ADVERTISEMENT

Which Party?

Which Party?

  • Republican

  • Democratic Socialist


Results are only viewable after voting.
moderate Democrats are NOT going to vote for Sanders. He’s a very NEW YORK Jewish guy that scares enough Americans as it is. Couple that with his policies. The best thing for the Dem party is for Sanders to throw his supporters to an electable candidate.

Americans are not going to allow a 38 year old gay President. There are so many ways he doesn’t have a chance. Credit to him but ageism and his personal life takes him out.

Biden.... ageism. And he’s showing his age. He’s out now anyway.

Bloomberg..... fair enough, remains to be seen He has some things going for but also against him. Another New York Jew but moderate, successful.

Klobuchar.... moderate, good track record, woman but not condescending like Hilary. She is electable by many. I’m not saying she’s gonna win. Just that those other guys have issues where many people will not support them.

Im a fierce Independent. The whole process stinks across the board. As soon as Impeachment started, told my crazy Dem friends, congrats on putting Trump in office 4 more years.

As someone above wrote about being a Constitutionalist..... yeah. That should and needs to be the goal. Because if you continue to attack and shred that document, you quickly realize you don’t have what you think you have.

Trump for all his shortcomings is probably still best suited.

Ok, but Donald Trump still won the Republican nomination. All of this sounds sort of reasonable, but we're not living in a reasonable political world. The only analysis I see any point in doing is to see how strong the populist feeling is in each primary state, along with to look at who's dividing up the reasonable vote. Donald Trump was nominated because too many normal candidates stayed in the race for too long, because none of them wanted to believe the best thing to do was to drop out and support someone else. We'll see if that happens to Democrats, too.
 
Meh. While not conventional, Trump is pretty close.
  • Strong economy
  • Tax cuts
  • Reduced regulations
  • Pro business
  • Pro energy
  • Reforming entitlements (work requirements, etc.)
  • 2 new SC justices and a boat load of conservative judges in lesser courts
  • Border security
  • Pro military
  • Etc.
His budget that was released this week even aims to balance the budget - one of your biggest criticisms of him: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-proposes-4-8-trillion-budget-with-cuts-to-safety-nets-11581356145

Of course the democrats will paint the safety net cuts as punitive to the working class, but it appears most are logical structural reforms, such as the work requirements mentioned previously. Can't imagine why anyone would oppose simply enforcing this existing policy:

Under long-standing rules, adults ages 18 to 49 who are "work eligible" and have no dependents can receive only three months of SNAP benefits during a three-year period if they do not meet the 20-hour-a-week work requirement.

...
Other than wanting to buy votes.

It doesn't even balance in 10 years, though. And there's been no focus at all on "fiscal conservatism."
 
Nothing is certain at this point. Biden could gain momentum in south. Hillary might decide to enter the race to save the Democrats. Russians could meddle. Trump could tweet one time too many. It would not be the first time he ruined a good thing. Going into the primary season the last time, I didn't think Trump had a chance in Hell. He pulled it out. Granted it was against the most divisive Democrat Nominee in quite some time. It will be interesting what the ABC crowd does this time around. Do they stay home? Do they still support Trump? Do they rally behind the ABT crowd? At this point much of the early indicators a few have mentioned favor Trump at this point. But there is still some time left.
 
Ok, but Donald Trump still won the Republican nomination. All of this sounds sort of reasonable, but we're not living in a reasonable political world. The only analysis I see any point in doing is to see how strong the populist feeling is in each primary state, along with to look at who's dividing up the reasonable vote. Donald Trump was nominated because too many normal candidates stayed in the race for too long, because none of them wanted to believe the best thing to do was to drop out and support someone else. We'll see if that happens to Democrats, too.

Trump had some intangibles that separate him from everyone else.

1. He tapped into the nostalgia of what makes America great and saying I’m going to restore America for Americans by focusing on home. That was a welcomed thought because quite honestly we spread ourselves too thin around the world.

2. He was willing to take on the traditional political landscape and not back down to anyone and just eviscerate them. That mentality about being number one no matter how you get there resonates with a lot of people.

when you start throwing in America going forward as a socialist country, led by an openly young gay man, and ever aging old DC politician, good luck with all that. That ain’t the same of what Trump brings to the table. Klobuchar has a chance because she is the culmination of a long time ever-growing support for a woman leader that eventually will happen. I’m not saying it’s happening this time. But it will happen and she’s not as threatening as other women that have come before her. That’s all I’m saying.

and the other Klobuchar caveat is she is from Minnesota. Those states in that area of the Great Lakes region played such a critical part to winning. That’s the other nuance she’s got going for her
 
It doesn't even balance in 10 years, though. And there's been no focus at all on "fiscal conservatism."

Oh I wish there was more of a focus for sure. But at least it cuts expenses that need to be cut and attempts to balance at some point.

I would go much further, including addressing Medicare and SS with increases in eligibility age. For example, the average life expectancy in 1965 (when Medicare was signed) was 70 years. Today it is 79 years. Why hasn't the eligibility age changed?
 
Trump had some intangibles that separate him from everyone else.

1. He tapped into the nostalgia of what makes America great and saying I’m going to restore America for Americans by focusing on home. That was a welcomed thought because quite honestly we spread ourselves too thin around the world.

2. He was willing to take on the traditional political landscape and not back down to anyone and just eviscerate them. That mentality about being number one no matter how you get there resonates with a lot of people.

when you start throwing in America going forward as a socialist country, led by an openly young gay man, and ever aging old DC politician, good luck with all that. That ain’t the same of what Trump brings to the table. Klobuchar has a chance because she is the culmination of a long time ever-growing support for a woman leader that eventually will happen. I’m not saying it’s happening this time. But it will happen and she’s not as threatening as other women that have come before her. That’s all I’m saying.

and the other Klobuchar caveat is she is from Minnesota. Those states in that area of the Great Lakes region played such a critical part to winning. That’s the other nuance she’s got going for her

Again Klobuchar does not have a chance.
 
Again Klobuchar does not have a chance.

Who do you see winning in November given the other options?

  • Old, kinda crazy socialist who terrifies his own party. Proposing massive government expansion and spending and a complete reversal of an economy that is doing quite well.
  • 38 year old gay man with zero major experience. Mayor of a mid-size town, similar to nominating the mayor of Mount Pleasant, SC. Unpopular with minorities.
  • Old white billionaire, who joined the race late and is trying to buy the nomination. Tapes released this week of derogatory comments toward minorities.
  • Trump
 
Who do you see winning in November given the other options?

  • Old, kinda crazy socialist who terrifies his own party. Proposing massive government expansion and spending and a complete reversal of an economy that is doing quite well.
  • 38 year old gay man with zero major experience. Mayor of a mid-size town, similar to nominating the mayor of Mount Pleasant, SC. Unpopular with minorities.
  • Old white billionaire, who joined the race late and is trying to buy the nomination. Tapes released this week of derogatory comments toward minorities.
  • Trump

Absolutely no clue. At this point, everybody picking a winner is just expressing their own preferences. All the subjective downsides of the people above are no worse than Trump's downsides are and were.
 
Now that uncle Bernie is 2-0 in popular votes, which party will you support in November should he win the nomination?

Pretty dumb poll. Everyone expected Bernie to win those states, and you are polling a board that is probably 90% trump supporters (mostly because their daddies told them to be republican).

The dems problem right now is there message is all over the place. The repubs are pretty consistent with guns, anti abortion, low taxes, jesus forced down everyone's throats, being anti gay while also being gay and reducing the deficit. Oops, forgot they dont care about that last one anymore.

I personally hope Bloomberg emerges, because he will bring out all of Trump's deepest insecurities. (really self made, worth $50B, he could buy and sell trump many times)

Right now my money is going to the states where the dems have a chance to flip the senate. That is more important until someone leads the presidential pack.
 
Who do you see winning in November given the other options?
  • Trump - who recently promised to not touch medicare at the SOTU then immediately released a budget that slashes medicare. And let's face it, a lot of trump voters are on medicaid, which he also wants to slash. And he has a court case active to remove coverage for preexisting conditions. And he failed to pass Trump care. He is going to get hammered on healthcare.

i fixed it for you. Don't act like trump doesnt have a ton of liabilities of his own.
 
Pretty dumb poll. Everyone expected Bernie to win those states, and you are polling a board that is probably 90% trump supporters (mostly because their daddies told them to be republican).

The dems problem right now is there message is all over the place. The repubs are pretty consistent with guns, anti abortion, low taxes, jesus forced down everyone's throats, being anti gay while also being gay and reducing the deficit. Oops, forgot they dont care about that last one anymore.

I personally hope Bloomberg emerges, because he will bring out all of Trump's deepest insecurities. (really self made, worth $50B, he could buy and sell trump many times)

Right now my money is going to the states where the dems have a chance to flip the senate. That is more important until someone leads the presidential pack.
tenor.gif
 
Actually, my CPA told me.
Just curious, what line would trump have to cross for his tax cuts to no longer be worth it? Just in the last week he’s fired people in retaliation for testifying during impeachment hearings and he’s using the justice department to get shorter prison sentences for his friends. He was just acquitted on a defense that was basically “he’s the president so he can do whatever he wants” and he seems to be taking that to heart.

He’s doing things at this point that are blatantly, transparently illegal and cares very little about the separation of powers. How far does he need to go before it’s fair to think that, despite the tax and pro business policies you like, he’s not really fit to be President?

I personally like a lot of his economic policies as well, but have a really hard time reconciling that with the way he pretty repeatedly thumbs his nose at the law of the land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dackel
Just curious, what line would trump have to cross for his tax cuts to no longer be worth it? Just in the last week he’s fired people in retaliation for testifying during impeachment hearings and he’s using the justice department to get shorter prison sentences for his friends. He was just acquitted on a defense that was basically “he’s the president so he can do whatever he wants” and he seems to be taking that to heart.

He’s doing things at this point that are blatantly, transparently illegal and cares very little about the separation of powers. How far does he need to go before it’s fair to think that, despite the tax and pro business policies you like, he’s not really fit to be President?

I personally like a lot of his economic policies as well, but have a really hard time reconciling that with the way he pretty repeatedly thumbs his nose at the law of the land.

It is not a moral vote for everyone. People tend to vote local and with their wallet. When the economy is good it tends to favor the incumbent. Until climate change, deficit spending, gun violence and wars start impacting enough local economies very little will change on the national level. What is interesting is how climate disasters and energy policies are impacting local politics. Whether it is drought in the midwest, forest fires in the far west or hurricanes, it is becoming an issue in politics. Solar policy and off shore drilling is also driving local politics i.e. Joe Cunningham. Rather than policy and platform being top down driven, the nation may start seeing more bottom driven politics. I think it may be what some have referred to as grass roots in the past. One thing certain of Trumps election, it was more a product of America's disdain for the Washington Political Machine (swamp, establishment et al) than the candidate himself.
 
Just curious, what line would trump have to cross for his tax cuts to no longer be worth it? Just in the last week he’s fired people in retaliation for testifying during impeachment hearings and he’s using the justice department to get shorter prison sentences for his friends. He was just acquitted on a defense that was basically “he’s the president so he can do whatever he wants” and he seems to be taking that to heart.

He’s doing things at this point that are blatantly, transparently illegal and cares very little about the separation of powers. How far does he need to go before it’s fair to think that, despite the tax and pro business policies you like, he’s not really fit to be President?

I personally like a lot of his economic policies as well, but have a really hard time reconciling that with the way he pretty repeatedly thumbs his nose at the law of the land.

What would he have to do for me to vote for a socialist and throw our country into a horrible direction structurally? Uh, a lot.

The Ukraine thing is a giant nothing burger. Guarantee whatever the Bidens did was worse. And every politician is corrupt to a degree.

So am I going to toss aside capitalism for that? Lol.
 
Last edited:
I'll vote for virtually any Democrat over virtually any Republican in any election. Tulsi Gabbard would give me pause this time around but she's the only one who I wouldn't view as a profound improvement over the status quo. So "Democratic Socialist", I guess. Gee, this seems a lot like all of Trump's "polls".
 
What would he have to do for me to vote for a socialist and throw our country into a horrible direction structurally? Uh, a lot.

The Ukraine thing is a giant nothing burger. Guarantee whatever the Bidens did was worse. And every politician is corrupt to a degree.

So am I going to toss aside capitalism for that? Lol.
These are such cop out responses. I’m not asking if you’ll vote for a socialist, I’m asking how many laws you’re willing to let the President break before you stop defending him and trying to justify his behavior. You’re creating a false choice.

And to excuse illegal behavior by the President because “whatever the Bidens did was worse” again smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

It would see to me that someone who is conservative and wants smaller government would be alarmed when the President’s defense in an impeachment trial is based around the President being incapable of breaking the law by the nature of the Presidency. This was Nixon’s argument as well. It would also seem it would be disturbing to any American when the President begins retaliating against witnesses in a trial.

And think about that. If the President can use the Justice Department to interfere in individual cases and sentences, where does that stop? I’ll never understand how someone could not be tremendously bothered by that kind of action by the President.

But Trump supporters don’t seem to care one bit about the way that the government is pushing more and more power to the executive all the time and the ramifications that could have not just in a second Trump term but in the long therm with future Presidents and the way they may be able to give themselves more authority.

If Trump was just about cutting taxes, reducing regulation, cutting spending on entitlements, and some of the other policy positions he’s gone over, then I’d have far less issue with him. I’d certainly vote for him over someone like Bernie Sanders. But this President seems determined to make himself as close to an authoritarian leader as America has ever seen and no one seems willing to hold him accountable for it.

So the question isn’t will you vote for a socialist or are other politicians corrupt or how bad are the Bidens or have other Presidents done bad things, the question is how far are people willing to let the President go in his amassing power and ignoring the rule of law and separation of powers before they stop defending him by talking about how great the economy is?

The economy is important, personal financial gain is important, but so is the constitution and so is the rule of law.
 
How did it work out for the British Monarch when they tried to shut down Parliament? How about when the French monarch closed the Estates General? History would tell us a lot if only we would read. Kangaroo Courts, Business Oligarchs and Unchecked Executive Power sound a lot like China and Russia.
 
Meh. While not conventional, Trump is pretty close.
  • Strong economy
  • Tax cuts
  • Reduced regulations
  • Pro business
  • Pro energy
  • Reforming entitlements (work requirements, etc.)
  • 2 new SC justices and a boat load of conservative judges in lesser courts
  • Border security
  • Pro military
  • Etc.
His budget that was released this week even aims to balance the budget - one of your biggest criticisms of him: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-proposes-4-8-trillion-budget-with-cuts-to-safety-nets-11581356145

Of course the democrats will paint the safety net cuts as punitive to the working class, but it appears most are logical structural reforms, such as the work requirements mentioned previously. Can't imagine why anyone would oppose simply enforcing this existing policy:

Under long-standing rules, adults ages 18 to 49 who are "work eligible" and have no dependents can receive only three months of SNAP benefits during a three-year period if they do not meet the 20-hour-a-week work requirement.

...
Other than wanting to buy votes.

- I’ll ignore “strong economy” and “pro business” because that implies that an inverse position exists. Don’t believe anyone has ever run on the platform of “I want a weak economy and businesses to fail.”

- Tariffs are not a Republican position; free trade is.

- Limiting legal immigration is not a Republican position. Our nation was built on it.

- Environmental conservation is a Republican position; many of the regulations cut fly in the face of that.

- Fiscal conservatism is a Republican position. That’s not achieved by cutting taxes without spending offsets. You cut spending BEFORE you cut revenues, or worst case, as the same time. Do it 3-4 years later and guess what? You’ve added trillions to the National Debt.

- Reforming entitlements?
Trump in 2015 - “I'm not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I'm not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid. Every other Republican's going to cut, and even if they wouldn't, they don't know what to do because they don't know where the money is. I do. I do." Promises made, promises kept right? He also tweeted out a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t touch SS or Medicare.

Ok, so let’s do away 100% with unemployment benefits/SNAP/etc. That accounted for $303 billion in FY2019. We would still have had a deficit of $682 billion. The math doesn’t work, and you don’t have to land on either side of the aisle to understand that.

As for his promise to balance the budget, he promised in 2016 to eliminate the Federal Debt in 8 years. Instead, he’s grown it by $3 trillion. Not paid it down, or even slowed the increase. He either doesn’t understand what he’s doing, or (more likely) doesn’t care and will let the next guy deal with it.
 
Last edited:
I'll probably write-in again, but could you imagine if somebody told you in 2012 that the two candidates would be Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and that Donald Trump would be running for a second term? There's no way anybody would've predicted that, and if they had, their family would've had them committed. If Sanders gets the nomination, we'll have he most populist, cuckoo-bananas, old crank, yankee election ever.

People saying "the only person who can win is XXX," or "XXX has too many liabilities/is too extreme to win" apparently weren't paying attention in 2015 and 2016. We aren't picking candidates by who's the most reasonable anymore.
Nah, if Sanders wins we will just have 4 more years of gridlock
 
How did it work out for the British Monarch when they tried to shut down Parliament? How about when the French monarch closed the Estates General? History would tell us a lot if only we would read. Kangaroo Courts, Business Oligarchs and Unchecked Executive Power sound a lot like China and Russia.
No clue where you’re even trying to go with this.
 
These are such cop out responses. I’m not asking if you’ll vote for a socialist, I’m asking how many laws you’re willing to let the President break before you stop defending him and trying to justify his behavior. You’re creating a false choice.

And to excuse illegal behavior by the President because “whatever the Bidens did was worse” again smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

It would see to me that someone who is conservative and wants smaller government would be alarmed when the President’s defense in an impeachment trial is based around the President being incapable of breaking the law by the nature of the Presidency. This was Nixon’s argument as well. It would also seem it would be disturbing to any American when the President begins retaliating against witnesses in a trial.

And think about that. If the President can use the Justice Department to interfere in individual cases and sentences, where does that stop? I’ll never understand how someone could not be tremendously bothered by that kind of action by the President.

But Trump supporters don’t seem to care one bit about the way that the government is pushing more and more power to the executive all the time and the ramifications that could have not just in a second Trump term but in the long therm with future Presidents and the way they may be able to give themselves more authority.

If Trump was just about cutting taxes, reducing regulation, cutting spending on entitlements, and some of the other policy positions he’s gone over, then I’d have far less issue with him. I’d certainly vote for him over someone like Bernie Sanders. But this President seems determined to make himself as close to an authoritarian leader as America has ever seen and no one seems willing to hold him accountable for it.

So the question isn’t will you vote for a socialist or are other politicians corrupt or how bad are the Bidens or have other Presidents done bad things, the question is how far are people willing to let the President go in his amassing power and ignoring the rule of law and separation of powers before they stop defending him by talking about how great the economy is?

The economy is important, personal financial gain is important, but so is the constitution and so is the rule of law.
With you on a lot of that, but the stuff about breaking laws is going a bit far. Abuse of power or inappropriate use of power is closer to what we have with Trump, mostly because I think he just doesn’t really care about violating norms or appearing to have conflicts of interest.
 
With you on a lot of that, but the stuff about breaking laws is going a bit far. Abuse of power or inappropriate use of power is closer to what we have with Trump, mostly because I think he just doesn’t really care about violating norms or appearing to have conflicts of interest.
Firing employees out of retaliation for testifying is illegal. Not near the gray area on that as there is in the “quid pro quo.”

Will be interesting to see if any of them file suit.
 
Last edited:
Firing employees out of retaliation for testifying is illegal. Not near the gray area on that as there is in the “quid pro quo.”

Will be interesting to see if any of them file suit.
I think firing people like Vindman and Sondland was stupid, but it’s hardly illegal. I’ve said this before, but I think somebody should write a book about the Trump years called, “Ill-Advised, Incredibly Stupid, and Foolish, But Not Illegal.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...es-trump-broke-no-laws-when-he-fired-vindman/
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbjork6317
I think firing people like Vindman and Sondland was stupid, but it’s hardly illegal. I’ve said this before, but I think somebody should write a book about the Trump years called, “Ill-Advised, Incredibly Stupid, and Foolish, But Not Illegal.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...es-trump-broke-no-laws-when-he-fired-vindman/
I wouldn’t equate Presidents firing generals when they have differences on military policy to this situation. All I know is if I retaliate against one of my employees, I’m losing my job and my company is probably getting sued. To me it just smacks of a President who believes he’s above the law - and why wouldn’t he?

Seems really odd that he would fire them if they were weeks from leaving anyway incredibly petty. Clemson didn’t even fire Steve Smith before his contract ran out.
 
Firing employees out of retaliation for testifying is illegal. Not near the gray area on that as there is in the “quid pro quo.”

Will be interesting to see if any of them file suit.

Been reading your responses itt. I won't respond to everything that I believe is straight fiction, but have just one question. When Clinton took office, he fired every single US atty. Did he break the law also?
 
Been reading your responses itt. I won't respond to everything that I believe is straight fiction, but have just one question. When Clinton took office, he fired every single US atty. Did he break the law also?
You’re equating 2 different situations. That wasn’t agains the law just as it wasn’t agains the law when Trump fired a slew of them in 2017. This isn’t about them being fired it’s about why they were fired.
 
You’re equating 2 different situations. That wasn’t agains the law just as it wasn’t agains the law when Trump fired a slew of them in 2017. This isn’t about them being fired it’s about why they were fired.

So, your premise is that there needs to be a good reason for firing executive branch appointees, or it could be against the law?

Also, I'll just inject this: Vindeman wasn't fired. He was re-assigned.
I'll also add this. Obama added an enormous number of NSC appointees at the end of his 2nd term. WTH?
 
Last edited:
No clue where you’re even trying to go with this.
Apparently no where. Just making a poor allusion to historical impacts of unchecked power or hubris by an executive officer(monarch). Not saying the US is at this point by any means. But I am concerned by a Republican Senate that by all public appearances refuses to hold a President accountable for some ill advised decisions or tweets out of Party Solidarity.

I've never been a fan of politicians, coaches, or executives that want all the credit when things are good but blame someone else when things go wrong. To invoke a Jockoism, "Own It."
 
So, your premise is that there needs to be a good reason for firing executive branch appointees, or it could be against the law?

Also, I'll just inject this: Vindeman wasn't fired. He was re-assigned.

I could be wrong but perhaps the principle in play is the Whistle-blower's Act. I believe it is illegal to fire someone in retaliation to reporting a possible illegal act. I do not know how that applies to appointees. Nor do know the threshold to proving retaliation.
 
I could be wrong but perhaps the principle in play is the Whistle-blower's Act. I believe it is illegal to fire someone in retaliation to reporting a possible illegal act. I do not know how that applies to appointees. Nor do know the threshold to proving retaliation.

That's not the case. See the WP piece I posted above.
 
I could be wrong but perhaps the principle in play is the Whistle-blower's Act. I believe it is illegal to fire someone in retaliation to reporting a possible illegal act. I do not know how that applies to appointees. Nor do know the threshold to proving retaliation.

Again, he was not not fired. Reassigned to the War College. Also, as far as I know, he wasn't the WB. The President can fire anyone in the executive branch any time he wants; for any reason. Some of you people are trying to apply conditions to Trump that have never existed in the history of the Republic.
 
I think firing people like Vindman and Sondland was stupid, but it’s hardly illegal. I’ve said this before, but I think somebody should write a book about the Trump years called, “Ill-Advised, Incredibly Stupid, and Foolish, But Not Illegal.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...es-trump-broke-no-laws-when-he-fired-vindman/

I think many of you will better understand Trump when ALL the facts come out. You have to understand that Trump, as POTUS, knows much more than anyone about what has been attempted against him. There will be a reckoning.
 
I wouldn’t equate Presidents firing generals when they have differences on military policy to this situation. All I know is if I retaliate against one of my employees, I’m losing my job and my company is probably getting sued. To me it just smacks of a President who believes he’s above the law - and why wouldn’t he?

Seems really odd that he would fire them if they were weeks from leaving anyway incredibly petty. Clemson didn’t even fire Steve Smith before his contract ran out.

You're right, a lot of what Trump does is incredibly petty, and foolish. However, that doesn't make it illegal. That's the case with the Vindman and Sondland stuff. And you're correct that his base won't care, because in order to dismiss what people like Vindman and Sondland had to say, they engaged in character assassination. It's all kind of sad, but I still think we have to be clear that not everything inappropriate or bad is illegal. Democrats err when when they make maximalist critiques of everything Trump does. It puts not only the Trump fans on the defensive, but also everybody from conservatives to moderates. We should also be clear that not enough people have been convinced that this stuff is serious enough to do something serious about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbjork6317
Again, he was not not fired. Reassigned to the War College. Also, as far as I know, he wasn't the WB. The President can fire anyone in the executive branch any time he wants; for any reason. Some of you people are trying to apply conditions to Trump that have never existed in the history of the Republic.

Not applying, just trying to get context or clarification on @dbjork6317 's point. Out of curiosity, are any of us attorney's or just playing constitutional/ law experts on message boards? Yes, I am being slightly flippant just to make sure this conversation does not devolve into unnecessary name calling or hate mongering.
 
It's all kind of sad, but I still think we have to be clear that not everything inappropriate or bad is illegal. Democrats err when when they make maximalist critiques of everything Trump does. It puts not only the Trump fans on the defensive, but also everybody from conservatives to moderates. We should also be clear that not enough people have been convinced that this stuff is serious enough to do something serious about it.

On these points, I do agree.
 
ADVERTISEMENT