How exactly did Russia attack us during the election?
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [Kay Serrar]
[ In reply to ]
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [Kay Serrar]
[ In reply to ]
Kay Serrar wrote:
JSA wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Yes, there have been cases where the executive branch has not enforced certain laws that may have contradicted outdated laws or new laws or state laws, but has there ever been a case where a law passed by such an overwhelming majority in Congress has been ignored by the president just 6 months later?Seriously?
https://www.politico.com/...y-ignore-laws-077486
https://www.usatoday.com/...ion-column/30148215/
https://www.cnsnews.com/...ministration-are-not
https://www.washingtontimes.com/...enforcement-by-loca/
https://www.tennessean.com/...force-laws/93280988/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...m_term=.6900c6b298ce
https://whyy.org/...ce-immigration-laws/
https://fairus.org/...igration-enforcement
You seem upset that I've not trawled through all your links that you posted without actually laying out an argument, so I've taken a look for you.
The first link supports my point that sometimes outdated/archaic/potentially unconstitutional laws (like DOMA) may begin not to be strictly adhered to for humanitarian reasons. That is hardly a parallel to this situation with the new sanctions law. This sanctions law is a new law that was passed in a virtual unanimous vote by both parties in both the house and senate, which the president has chosen to ignore for arguably self-serving, personal reasons.
The second link does the same. I'm not going to read all the others unless you tell me one of them is a closer parallel to the current situation with the sanctions bill.
Which is what we all expected.
Kay Serrar wrote:
And if you're 'complaining' that Obama failed to implement certain laws on the basis that it's not his place to interpret them - rather simply to implement them - where is your criticism of Trump doing the same now?Don't like it. Don't understand. Think it is grossly and patently wrong and indefensible.
But, what the hell does that have to do with the 2nd Amendment???
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [TriFortMill]
[ In reply to ]
TriFortMill wrote:
How exactly did Russia attack us during the election?You and I don't know the all the specifics, but our intelligence agencies have confirmed it happened. So given that, do you agree with Trump's failure to implement fully the sanctions bill that was passed with near unanimity in congress?
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [JSA]
[ In reply to ]
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
rick_pcfl wrote:
How does any of that support your statement that the Republicans are the biggest and most dire threat to the US?i don't think the republicans are the most dire threat. the russians are, and they've made republicans their ally in america.
during the revolutionary war americans were split into two factions: the loyalists, and the patriots. the patriots wanted independence from britain. the loyalists were americans who were against the revolution, and wanted to remain british subjects. loyalists subverted the attempts to throw off their colonial existence; loyalists overtly helped our adversary.
the loyalists were not, at that time, "the most dire threat" to america. they were americans. they were the brothers and sisters of patriots. the most dire threat was great britain. but the loyalists supported the efforts of that enemy.
loyalists are what the republican party is today, in the context of our fight with our ardent global adversary. many republicans agree with my sentiment. but, they are not in power. they are not running the republican party.
i agree with much of the republican platform. i'm very happy that we're getting a repatriation of overseas corporate profits, because of badly needed corporate tax reform. and so on. but this is a blip. what is not a blip is when we lose all confidence in elections because of an attack from a global enemy. i'm ashamed for the 40 percent of americans who consider the democrats more of an enemy than russia. i can shame them, but it's pretty clear that isn't going to make any difference.
Ha ha ha! Ok Senator McCarthy ...
thank you for your transparency. most others would not be willing to publicly pick the side you picked.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [JSA]
[ In reply to ]
JSA wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
And if you're 'complaining' that Obama failed to implement certain laws on the basis that it's not his place to interpret them - rather simply to implement them - where is your criticism of Trump doing the same now?Don't like it. Don't understand. Think it is grossly and patently wrong and indefensible.
Good to know.
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
rick_pcfl wrote:
How does any of that support your statement that the Republicans are the biggest and most dire threat to the US?i don't think the republicans are the most dire threat. the russians are, and they've made republicans their ally in america.
during the revolutionary war americans were split into two factions: the loyalists, and the patriots. the patriots wanted independence from britain. the loyalists were americans who were against the revolution, and wanted to remain british subjects. loyalists subverted the attempts to throw off their colonial existence; loyalists overtly helped our adversary.
the loyalists were not, at that time, "the most dire threat" to america. they were americans. they were the brothers and sisters of patriots. the most dire threat was great britain. but the loyalists supported the efforts of that enemy.
loyalists are what the republican party is today, in the context of our fight with our ardent global adversary. many republicans agree with my sentiment. but, they are not in power. they are not running the republican party.
i agree with much of the republican platform. i'm very happy that we're getting a repatriation of overseas corporate profits, because of badly needed corporate tax reform. and so on. but this is a blip. what is not a blip is when we lose all confidence in elections because of an attack from a global enemy. i'm ashamed for the 40 percent of americans who consider the democrats more of an enemy than russia. i can shame them, but it's pretty clear that isn't going to make any difference.
Ha ha ha! Ok Senator McCarthy ...
thank you for your transparency. most others would not be willing to publicly pick the side you picked.
You bet, Chicken Little. But, it would behoove you to read my response to Kay, just above this, for insight into my real feelings.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [JSA]
[ In reply to ]
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
rick_pcfl wrote:
How does any of that support your statement that the Republicans are the biggest and most dire threat to the US?i don't think the republicans are the most dire threat. the russians are, and they've made republicans their ally in america.
during the revolutionary war americans were split into two factions: the loyalists, and the patriots. the patriots wanted independence from britain. the loyalists were americans who were against the revolution, and wanted to remain british subjects. loyalists subverted the attempts to throw off their colonial existence; loyalists overtly helped our adversary.
the loyalists were not, at that time, "the most dire threat" to america. they were americans. they were the brothers and sisters of patriots. the most dire threat was great britain. but the loyalists supported the efforts of that enemy.
loyalists are what the republican party is today, in the context of our fight with our ardent global adversary. many republicans agree with my sentiment. but, they are not in power. they are not running the republican party.
i agree with much of the republican platform. i'm very happy that we're getting a repatriation of overseas corporate profits, because of badly needed corporate tax reform. and so on. but this is a blip. what is not a blip is when we lose all confidence in elections because of an attack from a global enemy. i'm ashamed for the 40 percent of americans who consider the democrats more of an enemy than russia. i can shame them, but it's pretty clear that isn't going to make any difference.
Ha ha ha! Ok Senator McCarthy ...
thank you for your transparency. most others would not be willing to publicly pick the side you picked.
You bet, Chicken Little. But, it would behoove you to read my response to Kay, just above this, for insight into my real feelings.
i know you're real feelings.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
rick_pcfl wrote:
How does any of that support your statement that the Republicans are the biggest and most dire threat to the US?i don't think the republicans are the most dire threat. the russians are, and they've made republicans their ally in america.
during the revolutionary war americans were split into two factions: the loyalists, and the patriots. the patriots wanted independence from britain. the loyalists were americans who were against the revolution, and wanted to remain british subjects. loyalists subverted the attempts to throw off their colonial existence; loyalists overtly helped our adversary.
the loyalists were not, at that time, "the most dire threat" to america. they were americans. they were the brothers and sisters of patriots. the most dire threat was great britain. but the loyalists supported the efforts of that enemy.
loyalists are what the republican party is today, in the context of our fight with our ardent global adversary. many republicans agree with my sentiment. but, they are not in power. they are not running the republican party.
i agree with much of the republican platform. i'm very happy that we're getting a repatriation of overseas corporate profits, because of badly needed corporate tax reform. and so on. but this is a blip. what is not a blip is when we lose all confidence in elections because of an attack from a global enemy. i'm ashamed for the 40 percent of americans who consider the democrats more of an enemy than russia. i can shame them, but it's pretty clear that isn't going to make any difference.
Ha ha ha! Ok Senator McCarthy ...
thank you for your transparency. most others would not be willing to publicly pick the side you picked.
You bet, Chicken Little. But, it would behoove you to read my response to Kay, just above this, for insight into my real feelings.
i know you're real feelings.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [JSA]
[ In reply to ]
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
rick_pcfl wrote:
How does any of that support your statement that the Republicans are the biggest and most dire threat to the US?i don't think the republicans are the most dire threat. the russians are, and they've made republicans their ally in america.
during the revolutionary war americans were split into two factions: the loyalists, and the patriots. the patriots wanted independence from britain. the loyalists were americans who were against the revolution, and wanted to remain british subjects. loyalists subverted the attempts to throw off their colonial existence; loyalists overtly helped our adversary.
the loyalists were not, at that time, "the most dire threat" to america. they were americans. they were the brothers and sisters of patriots. the most dire threat was great britain. but the loyalists supported the efforts of that enemy.
loyalists are what the republican party is today, in the context of our fight with our ardent global adversary. many republicans agree with my sentiment. but, they are not in power. they are not running the republican party.
i agree with much of the republican platform. i'm very happy that we're getting a repatriation of overseas corporate profits, because of badly needed corporate tax reform. and so on. but this is a blip. what is not a blip is when we lose all confidence in elections because of an attack from a global enemy. i'm ashamed for the 40 percent of americans who consider the democrats more of an enemy than russia. i can shame them, but it's pretty clear that isn't going to make any difference.
Ha ha ha! Ok Senator McCarthy ...
thank you for your transparency. most others would not be willing to publicly pick the side you picked.
You bet, Chicken Little. But, it would behoove you to read my response to Kay, just above this, for insight into my real feelings.
i know you're real feelings.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
If the Russians do invade, whose side of the aisle do you think will fight them - yours or mine?
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [JSA]
[ In reply to ]
JSA wrote:
If the Russians do invade, whose side of the aisle do you think will fight them - yours or mine?the russians already invaded. some of us on both sides of the aisle already recognize that. i'm already fighting. are you?
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
JSA wrote:
If the Russians do invade, whose side of the aisle do you think will fight them - yours or mine?the russians already invaded. some of us on both sides of the aisle already recognize that. i'm already fighting. are you?
Now, Dan, you and I both know there were no vegans or Prius drivers in Red Dawn.
But, don't worry. When the Commies arrive all you will have to do is show them your politics and they will embrace a fellow comrade with open arms! You can have a vodka summit with the Red invaders at your California ranch while those of us with the will, skill, and abilities do the heavy lifting holding the font line at the Rockies.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Re: 2nd Amendment advocates - a question for you... [JSA]
[ In reply to ]
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
JSA wrote:
If the Russians do invade, whose side of the aisle do you think will fight them - yours or mine?the russians already invaded. some of us on both sides of the aisle already recognize that. i'm already fighting. are you?
Now, Dan, you and I both know there were no vegans or Prius drivers in Red Dawn.
But, don't worry. When the Commies arrive all you will have to do is show them your politics and they will embrace a fellow comrade with open arms! You can have a vodka summit with the Red invaders at your California ranch while those of us with the will, skill, and abilities do the heavy lifting holding the font line at the Rockies.
Slowman wrote:
JSA wrote:
If the Russians do invade, whose side of the aisle do you think will fight them - yours or mine?the russians already invaded. some of us on both sides of the aisle already recognize that. i'm already fighting. are you?
Let me know if you come to Seattle to meet with Perkins Coie to do some more work on the Dossier. We can meet at a local tri-shop (actually, there are none left so scratch the idea).