- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
iLOL
Nothing you said refutes what I provided.
OMG!!!!
Do the names Bobby Kennedy and John Mitchell mean anything to yoU?
iLOL
Nothing you said refutes what I provided.
And again you fail to refute anything I said.OMG!!!!
Do the names Bobby Kennedy and John Mitchell mean anything to yoU?
No.
While Obama's picks made it political (like the one fired did), it is not supposed to be.
Enforcement of the law isn't a political thing, non-enforcement is.
In this case the person fired made it political by not enforcing the law.
iLOLThat's nonsense. Of course it's a political job, which is why the old guy/lady appointed under the outgoing POTUS resigns as a matter of course, and the new guy always appointed by the new President. You have to know the job comes with tremendous discretion, for good or bad. It's just the nature of the position. It's no accident Trump chose a guy whose last 20 years were in the Senate, and not one of the many extremely competent CAREER prosecutors in the DoJ, any number of them competent to handle the non-political duties of the AG.
I guess you can say in an ideal world, the position would not be 'political' but we live in this reality where it most definitely IS political.
And again you fail to refute anything I said.
No, that olny applies to you and your not refuting what I provided.Only if you are intentionally blind deaf and dumb to what I have said to you on this matter and reality.
No, that olny applies to you and your not refuting what I provided.
You are only speaking of your own behavior here.You are playing ostrich as nothing I or anyone else can say will every amount to refuting you in your own mind.
You deny reality and thus cannot be rationally spoken to.
I love watching the left squirm. When you have nothing all you can do is call people names.
You are only speaking of your own behavior here.
I am still waiting for you to actually refute what was provided.
I already know you can't, which explains why you are off and spinning in circles with this bs. It is just one of the things you do to deflect.
You are only speaking of your own behavior here.
I am still waiting for you to actually refute what was provided.
Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
No.
While Obama's picks made it political (like the one fired did), it is not supposed to be.
Wrong as usual.The only one deflecting here is you and you are deflecting from simple reality.
You confuse it being a political appointment with the actual job of enforcing the law as written. Those are two different things.Tell me how a political appointment of a politician in a job where they are going to exercise their own discretion about important decisions and take into consideration the opinions of another political person - the president - is realistically not a political job.
iLOLYour argument was just not only refuted - but crushed and flushed.
:lamoYou just admitted that it was under Obama - so you already lost.
Democrats will give Gorsuch a fair hearing and a vote.
You are correct in calling that the high ground .
Wrong as usual.
You were the one deflecting.
The following was totally irrelevant nonsense by you, and then you just continued with the bs from there.
Do you know how babies are made and born? Clue: It has nothing to do with storks or cabbage patches.
You confuse it being a political appointment with the actual job of enforcing the law as written. Those are two different things.
Again.
The position is one of Political appointment, the actual job is not.
You enforce the law as written. That is not political. Purposely not enforcing the law as written, is Political.
Of note: Your decision to focus on this (that which is irrelevant to her being in the wrong and her decision being a political one) is nothing but more deflection.
She was in the wrong. She made a political decision and chose not to follow the law.
iLOL
Figures.
Same ol' tired screed that is as wrong as you are.
:lamo
What a hilarious argument.
Just because the idiots on the left wrongly chose to use it in a political fashion does not actually make the job political. Duh!
Sessions will be the worst AG we've ever had.
Dark money 45 ads are now out lying about Sessions record.
The same Sessions who insisted that Yates be independent of the executive who fired her .
LOL
I'm afraid you're too late with that award. Eric Holder has set the bar so high, I would imagine it impossible for anyone to get that far into the clouds.
lol
You yourself said "He is not doing anything that has not been done before." I agreed; the precedent for a President firing an Attorney General for not following questionable orders is when Nixon fired the Special Prosecutor, and forced the resignations of the AG and Deputy AG because they refused to fire the SP.
This is obviously nowhere near as severe, but this is not like firing an employee who refuses to do a task. The AG is supposed to have a degree of independence from the President, because her job is to uphold the Constitution and the law, not blindly follow orders.
If you meant "we've discriminated against immigrants on the basis of nationality," that's also not a proud moment for our nation -- including Carter banning Iranians in 1979. In fact, the purpose of the 1965 law was to prevent a repeat of unethical discrimination in immigration, as typified by laws targeting Chinese immigration. So not another precedent to be proud of.
That is very questionable, especially given that no one from those nations have in fact attacked the US; that several nations (where Trump happens to do business) where terrorists have come from were not barred; statements saying he wanted to ban Muslims and give Christians priority; and the 1965 law which explicitly bars immigration law from discriminating on the basis of religion, nationality and nation of origin
:roll:
No, I do care about the Constitution, or more importantly both the rights it tries to protect and the separation of powers it establishes. Congress can limit the powers of the President when it comes to immigration law; and the President cannot discriminate at the very minimum on the basis of religion, even when it comes to immigration law.
I also care very much about the safety of the US, which is NOT protected by offending Muslims around the world and in the US, as well as nations that are our allies -- which are now moving to retaliate.
Eric Holder wasn't even an AG. He was a political activist.
Your an idiot. The attorney generals job is to defend the US government which at this point in time is Trump.
Stop with the dishonesty.All you did there was to repeat what I have already refuted.