Westside Steve Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Never said you did. I'm just trying to clarify who falls into your crazy pool Strictly per this particular discussion Just Osiris so far. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted January 11, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Strictly per this particular discussion Just Osiris so far. WSS Yes Woody, I am crazy for pointing out that Trump is potentially breaking the law by appointing Kushner as a senior advisor. Apparently half the legal experts in the country are also crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Trump briefed on Intel that the russians have personal/financial dirt on him. Uh oh, this could get interesting. How much you guys like Pence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Yes Woody, I am crazy for pointing out that Trump is potentially breaking the law by appointing Kushner as a senior advisor. Apparently half the legal experts in the country are also crazy. Oh relax. I was making a little joke with Woody because yes it's crazy to compare Donald Trump with the Taliban or whatever. Other people have said crazy things in other threads but you're the only one that's played that card in this particularone. Actually it's kind of refreshing, usually the opposition compares the new Administration to Nazi Germany. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 No, you are wrong and your quote doesn't support your argument that it is legal. The legal counsel this quote refers to does not determine the legality of something, they advise people. The advice can be wrong, right, murky, or politically motivated. This won't be legal unless the courts ultimately rule it so. Until then, the 1967 law, which specifically mentions the POTUS, prohibits appointment of relatives, regardless of their party affiliation. Do you actually read the things you link? You would've noticed this in the Politico article you posted: So yes, the law was a response to Kennedy's nepotism. I am not here to argue with you that Democratic nepotism is okay and Republican nepotism is not. Take your partisan hat off for five minutes. Nepotism is wrong because it undermines confidence in government and the notion that America is at least somewhat a place where people achieve their positions based on merit. Not to mention as I said before, it allows individuals to act with impunity because they know their relative has their back. His son-in-law is being appointed as his ADVISOR. You are wrong. You take YOUR partisan hat off. Here: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-18/so-what-if-donald-trump-hires-jared-kushner "The statute prohibits any public official from appointing a relative to office “in the agency in which he is serving.” It defines relative to include son-in-law. It therefore sounds as if it would apply to a Kushner appointment. But the catch is the word “agency.” In a 1993 decision that involved a challenge to Bill Clinton’s appointment of Hillary Clinton to run his ill-fated health-care task force, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said it doubted that Congress meant to include the White House in the category of agency. This wasn’t quite a formal holding by the court, which based its ultimate conclusion on the special role of the first lady. But it came close. The court added that the statute may only apply to paid positions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 so, the court of appeals agrees with me. you are wrong. the legal precedent has been set, the definitions and requirements were set. The WH isn't an agency, and he isn't getting paid. have a nice day, though, Os. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Well then if it is, as you say, a clear-cut violation of the law then it will be nipped in the bud immediately. We shall see. WSS I doubt it. Seeing as we allowed the people that causes the financial collapse not only keep their freedom, but their jobs too. How about all the crap that you all wanted "Obamao"...is it? impeached, lynched, tarred and feathered...whatever for. Now that your boy is in office anything goes? If the shoe was on the other foot people would react the same way is my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 I doubt it. Seeing as we allowed the people that causes the financial collapse not only keep their freedom, but their jobs too. How about all the crap that you all wanted "Obamao"...is it? impeached, lynched, tarred and feathered...whatever for. Now that your boy is in office anything goes? If the shoe was on the other foot people would react the same way is my point. You talking to me Marcus? Or are you just taking the opportunity to vent at some of the other posters? All I said was that if this nepotism charge is a clear-cut violation of the law then he will be refused the job. I never called Obama a Nazi or called for his impeachment or, what was it, lynching. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 I doubt it. Seeing as we allowed the people that causes the financial collapse not only keep their freedom, but their jobs too. How about all the crap that you all wanted "Obamao"...is it? impeached, lynched, tarred and feathered...whatever for. Now that your boy is in office anything goes? If the shoe was on the other foot people would react the same way is my point. oh, Marcus... you stepped in it now. lol because surely that is crap. I have never seen any kind of ref. to lynching, tarring and feathering. and who are the people you say caused the financial collapse.... what? you mean the democrats that ruined the fanny mae and fanny mac bizness? New Study Finds Democrats Fully to Blame for Subprime Mortgage ... www.thegatewaypundit.com/.../new-study-finds-democrats-fully-to-blam... Dec 22, 2012 - You know that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had almost no ... at the time leading up to the crash, they already had sold most of the bad paper. Hillary Clinton's ties to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac loom as liabilities in ... www.washingtontimes.com/.../hillary-clintons-ties-to-fannie-mae-freddie... Jul 20, 2015 - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are hurtling toward another possible ... markets, Hillary Rodham Clinton joined fellow Democratic senators, ... Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis ... www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey.../249903/ Dec 13, 2011 - In your view, what caused the mortgage crisis and subsequently the financial crash? ... The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet ... You said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did have a role in pushing this along. .... Republicans have faced criticism from Democrats for scheduling ... The True Origins of This Financial Crisis | The American Spectator https://spectator.org/42211_true-origins-financial-crisis/ Feb 6, 2009 - The other narrative is that government policy over many years–particularly the use of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and ... How Democrats Wrecked the Economy and Successfully Blamed ... russp.us/subprime.htm How Democrats Wrecked the Economy and Successfuly Blamed Republicans .... When the Republicans attempted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 furthermore, Marcus, I did want obaMao impeached. Over lying to get into office - about REAL Marriage, our 2nd Amendment, supporting our Constitution, defending us from enemies foreign and domestic, ... releasing dangerous criminals out of our prisons, especially gitmo. ObaMao has turned into our own worst enemy... unless you are black, and liberal. Otherwise, it's good for the rest of us that he didn't have the power to disband congress and our Constitution. If bad things were said about obamao, it's because what he has SAID and DONE as president. That's a completely different deal than bitching and bitching and bitching about "what if" about Trump and his appts. It's just a giant crock of bullhockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 You talking to me Marcus? Or are you just taking the opportunity to vent at some of the other posters? All I said was that if this nepotism charge is a clear-cut violation of the law then he will be refused the job. I never called Obama a Nazi or called for his impeachment or, what was it, lynching. WSS It was more of a general statement. Based on what I've seen on here. Your statement made for the best platform although you haven't said anything about the above mentioned stuff. I find it interesting how self righteous people can be when they know if the shoe was on the other foot the conversation would be the exact same. To prove my point, I'll mention that Joesph Kennedy was extremely influential in JFK's administration (not necessarily appointed an advisor but obviously was one). I don't see this situation as much different than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 It was more of a general statement. Based on what I've seen on here. Your statement made for the best platform although you haven't said anything about the above mentioned stuff. I find it interesting how self righteous people can be when they know if the shoe was on the other foot the conversation would be the exact same. To prove my point, I'll mention that Joesph Kennedy was extremely influential in JFK's administration (not necessarily appointed an advisor but obviously was one). I don't see this situation as much different than that. I would imagine a better example would be Bobby Kennedy. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 furthermore, Marcus, I did want obaMao impeached. Over lying to get into office - about REAL Marriage, our 2nd Amendment, supporting our Constitution, defending us from enemies foreign and domestic, ... releasing dangerous criminals out of our prisons, especially gitmo. ObaMao has turned into our own worst enemy... unless you are black, and liberal. Otherwise, it's good for the rest of us that he didn't have the power to disband congress and our Constitution. If bad things were said about obamao, it's because what he has SAID and DONE as president. That's a completely different deal than bitching and bitching and bitching about "what if" about Trump and his appts. It's just a giant crock of bullhockey. I'm with you for the most part. But all I'm pointing out is that nothing was done about any of the stuff I mentioned so why should anyone expect anything to be done with Trump's choice of advisors. Which in comparison is minuscule compared to all the things you just lambasted someone that agrees with you over. As far as blacks and liberals benefitting from Obama's Presidency. That couldn't be further from the truth. He did the worst for black people and liberals by maintaining the status quo. That status quo is, he with other so called "black leaders"created a perception that black people were just as oppressed now as they were before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This in part has led to perpetual dependence on Government and a lawless rebellion without basis. For Liberals particularly "white liberals" he and other so called "black leaders" maintained the status quo by perpetuating the belief that us black folks are too poor, stupid, or ignorant to function in society unassisted. When collectively we know as a people we silently represent the antithesis. This my beef with liberals and conservatives; neither one has heard of the middle. Each is so set in their ways that the world continues to pass us by because neither can come off their high horse long enough to do anything that can be considered useful or beneficial to a majority of Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 I would imagine a better example would be Bobby Kennedy. WSS I'd say that decision too was heavily influenced by Joe. Jack didn't want to appoint him and Bobby didn't want to be appointed. Both Jack and Bobby thought that it would send a message of nepotism. Just goes to show the kind of influence Joe had on his sons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Yes Woody, I am crazy for pointing out that Trump is potentially breaking the law by appointing Kushner as a senior advisor. Apparently half the legal experts in the country are also crazy. Huh? Why are you referring to me? I think you think I said something I didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Strictly per this particular discussion Just Osiris so far. WSS Tap dancing Steve is typical Steve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 I'd say that decision too was heavily influenced by Joe. Jack didn't want to appoint him and Bobby didn't want to be appointed. Both Jack and Bobby thought that it would send a message of nepotism. Just goes to show the kind of influence Joe had on his sons. First of all I'm not sure that I believe your assessment SO nobody thought anything was wrong with it until apparently you do right now. Were you outraged when Bill Clinton put Hillary in charge putting together The health-care Proposal? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 Tap dancing Steve is typical Steve? Ooo ooo where is he? Ive got my binocs out which tree is the typical one perched on today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 More disappointed that no is saying a fucking word about Pamela Bondi. For shit sake she was bought off and now gets a job. If this was in reverse Cal would take down the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 More disappointed that no is saying a fucking word about Pamela Bondi. For shit sake she was bought off and now gets a job. If this was in reverse Cal would take down the internet. http://mfi-miami.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pam-Bondi-in-underwear.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 Thats why she has a job in the trump admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 Chelsea Clinton's involvement did not violate the anti-nepotism law because Chelsea Clinton was not appointed into a government agency. I am not talking about "fit" or "unfit" or "qualified" or "unqualified". I'm talking about legality. So, no, he is not eligible. This is US law: "A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official." -5 U.S. Code § 3110 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110) If you want to argue that the law is wrong, go ahead and argue that. I'm telling you that nepotism promotes political corruption because it gives those in office additional cart-blanche to do what they want. This is obvious to any objective observer. We already know that you are blind partisan so that comes as no surprise. is "senior advisor" even a real post? It's not like he named his son in law secretary of state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 More disappointed that no is saying a fucking word about Pamela Bondi. For shit sake she was bought off and now gets a job. If this was in reverse Cal would take down the internet. Why don't you? Or one of the twat brothers WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 First of all I'm not sure that I believe your assessment SO nobody thought anything was wrong with it until apparently you do right now. Were you outraged when Bill Clinton put Hillary in charge putting together The health-care Proposal? WSS I was a little young during Bill's Presidency so I'm sure I wasn't enraged. I'm saying that there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. Meaning Trump's decision doesn't bother me because history tells us similar things have been done before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 I was a little young during Bill's Presidency so I'm sure I wasn't enraged. I'm saying that there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. Meaning Trump's decision doesn't bother me because history tells us similar things have been done before.Even younger during the Kennedy administration. But if what you just said is true what's the problem? Because I don't see anything wrong with it either and it's the lefties that are crying about it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 oh, Marcus... you stepped in it now. lol because surely that is crap. I have never seen any kind of ref. to lynching, tarring and feathering. and who are the people you say caused the financial collapse.... what? you mean the democrats that ruined the fanny mae and fanny mac bizness? New Study Finds Democrats Fully to Blame for Subprime Mortgage ... www.thegatewaypundit.com/.../new-study-finds-democrats-fully-to-blam... Dec 22, 2012 - You know that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had almost no ... at the time leading up to the crash, they already had sold most of the bad paper. Hillary Clinton's ties to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac loom as liabilities in ... www.washingtontimes.com/.../hillary-clintons-ties-to-fannie-mae-freddie... Jul 20, 2015 - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are hurtling toward another possible ... markets, Hillary Rodham Clinton joined fellow Democratic senators, ... Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis ... www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey.../249903/ Dec 13, 2011 - In your view, what caused the mortgage crisis and subsequently the financial crash? ... The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet ... You said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did have a role in pushing this along. .... Republicans have faced criticism from Democrats for scheduling ... The True Origins of This Financial Crisis | The American Spectator https://spectator.org/42211_true-origins-financial-crisis/ Feb 6, 2009 - The other narrative is that government policy over many yearsparticularly the use of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and ... How Democrats Wrecked the Economy and Successfully Blamed ... russp.us/subprime.htm How Democrats Wrecked the Economy and Successfuly Blamed Republicans .... When the Republicans attempted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in ... Forgive me for trying to have a little fun with you. I know no one mentioned lynching or tar and feathering that was the joke. This championing the Republican Party and indicting the Democratic Party is what is leading you to miss the big picture. The financial collapse can be credited to the World Bank, Federal Reserve, IRS and any Congressman, Senator, President (Democrat or Republican) that benefitted from said collapse. The key players being Ben Bernanke and Timothy Gietner. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed catalysts for the collapse so the bankers rob us in broad daylight and trick us into finger pointing at one party or the other. When a few courageous politicians got together (both Democrat and Republican) and confronted Bernanke and pals. They arrogantly replied "we don't have to tell you a thing." No outrage came from the people. Wanna know why? Because Conservatives were too consumed with blaming Liberals and vice versa. Enter Obama with a chance of a lifetime to put Bernanke and pals away. Not only did he refuse to take action against them he allowed them to continue running the FED and the Treasury. I stopped being partisan around that time. I saw that pledging allegiance to one party is boarderline treasonous because the truth is there are members of both parties that really love this country. To me identifying them is far more important than trying to indict one party or the other. But keep believing one Party is solely responsible for our nation's plight you'll have plenty of co-signers. Trouble is we'll keep missing the point until it's too late. No offense was ever attended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 Even younger during the Kennedy administration. But if what you just said is true what's the problem? Because I don't see anything wrong with it either and it's the lefties that are crying about it. WSS I've studied the Kennedy's. They are a fascinating family. There shouldn't be a problem is my whole point. I recognize who's upset about it and I've said a lot just to be misunderstood. I'm saying I could see a role reversal because history tells us so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 As far as blacks and liberals benefitting from Obama's Presidency. That couldn't be further from the truth. He did the worst for black people and liberals by maintaining the status quo. That status quo is, he with other so called "black leaders"created a perception that black people were just as oppressed now as they were before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This in part has led to perpetual dependence on Government and a lawless rebellion without basis. For Liberals particularly "white liberals" he and other so called "black leaders" maintained the status quo by perpetuating the belief that us black folks are too poor, stupid, or ignorant to function in society unassisted. When collectively we know as a people we silently represent the antithesis. Marcus ******************************************* Yes, you are correct. I didn't mean to imply otherwise, it was more like obamao favored the blacks and liberals at least verbally, and in controversial happenings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 Forgive me for trying to have a little fun with you. I know no one mentioned lynching or tar and feathering that was the joke. Marcus **************************************** son of a.... I emily litella'ed myself. dammit. "never mind" lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.