45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
I did know about that. But, guess what, the underlying faith in our own democratic system and an underlying wish not to see it usurped by a cabal, no matter how "patriotic" they thought they were, stopped it from happening.
And that should be what happens in the US too. Democracy must stand supreme over any individual - and that includes the President.
Add to that the Secret Service Agencies acting in an illegal way that is outside the required and approved methods/lines of reporting against the legally and democratically elected government.And that should be what happens in the US too. Democracy must stand supreme over any individual - and that includes the President.
Laws are laws and they cover everyone, every office & every division of government/service.......... correctly so.
Stickyfinger said:
Add to that the Secret Service Agencies acting in an illegal way that is outside the required and approved methods/lines of reporting against the legally and democratically elected government.
Laws are laws and they cover everyone, every office & every division of government/service.......... correctly so.
The same laws that ruled against Trump's EO. You don't get to pick and choose. If there's something illegal that the SSAs have done, there'll be a legal option for Trump to address it. Laws are laws and they cover everyone, every office & every division of government/service.......... correctly so.
Alpinestars said:
The same laws that ruled against Trump's EO. You don't get to pick and choose. If there's something illegal that the SSAs have done, there'll be a legal option for Trump to address it.
Yes, I have no argument with the need to adhere to the law. Laws however are not set in stone and if an elected government needs to "adjust the law" to comply with its manifesto then this should be via the correct procedure. The arbitrator on those particular matters and the technicalities on which the EO rulings were made will be the SC.
By using the [you}, you seem to suggest I would not agree with you, the post I added to (in agreement with) or the need for anybody/bodies to adhere to the laws of the USA ? Strange if correct, I apologise if incorrect.
Stickyfinger said:
Yes, I have no argument with the need to adhere to the law.
Laws however are not set in stone and if an elected government needs to "adjust the law" to comply with its manifesto then this should be via the correct procedure. The arbitrator on those particular matters and the technicalities on which the EO rulings were made will be the SC.
By using the [you}, you seem to suggest I would not agree with you, the post I added to (in agreement with) or the need for anybody/bodies to adhere to the laws of the USA ? Strange if correct, I apologise if incorrect.
Colloquial language. I could have said "one", but that sounds pompous. Laws however are not set in stone and if an elected government needs to "adjust the law" to comply with its manifesto then this should be via the correct procedure. The arbitrator on those particular matters and the technicalities on which the EO rulings were made will be the SC.
By using the [you}, you seem to suggest I would not agree with you, the post I added to (in agreement with) or the need for anybody/bodies to adhere to the laws of the USA ? Strange if correct, I apologise if incorrect.
Eric Mc said:
In America, some people think that the description "liberal" equates to "Communist".
Despite the fact that "liberty" is a big part of the Constitution and they even have a bloody big statue named in its honour in New York.
As I mentioned earlier, some of them seem not to realise that "liberal" and Liberty" stem from the same root meaning.
I agree with you but in America liberal is a euphemism for socialist.Despite the fact that "liberty" is a big part of the Constitution and they even have a bloody big statue named in its honour in New York.
As I mentioned earlier, some of them seem not to realise that "liberal" and Liberty" stem from the same root meaning.
F.A. Hayek said:
Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals."
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/artic...Halb said:
spaximus said:
But what if Eric, he is right? Remember Harold Wilson was not liked by some in the civil service who were plotting against him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson_conspiracy_theories#The_1968_plotI took a look, well before my time. But it is most interesting, if this sort of stuff is in the public domain, one can only goggle at what is in most of the iceberg.
It was quite a big thing in my well-left-of-centre uncles. I was otherwise engaged, getting married and stuff, and didn't take an awful lot of notice. At work there was a union meeting about it. Most of the non committee workers believed it. I know I didn't although Rees-Mogg was well known in the print for being something of a nutter.
It was difficult to believe that King, with all his establishment connections, would consider a coup, but then, looking back, it's the most obvious type, as history has shown.
Stickyfinger said:
minimoog said:
I doubt Trump could care less about President Theodore Roosevelt's opinion though.
The BIG trouble with that ideal is neither the Press, the Political Parties or the US Government (most offices of state) adhere to that advice very well do they.
Derek Smith said:
It was well known at the time. I worked in the printing industry and the fuss with the Mirror was common gossip.
It was quite a big thing in my well-left-of-centre uncles. I was otherwise engaged, getting married and stuff, and didn't take an awful lot of notice. At work there was a union meeting about it. Most of the non committee workers believed it. I know I didn't although Rees-Mogg was well known in the print for being something of a nutter.
It was difficult to believe that King, with all his establishment connections, would consider a coup, but then, looking back, it's the most obvious type, as history has shown.
Just as well it didn't rub off on his son It was quite a big thing in my well-left-of-centre uncles. I was otherwise engaged, getting married and stuff, and didn't take an awful lot of notice. At work there was a union meeting about it. Most of the non committee workers believed it. I know I didn't although Rees-Mogg was well known in the print for being something of a nutter.
It was difficult to believe that King, with all his establishment connections, would consider a coup, but then, looking back, it's the most obvious type, as history has shown.
Stickyfinger said:
Laws however are not set in stone
Laws ARE set in stone - until the stone is re-carved.So, until that moment, the law needs to be obeyed. If the law is inappropriate or even downright wrong, then the law needs to be changed - using due process as set out in law - or in the case of the US - under the Constitution.
No President has the power to re-write the law as they see fit. They are as much a subject of the law and the Constitution as Joe the Plumber (remember him?).
Eric Mc said:
Laws ARE set in stone - until the stone is re-carved.
So, until that moment, the law needs to be obeyed. If the law is inappropriate or even downright wrong, then the law needs to be changed - using due process as set out in law - or in the case of the US - under the Constitution.
No President has the power to re-write the law as they see fit. They are as much a subject of the law and the Constitution as Joe the Plumber (remember him?).
Repeat me ? ask me if I understand ? is the SC ?....weirdSo, until that moment, the law needs to be obeyed. If the law is inappropriate or even downright wrong, then the law needs to be changed - using due process as set out in law - or in the case of the US - under the Constitution.
No President has the power to re-write the law as they see fit. They are as much a subject of the law and the Constitution as Joe the Plumber (remember him?).
Stickyfinger said:
Eric Mc said:
Laws ARE set in stone - until the stone is re-carved.
So, until that moment, the law needs to be obeyed. If the law is inappropriate or even downright wrong, then the law needs to be changed - using due process as set out in law - or in the case of the US - under the Constitution.
No President has the power to re-write the law as they see fit. They are as much a subject of the law and the Constitution as Joe the Plumber (remember him?).
Repeat me ? ...........ask me if I understand ? ...........is the SC ?....weirdSo, until that moment, the law needs to be obeyed. If the law is inappropriate or even downright wrong, then the law needs to be changed - using due process as set out in law - or in the case of the US - under the Constitution.
No President has the power to re-write the law as they see fit. They are as much a subject of the law and the Constitution as Joe the Plumber (remember him?).
Stickyfinger said:
Stickyfinger said:
Eric Mc said:
Laws ARE set in stone - until the stone is re-carved.
So, until that moment, the law needs to be obeyed. If the law is inappropriate or even downright wrong, then the law needs to be changed - using due process as set out in law - or in the case of the US - under the Constitution.
No President has the power to re-write the law as they see fit. They are as much a subject of the law and the Constitution as Joe the Plumber (remember him?).
Repeat me ? ...........ask me if I understand ? ...........is the SC ?....weirdSo, until that moment, the law needs to be obeyed. If the law is inappropriate or even downright wrong, then the law needs to be changed - using due process as set out in law - or in the case of the US - under the Constitution.
No President has the power to re-write the law as they see fit. They are as much a subject of the law and the Constitution as Joe the Plumber (remember him?).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/u...
one month in, he's costing millions in travel expenses, golf trips
all the s
t he moaned about Obama doing, but more so
one month in, he's costing millions in travel expenses, golf trips
all the s
t he moaned about Obama doing, but more soStickyfinger said:
greygoose said:
You need to look up what a sentence is.
What ?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff