may want to take it to heart.

No, your brain-dead attempt at humor is unoriginal. All you've done is assemble a collection of stupid conservative cliches, or since you're a hopeless retard, maybe you cut and pasted that from a conservative website (or, more likely, retyped it one letter at a time).  If so, no doubt it was originally posted by another mindless Republican cultist who mistakenly thought, as you clearly do, that he was clever.

Kidnostad3

Quote from: 136 or 142 on November 06, 2017, 05:23:22 AM
No, your brain-dead attempt at humor is unoriginal. All you've done is assemble a collection of stupid conservative cliches, or since you're a hopeless retard, maybe you cut and pasted that from a conservative website (or, more likely, retyped it one letter at a time).  If so, no doubt it was originally posted by another mindless Republican cultist who mistakenly thought, as you clearly do, that he was clever.

It must be a sign of the times that all the lefties posting herein are humorless, mean-spirited depressives.  Cheer up, it’s always darkest just before everything really turns to shit.   

136 or 142

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on November 06, 2017, 05:36:02 AM
It must be a sign of the times that all the lefties posting herein are humorless, mean-spirited depressives.  Cheer up, it’s always darkest just before everything really turns to shit.   

Dealing with all the stupidity from the righties here would harden even much better people than me.

136 or 142

Quote from: 136 or 142 on November 06, 2017, 05:01:02 AM
As usual, everything you wrote here is wrong, hopeless retard.  It's amusing you think you're both intelligent and knowledgeable when you're actually brain-dead.

If you want to discuss this further, you can take it up with the same thing you have in your head: a rock.

"Everything is wrong" is an overstatement, I noticed I misinterpreted what the hopeless retard meant in this case by 'citizen government.'  However, the hopeless retard is still incorrect as should be readily apparent to anybody who actually knows anything about the Emoluments Clause and the beginnings of the U.S Presidential Executive.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on November 06, 2017, 06:08:38 AM
"Everything is wrong" is an overstatement, I noticed I misinterpreted what the hopeless retard meant in this case by 'citizen government.'  However, the hopeless retard is still incorrect as should be readily apparent to anybody who actually knows anything about the Emoluments Clause and the beginnings of the U.S Presidential Executive.

Well, as long as we're acknowledging errors, I mistakenly referred to those lawyers as bush league when I should have said they were hacks.

So let's look at emoluments and the Emolument Clauses:

Noun
Formal
Noun: Emolument; Plural noun: Emoluments
e·mol·u·ment (əˈmälyəmənt)

Compensation for services or from employment or office. 


Domestic Emolument Clause
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7:

''The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.''

Well, he doesn't hold any other office in federal or state government, and isn't being paid by any of them, so it seems clear he is not in violation of this

Foreign Emolument Clause
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

''No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.''

Trump hasn't accepted any of this from foreign governments, nor is he working for and being paid by any of them.


Any lawyer who says otherwise knows better, and is a hack.  Any nitwit who claims Trump running a business that may include foreign governments treated as any other customer as being in violation of this, let alone impeachable, is illiterate.  Are we really to believe George Washington was required to take care that none of his tobacco crop was sold to foreigners while he was in office?

If there is evidence foreign governments are flocking to Trump properties in order to influence the president, or are renting rooms and paying for services without using them at suspicious levels - and that Trump knows about it and goes along with it - would be something worth looking into. 

Is there any evidence of that, or are the usual people who don't believe in democracy,and who are always trying to undermine our country using this as another approach in their attempt to unseat an elected president?  The same Left-wing forces that are always trying to use our Constitution against us trotting out another concept they would never apply to themselves?

Where were these Emolument Clause experts when Bill's ''library'' was receiving donations from foreign governments, when the family ''foundation'' was receiving donations from foreign governments, when Bill was receiving suspiciously high payments for ''speeches'' from foreign governments - during the period Mrs Clinton was a US Senator, then Secretary of State? 

Mrs Clinton was clearly peddling influence, and even managed to transfer half our uranium supply to the supposedly hated Russian enemy.  The family clearly profited from her position.  Intentionally so.  With Trump and the emolument clause, at best we have a silly discussion regarding some ''technicality'' they pretend they've found, although without the actual bribery - with Mrs Clinton we have a top official selling her position and the acceptance of cash for doing so.


And lest we forget - since it's illegal to accept foreign campaign contributions, should the ''library'', the ''foundation'', and Bill have been accepting funds from foreign individuals, companies, or governments during the period leading up to the election?  Should the ''foundation'' funds - some of which were from foreigners - have been used for the campaign?  So far the hacks and pretend media are silent on any of this.  Is that how any Republican in the same situation be treated?  Of course not.

PS, where did all the ''foundation'' cash assets go, now that it's been closed down?  So far the fake news media has shown no interest.  But the Emolument Clause - that needs to be pored over and fully ''vetted''.  Disgraceful.



Kidnostad3

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 10:37:12 AM
Where were these Emolument Clause experts when Bill's ''library'' was receiving donations from foreign governments, when the family ''foundation'' was receiving donations from foreign governments, when Bill was receiving suspiciously high payments for ''speeches'' from foreign governments - during the period Mrs Clinton was a US Senator, then Secretary of State? 

Mrs Clinton was clearly peddling influence, and even managed to transfer half our uranium supply to the supposedly hated Russian enemy.  The family clearly profited from her position.  Intentionally so.  With Trump and the emolument clause, at best we have a silly discussion regarding some ''technicality'' they pretend they've found, although without the actual bribery - with Mrs Clinton we have a top official selling her position and the acceptance of cash for doing so.


And lest we forget - since it's illegal to accept foreign campaign contributions, should the ''library'', the ''foundation'', and Bill have been accepting funds from foreign individuals, companies, or governments during the period leading up to the election?  Should the ''foundation'' funds - some of which were from foreigners - have been used for the campaign?  So far the hacks and pretend media are silent on any of this.  Is that how any Republican in the same situation be treated?  Of course not.

PS, where did all the ''foundation'' cash assets go, now that it's been closed down?  So far the fake news media has shown no interest.  But the Emolument Clause - that needs to be pored over and fully ''vetted''.  Disgraceful.

BAM!  Okay, leave the keys, take the cannolis.


Kidnostad3


In light of the allegations of sexual harassment coming to the fore, Kevin Spacy is taking a hiatus from his acting career to spend more time with his genitalia.

http://www.libertyheadlines.com/kevin-spaceys-abuse-exposes-link-homosexuality-pedophilia/?AID=7236

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod