Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

Pelosi: U.S. can't survive 2 terms of Trump

376 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Not A Rockstar
3 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Yeah I wouldn't want to put a percentage on it either because we both know there'll be a percentage none the less.

 

True dat. It is called "war" :( 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead
2 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

While this is unexplained mysteries forum I can't tell the future or the past concerning what would or wouldn't have happened. It appears you have an opinion what do you think?

American soldiers would have been killed had your plan to occupy Iraq in 1991 had happened according to your theory of "finishing" it 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
13 minutes ago, acidhead said:

American soldiers would have been killed had your plan to occupy Iraq in 1991 had happened according to your theory of "finishing" it 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, that's exactly what I was fighting for the right to decide for yourself. In fact that's what makes America great not the words these Politicians spot and the majority of the public swallow. 

That not a slogan for me it's a way of life.

Edited by Manwon Lender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead
27 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, that's exactly what I was fighting for the right to decide for yourself. In fact that's what makes America great not the words these Politicians spot and the majority of the public swallow. 

That not a slogan for me it's a way of life.

Just curious...

Had George HW Bush decided in 1991 to invade Iraq and occupy their country until a new government was formed would any American soldiers  be killed during the process?

Edited by acidhead
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
23 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Just curious...

Had George HW Bush decided in 1991 to invade Iraq and occupy their country until a new government was formed would any American soldiers  be killed during the process?

Like I said in the last post about 1993, the answer would be exactly the same. So please answer a question honestly for me what is you agenda. That's not much to ask considering my honest and complete answers to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead
2 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Like I said in the last post about 1993, the answer would be exactly the same. So please answer a question honestly for me what is you agenda. That's not much to ask considering my honest and complete answers to 

If a country invaded another country would any soldiers die from the invasion?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
4 minutes ago, acidhead said:

If a country invaded another country would any soldiers die from the invasion?

Yea that's what I expected, your a man without honesty and honor.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
11 minutes ago, acidhead said:

If a country invaded another country would any soldiers die from the invasion?

Lichtenstein once went to war with one of its neighbours and sent 80 men. 81 returned home because they found a lost trader on the way.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
11 minutes ago, acidhead said:

If a country invaded another country would any soldiers die from the invasion?

Oh and by the way, you have a relative on this forum, there name is Windowpane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Lichtenstein once went to war with one of its neighbours and sent 80 men. 81 returned home because they found a lost trader on the way.

That guy is totally OD, don't bother with him, I really think his screen name fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead
6 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

That guy is totally OD, don't bother with him, I really think his screen name fits.

You couldn't answer the question because you are a coward.

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
12 minutes ago, acidhead said:

You couldn't answer the question because you are a coward.

Yes I am and I have the Combat stripes to prove it. Just like you don't. 

I say that with confidence, good night Acid head.:-*

Edited by Manwon Lender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

You've been given the statute; but, you're insinuating that co-equal means exemption from law.  The GAO is investigating as required under the same statute.  The conversation is happening but you've got your fingers in your ears.

If it's so slam-dunk, why hasn't it been trumpeted by the jackals in the media?  It isn't like they've been shy of telling us ad nauseum that "THIS is the Big One!"  So?  Maybe it's because they know that a trial based on that statute would convict every president who ever takes the oath of office?  You're being ridiculous.  I'll state it again for the record.  CO-EQUAL means one branch cannot dictate to another without the "other" having recourse.  When these conflicts come up we have what is referred to as "Constitutional Crises"

My guess is that even if he were found to have broken a law that infringes on presidential power, the USSC would side with him.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
Just now, Manwon Lender said:

 

 

This is something you know nothing about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
2 minutes ago, and then said:

If it's so slam-dunk, why hasn't it been trumpeted by the jackals in the media?  It isn't like they've been shy of telling us ad nauseum that "THIS is the Big One!"  So?  Maybe it's because they know that a trial based on that statute would convict every president who ever takes the oath of office?  You're being ridiculous.  I'll state it again for the record.  CO-EQUAL means one branch cannot dictate to another without the "other" having recourse.  When these conflicts come up we have what is referred to as "Constitutional Crises"

My guess is that even if he were found to have broken a law that infringes on presidential power, the USSC would side with him.

Cool opinion. 

You asked for a statute.  I gave it you.

Now your turn to return the courtesy.  Do you have a precedent where it was determined to be OK for the President  to act contrary to a statute that explicitly lays out the requirement of President?

You also said that Obama breached the ICA.  Do you have that example?  Indeed, you have any example where the President breached the ICA?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
25 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

That guy is totally OD, don't bother with him, I really think his screen name fits.

Have you not noticed how long some people have been members here? We have been exposed to these people's opinions for a very long time and still manage to have fairly civil conversations, which is something you seem to be unable to do.

This isn't boot camp and you don't have carte blanche to berate anyone you disagree with. Give it a rest, Sergeant Carter. ;)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
7 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Have you not noticed how long some people have been members here? We have been exposed to these people's opinions for a very long time and still manage to have fairly civil conversations, which is something you seem to be unable to do.

This isn't boot camp and you don't have carte blanche to berate anyone you disagree with. Give it a rest, Sergeant Carter. ;)

I could really careless how long some one has been a member here. To be civil is a two way street, you get what you give, and I certainly don't berate everyone I disagree with. But I am certainly no ones floor Matt either, so maybe you should give it a rest, or read the entire thread before you give an opinion.

Miss Michelle.

Edited by Manwon Lender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
3 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I could really careless how long some one has been a member here. To be civil is a two way street, you get what you give, and I certainly don't berate everyone I disagree with. But I am certainly no ones floor Matt either, so maybe you should give it a rest, or read the entire thread before you give an opinion.

Rest assured...I've been following it all evening. If anyone says anything you disagree with you spend the next two pages insulting them.

"Miss Michelle" is a veiled insult from another post where I was kidding you.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
8 hours ago, acidhead said:

Or the many Whitehouse YouTube channel full length videos of Trump chairing various roundtable discussion topics.  

He's very respectful of individuals and a great listener.  Those videos I look forward to the most.

The Rally's are fun.  Trump's hilarious. 

Most who tune out only see snipets from "trusted" sources and base their entire opinion on those snips.  

He came to Mobile AND Pensacola in 2016 and I missed BOTH.  I'm sure he'll be back in P'cola next year and I can't wait to take part!  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
Just now, Michelle said:

Rest assured...I've been following it all evening. If anyone says anything you disagree with you spend the next two pages insulting them.

Following and reading are too different things. What your saying is incorrect, but your opinion is still valued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
1 minute ago, Manwon Lender said:

Following and reading are too different things. What your saying is incorrect, but your opinion is still valued.

Here is where we will part ways...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
Just now, Michelle said:

Here is where we will part ways...

I am sad, but that's fine with me and I also think it best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
18 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Cool opinion. 

You asked for a statute.  I gave it you.

Now your turn to return the courtesy.  Do you have a precedent where it was determined to be OK for the President  to act contrary to a statute that explicitly lays out the requirement of President?

You also said that Obama breached the ICA.  Do you have that example?  Indeed, you have any example where the President breached the ICA?

  The idea that a U.S. president cannot make a decision to withold Federal aid to a foreign country is preposterous.  Possibly, just a guess, other presidents refused to go against their State Dept. Overlords.  Regardless of that issue:

 2 U.S.C. Section 684 or 2 U.S.C. Section 683, the Impoundment Control Act, the President has the power to propose deferring funds on a temporary basis or rescinding them altogether, subject to Congressional approval.

So it appears that unless he was asking for a deferment or a recission of the aid, he didn't need Congressional approval.  The only stipulation being that a president cannot "hold" money until that budget expires thus removing Congress from the loop.  He clearly did not do that.

Also, try as hard as you like, he released the funds and received nothing in return.  One can attach an unlimited number of motives to a political adversary but proving them is another matter.  The idea that stepping on Congressional authority is somehow unheard of and Impeachable is ridiculous.  Obama did so for nearly 8 years by ignoring Republicans in Congress and doing as he pleased through executive action.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

 

Last year, GAO asked OMB General Counsel Mark Paoletta for his views on that question, and he submitted them in Nov. 2018, stating, “the text of Impoundment Control Act clearly allows the President to propose and withhold funds at any time in a fiscal year. In addition to the unambiguous statutory language, there is bipartisan historical precedent for the President to withhold funds at any time of the fiscal year, including in instances where funds proposed for rescission have lapsed prior to the expiration of the 45-day withholding period.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
25 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Rest assured...I've been following it all evening. If anyone says anything you disagree with you spend the next two pages insulting them.

"Miss Michelle" is a veiled insult from another post where I was kidding you.

Miss Michelle Was in no way meant as an insult, just a reference to who you are. 

No need to be sensitive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.