https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/2...n-lawsuit.html Fuzzy, is this enough constitutional scholars for you?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/2...n-lawsuit.html Fuzzy, is this enough constitutional scholars for you?
Hope is the denial of reality
Sadly for you, consistency doesn't exclude bellendary.Originally Posted by RandBlade
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
If calling a spade a spade is being a bellend then so be it.
For me the answer is a simple one: No.
There will be a lawsuit before the Supreme Court according to your link. However many constitutional scholars line up is utterly irrelevant, the decision of the Supreme Court is what matters and that has not been given yet.
I suspect they will find that there is no violation of the law. I agree with the logic of Andy Grewal, University of Iowa Law School Professor, in your link that the corporations are separate legal entities to the person who is the President and so no law is broken. I wonder why you ignore him and other scholars mentioned that refute the lawsuit?
Well, apparently, calling racists racist, sexists sexist or simply protesting a possibly-foreign-backed-sexual-assault-bragging-racist-come-literal-piece-of-shit-and-contender-for-title-of-worst-living-human-being-who-lost-the-popular-vote-by-like-3-million being president is being a hypersensitive snowflake. So. Bellend it is, randyboy.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Wish you'd get me out of you sig.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
So far it's pretty much the work of lone crazies, much as it was for the second half of the last century.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Nope. You've advanced a claim stating a position for 50+% of the constitutional scholars, both inside and outside our country. You will NEVER be able to support your claim, no matter what you cite. Your attempts at conflating argumentum ad populum with fallacious appeals to authority will always remain fallacious in addition to being very obviously unprovable. You have a PH'd now IIRC Loki, you can do better than this crap.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Because I was responding to Fuzzy's post.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It's not going to be either. They don't have standing and it wouldn't be justiciable for other reasons even if they somehow did. This issue is not one for the courts, it falls to Congress.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
In which case the answer to Loki's question will be an even more categorical No.
You realize that by that standard you can't claim a consensus on any academic issue, as most people who study it don't publish on it...
Hope is the denial of reality
I certainly would never claim a concensus on an issue by use of an article reporting academics that completely disagree with your alleged consensus. I might claim consensus on an issue where there are many all agreeing on the consensus and none disagreeing with it but even then the consensus might still be wrong.
Besides we are talking about a constitutional issue not a mere academic one.
Trump has placed a hiring freeze on federal workers. Now we wait for Dread to come back and post about how he doesn't understand what a hiring freeze means, just like last time.
Trump also froze federal pay raises, talk about not shitting where you eat.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Second is a good move that should have been done 9 years ago. The US budget deficit is how big and it's still doling out pay rises.
Pay for government employees has been frozen for years in the UK as part of austerity measures.
Not necessarily the case but certainly wrt the way YOU try to use claims of consensus on this forum, it's basically always true and you are always wrong. I have never seen you advance "consensus" in a fashion which is not pure fallacy.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
While quite clearly Obama had more I wonder if that's a fair image (eg taken at peak crowds/same time for both). Interestingly CNN's interactive image looks a bit different if you look back to the Washington Monument.
Trump's inauguration (left) and Obama's in 2009, viewed from the Washington Monument
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2...ion-gigapixel/
Do you have a specific reason to say that? The claim of standing in the complaint seems a bit flimsy, but you are rather absolute in your rejection. Which is kind of strange given that this kind of litigation hasn't been tried before and that the juridiction of Congress only seems to see to the part where Congress needs to permit reception of emoluments. TBH a complaint against Congress because of its inaction would make more sense as there is a situation where there are payments of which the nature is in question and thus to err on the safe side would have meant Congressional debate and or consent.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to call paying for your hotel bill a fair value exchange. However, what if the choice to use the facilities offered by the Trump businesses is driven by a desire to please the President rather than a choice for those facilities on the basis of pure economics?
Congratulations America
Both pictures were taken between 11 and 11:30am.
The Gigapixel image shows about the same crowd, but from a lower perspective, so you can't easily see the empty space. But if you zoom in, especially towards the monstrous tent in the back you can line up the same empty spaces from both pictures. Use the green fences as markers. To drive the point home even more, about a quarter of the crowd in Obama's picture is taken up by Trump's tent and the completely unused space behind it.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Rubbish, the CNN picture doesn't even give you the possibility to see the empty sections of the Mall. Also look at those bloody big tents in front of the monument. They make it impossible to even see Congress from the area between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. And then of course the tents themselves make it physically impossible for even the same number of people being on the Mall during the moment of the Oath.
Congratulations America
Congratulations America
Heh if it was me I would have said, "Of course my inauguration was smaller, the people who vote for me work."
Of course you'd say that, you've basically become a parody of a reddit clown. However, the claim would be extremely dubious as all jobs have been taken by China and by illegal immigrants.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It would have been even smarter to attribute it to the 'carnage' he spoke about in his speech. It s so easy to be a winner if you set your targets low enough.
Congratulations America
Without evidence, Trump tells lawmakers 3 million to 5 million illegal ballots cost him the popular vote
Someone should make a website that tracks the number of days since Trump's Team last lied. A static zero should suffice.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Trumps war on the EPA has officially begun
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...-media-updates
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
There is only one social media account for the US government and that's the RealDonald.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN15820N
Bringing back the pipeline fight. Wonder how long it will take him to go from twitter meltdown to sending in stormtroopers.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/badlands...e-environment/
We need more rogue twitter accounts.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
surprising absolutely no one, Trump is already threatening to decide which press gets access, instead of leaving it up to the White House Correspondents' Association.
http://www.usnews.com/news/national-...ck-who-gets-in
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
