In spirit all of it. In fact the emolument clause. He has also threated the separation of powers. He has tried to take over the courts and the FBI. You do not know what the emolument clause is nor why it was written.
Hillary running again...
- Thread starter Scut Farkus
- Start date
In spirit all of it. In fact the emolument clause. He has also threated the separation of powers. He has tried to take over the courts and the FBI. You do not know what the emolument clause is nor why it was written.
Into the Night
Verified User
I do know what an emolument is. You don't. Trump is not a dictator, nor has he violated any part of the Constitution. He has not taken over the courts. He already is in charge of the FBI. That's a department of the President, dumbass.
Your problem is that you don't seem to know what an emolument is, what powers the President is given, or what powers Congress has. You also just believe the fake shit put out by Pelosi and Schiff. You have a case of TDS real bad.
Emolument is a payment or gift. I had to tell you because rightys define things away. The founders did not want the president able to accept emoluments because it is a corrupting influence that could hurt the American experiment. It would make the people question whether a president is working for America or the gift giver. That is exactly where we are now. Trump is acting for foreign nations and his own bankroll. You are proving you do not know what emoluments are because it has been front-page news for a long time. That is because Trump is breaking the law and ignoring the Constitution.
Stop with the TDS and actually bring something. Childish name-calling works on Fox, but not in debates.
So you are ignorant of who heads the FBI too. The president nominates someone to head the FBI. That person runs it. The president does not run the departments but merely nominates heads. The Senate approves them.
Into the Night
Verified User
Nope. Try again.
inversion fallacy.
And Trump hasn't accepted any.
Nope. It is where Biden and Obama is now.
Nope.
Nope. He donates his salary.
The newspapers do not define 'emoluments', the law, or the Constitution.
Nope. You simply don't know what 'emoluments' means.
Inversion fallacy.
Inversion fallacy.
The President.
Yup.
Yup. For the President.
The President chooses the nominee, and can fire them for any purpose at any time. The President runs the FBI. It is part of his job. See Article II of the Constitution of the United States.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
it's like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes....
No he does not run the FBI or CIA or Energy or Education. or the other bureaus or agencies. He appoints someone who does. Those people are supposed to be vetted, but we know Trump eschews vetting. However once a person is appointed the prez can fire them.That is not running them. Wray is running the FBI.
Can you imagine if Trump, as lazy as he is, actually tried to run a department? And you are ignorant enough to believe he runs them all.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
you're an idiot.
Well, Ass you certainly fleshed out that argument in your own inimitable fashion. Insult and flee congratulating yourself on another fine argument. The president does not run departments. He actually nominates a person to run the dept. That person runs the department day in and day out. I understand why you are unable to understand management levels and strata. I suppose you believe Trump runs the IRS office in Detroit. An office he does not even know exists. But he is king of America, so because he has the power to fire the head, that means he is running it all.
Do you think about things at all? It is obvious Into the Dark does not. He has mastered saying nope.
Into the Dark does not understand the difference between having the ability to fire a department head is not the same thing as running the department. When that glaring difference is beyond him, that makes his posting a waste of time.
Emoluments ..Federal officers are prohibited from receiving any gift, payment or another thing of value from a foreign state, its rulers or its representatives.
Into The Dark Right Wing Hole is as usual wrong.
Emoluments ..Federal officers are prohibited from receiving any gift, payment or another thing of value from a foreign state, its rulers or its representatives.
Into The Dark Right Wing Hole is as usual wrong.
Into the Night
Verified User
Yes he does.
That's right.
They are.
No he does not. That would be you.
That is running them.
Under the authority of the President.
He does. He has authority over all of them.
Not a belief. See Article II of the Constitution of the United States.
Into the Night
Verified User
Kettle logic fallacy.
Yes he does.
That is running the department.
Under the authority of the President.
Apparently you don't. By your logic, no one is running anything.
He has authority over that office too.
Yes he does.
Nope. He's just the President. See Article II of the Constitution.
Yup.
Apparently YOU don't.
Inversion fallacy. Insult fallacy.
Insult fallacy.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
you dont understand how hierarchies work. want me to explain it to you like you're 5?
Into the Night
Verified User
It is the same thing.
Argument of the stone fallacy.
Fixation. Redirection fallacy.
Bulverism fallacy.
Into the Night
Verified User
Scut Farkus
Verified User
Heh. Do you think that will work?
no.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
https://canadafreepress.com/article/hillary-for-2020-the-stupidest-democrat-coup-of-them-all
Downright laughable that she cites a weak Dem field and claims of email vindication to impose her self on the deplorables.
Laughable too that presidential candidate Democrat Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the one and the same who Clinton smears as a “Russian asset”, is telling her: “Step down from your throne”.
The former Secretary of State under Barack Obama was thrown off her throne in 2016, Rep. Gabbard—and you—like all the rest of us were there.
For desperado Democrats with their hair on fire, it’s Hillary all the way
Doesn’t she remember?
It’s got to be the Grand Comedy Central of all time that Clinton supporters within the Democrat establishment have been trying to go viral with an op-ed published a few weeks back in the San Francisco Chronicle by Senator Kamala Harris’ Ex Willie Brown, a former mayor of that no longer fair city.
Brown asked in the op-ed: “Who should run against Trump? How about Hillary Clinton, The Washington Post gleefully reported.
“Both the Post and the Times reported that Clinton was not the only possible last-minute candidate on Democrats’ minds. (Fox News, Oct. 23, 2019)
“Also being considered were: former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Disney chief executive Bob Iger, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and former first lady Michelle Obama.”
They can cross Obama off the list as she’s too busy getting rich over at Netflix with her “Resistance”-Leader-cum-documentarist husband Barack Obama.
For desperado Democrats with their hair on fire, it’s Hillary all the way.
Continued below...
“Speculation is growing that Hillary Clinton will make a last-minute entry into the 2020 presidential race after reports published Tuesday said members of the Democratic establishment doubted any of the party’s current top candidates can beat President Trump next November. (Fox News)
“But those Democrats already running said Clinton is doing more harm than good for the party by taking aim at Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, in recent remarks.”
The Democratic Establishment seem unaware that the unwashed masses recognize their latest coup is as crazy as the failed Russian one because it’s based on Clinton first getting the DNC nod and just as the ‘race’ gets underway, to have TRUMP CONVENIENTLY IMPEACHED.
Now what could possibly go wrong with that they’re asking nobody but themselves.
You can calm down, Tucker Carlson, because it just ain’t going to happen.
Tucker: Hillary spreads vicious lies about fellow Democrats
Downright laughable that she cites a weak Dem field and claims of email vindication to impose her self on the deplorables.
Laughable too that presidential candidate Democrat Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the one and the same who Clinton smears as a “Russian asset”, is telling her: “Step down from your throne”.
The former Secretary of State under Barack Obama was thrown off her throne in 2016, Rep. Gabbard—and you—like all the rest of us were there.
For desperado Democrats with their hair on fire, it’s Hillary all the way
Doesn’t she remember?
It’s got to be the Grand Comedy Central of all time that Clinton supporters within the Democrat establishment have been trying to go viral with an op-ed published a few weeks back in the San Francisco Chronicle by Senator Kamala Harris’ Ex Willie Brown, a former mayor of that no longer fair city.
Brown asked in the op-ed: “Who should run against Trump? How about Hillary Clinton, The Washington Post gleefully reported.
“Both the Post and the Times reported that Clinton was not the only possible last-minute candidate on Democrats’ minds. (Fox News, Oct. 23, 2019)
“Also being considered were: former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Disney chief executive Bob Iger, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and former first lady Michelle Obama.”
They can cross Obama off the list as she’s too busy getting rich over at Netflix with her “Resistance”-Leader-cum-documentarist husband Barack Obama.
For desperado Democrats with their hair on fire, it’s Hillary all the way.
Continued below...
“Speculation is growing that Hillary Clinton will make a last-minute entry into the 2020 presidential race after reports published Tuesday said members of the Democratic establishment doubted any of the party’s current top candidates can beat President Trump next November. (Fox News)
“But those Democrats already running said Clinton is doing more harm than good for the party by taking aim at Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, in recent remarks.”
The Democratic Establishment seem unaware that the unwashed masses recognize their latest coup is as crazy as the failed Russian one because it’s based on Clinton first getting the DNC nod and just as the ‘race’ gets underway, to have TRUMP CONVENIENTLY IMPEACHED.
Now what could possibly go wrong with that they’re asking nobody but themselves.
You can calm down, Tucker Carlson, because it just ain’t going to happen.
Tucker: Hillary spreads vicious lies about fellow Democrats
Damn you are stupid. Having some remote long-distance power over something is not running it. Trump has zero knowledge about how agencies are run. Why do I bother with you? Do you enjoy saying things you cannot possibly believe like being president means you are running everything? Trump has no clue about running agencies or departments.
I think you enjoy being a contrarian.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
this is how hierarchies work; the power to remove the person you put in the job compels him to be responsive to input and critique. that's how things are run in large orgs. why do i have to say this obvious thing to you? are you special needs?
You are aguing something I am sure you do not believe in because it is so obviously wrong. Do you really believe someone in Mira Lago and sometimes Washington is "running " the departments? He can not name anyone is almost any of those departments or describe what they do.. He has the ultimate authority, in that he can fire the leader. That is simply not running the department at all. You guys are so contrarian because you are such believers in daffy, that you will argue anything, no matter how wrong and often stupid. This is just another example.
I am giving you and Into the Right a break. I do not believe you guys don't know better. You cannot be that dumb.
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
YALIF.
It is not remote or long distance. Everything is conveniently in Washington DC. These agencies are operate under the authority of the President. He runs them.
Obvious BS. He is a successful businessman and successful President.
Beats me. Why do you bother with anything? You insist on being stupid.
He does run the agencies I mentioned. He runs the FBI. See Article II. You obviously have no clue how chain of command works.
He is a successful businessman and and a successful President. He's doing a damn fine job.
No, that would be you. Inversion fallacy.