Democrats warn Trump after Attorney General Sessions forced out

[candide]

22 hours ago, Srinivas said:

Rod Rosenstein seems to like the new AG. who woulda thought

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/416015-rosenstein-calls-whitaker-superb-choice-for-acting-ag

. "superb choice"

 

gear up the outrage????msm spinners TILT

what a show, is he for real ,the plot thickens

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taking into account the case against Whitaker, it may that he has a good sense of humor....

[Srinivas]

50 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law

"As a principle, it has been turned down by the courts and our federal government has not recognized it," Whitaker said while taking questions during a September 2013 campaign speech. "Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/09/politics/matthew-whitaker-nullification/index.html

 

good find. This is similar argument for drug policy and marijuana legalization,  used by advocates in California and other states. 

[Srinivas]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Taking into account the case against Whitaker, it may that he has a good sense of humor....

for sure. he is quiet but I wouldnt count him out.

[bristolboy]

45 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

good find. This is similar argument for drug policy and marijuana legalization,  used by advocates in California and other states. 

No it's not. Some states have decriminalized it to one degree or another. States aren;t maintaining that the Feds don't have the Constitutionalright to enforce the law.. They're just counting on the unpopularity of said enforcement. So far, it's been working pretty well for them.

[Srinivas]

20 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No it's not. Some states have decriminalized it to one degree or another. States aren;t maintaining that the Feds don't have the Constitutionalright to enforce the law.. They're just counting on the unpopularity of said enforcement. So far, it's been working pretty well for them.

I did not say States argued,or are arguing

I said advocates in states such as...also argue for nullification.

whitaker is an advocate.

nice try. lol go reread.

 

Edited November 11, 2018 by Srinivas

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

I did not say States argued,or are arguing

I said advocates in states such as...also argue for nullification.

whitaker is an advocate.

nice try. lol go reread.

 

You might as well say there are advocates in every state arguing for nullification whether or not the state has deciminalized marijuana. In a country with 350 million people it's overwhelmingly likely that there a few such loons in every state. How is tying it to state decriminalization of marijuana relevant? Did you just throw that in there as an interesting but irrelevant factoid?

Edited November 11, 2018 by bristolboy

[Srinivas]

25 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You might as well say there are advocates in every state arguing for nullification whether or not the state has deciminalized marijuana. In a country with 350 million people it's overwhelmingly likely that there a few such loons in every state. How is tying it to state decriminalization of marijuana relevant? Did you just throw that in there as an interesting but irrelevant factoid?

I only stated that mj as example. when its something you want mj, that feds oppose(dea, a federal dept, jurisdiction )you want local or state rights. 

all I said was, its a similar argument,

how to opt out of obamacare with states right. 

 

let me guess, if someone disagrees with your enlightened opinions, they are loony. understood.

 

enjoy the show????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Patriot1066]

1 hour ago, Srinivas said:

I did not say States argued,or are arguing

I said advocates in states such as...also argue for nullification.

whitaker is an advocate.

nice try. lol go reread.

 

I thought the point that you made and subsequent writing was very very clear, succinct in fact.

[bristolboy]

19 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

I only stated that mj as example. when its something you want mj, that feds oppose(dea, a federal dept, jurisdiction )you want local or state rights. 

all I said was, its a similar argument,

how to opt out of obamacare with states right. 

 

let me guess, if someone disagrees with your enlightened opinions, they are loony. understood.

 

enjoy the show????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the contrary. The marijuana argument, such as it is, is based entirely on pragmatism and political reality. The anti Obamacare argument is based on a principle that nobody except a few loons supports

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

I thought the point that you made and subsequent writing was very very clear, succinct in fact.

Clear and irrelevant.

[Jonah Tenner]

On 11/8/2018 at 10:18 PM, Nyezhov said:

Warning indeed, this is going to be a circus. ????

Normal US politics, a cornucopia of amusement for the rest of the world...

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Jonah Tenner said:

Normal US politics, a cornucopia of amusement for the rest of the world...

Like when Congress voted to authorize the Iraq War. Lots of giggles there.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 7:23 PM, Jingthing said:

Yes, and here's another worthy opinion piece --

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/there-is-no-way-this-man-should-be-running-the-justice-department/2018/11/09/f4a2ee60-e45e-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html

 

The left will never accept anyone nominated by Trump, regardless of how suitable they are. IMO Jesus Christ could come down to earth and if Trump nominated him to be head of the church in America they'd be up in arms about him being unsuitable.

Edited November 13, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

The left will never accept anyone nominated by Trump, regardless of how suitable they are. IMO Jesus Christ could come down to earth and if Trump nominated him to be head of the church in America they'd be up in arms about him being unsuitable.

But it wasn't Jesus Christ he nominated. Rather it was a crank who has made unsupported assertions about the Mueller investigation and has suggested ways to shut it down.

[mtls2005]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The left will never accept anyone nominated by Trump, regardless of how suitable they are.

 

Just to be clear, Mathew Whitaker was appointed, and not nominated.

 

Monarchs & dictators appoint toadies and sycophants.

 

Yes, I understand that recess appointments are "legal". But the obvious thing to do would be to allow the deputy AG to assume the role, temporarily, until Trump could nominate someone, and the Senate could perform their role.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Just to be clear, Mathew Whitaker was appointed, and not nominated.

 

Monarchs & dictators appoint toadies and sycophants.

 

Yes, I understand that recess appointments are "legal". But the obvious thing to do would be to allow the deputy AG to assume the role, temporarily, until Trump could nominate someone, and the Senate could perform their role.

 

 

You mean Rosenstein?

He is just as anti Trump as the rest of the cabal that used to run the place. He just hides it better than guys like McCabe. After all, he started the Mueller investigation.

No way Trump would give him the keys to the kingdom.

[mtls2005]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You mean Rosenstein?

 

Well, uhm, yeah.

 

You didn't think I meant Sally Yates?

 

Why have succession guidelines, I mean if you're "innocent".

 

If you're guilty then appointing a toady makes perfect sense.

 

 

 

 

[Scott]

An off-topic post without a link has been removed.