Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Speakers Corner' started by triari, Nov 8, 2016.
Don't worry, finm, your PM still loves you : o )
You're still alive, right?
You are, aren't you?
even if i wasn't she would still deem me fit for work.
Don't you just hate cvnts who insist on people working for a living and pulling their weight?
deffo, i am sure we could find a use for the deed ones. HOL maybe?
the after tory conference party?. no chance of a kiss and tell either.
dirty finm dirty
Not a nice thing to say about sturgeon
No, Paul we are discussing the Prime Minister. May, not the First Underling.
if it was true and within her powers then yes it is.
If blue and white paint and no underwear is the modern world, then yes you created it.Cantfindtheoldforumhaveastaryou'respecialsmilydammit
For all his bluster, Trump IS getting China to do more against NK than Barry ever did
Lunacy bordering on treason.
How smart to show the world they're considering disobeying orders because either; Their choice of boss didn't get the job or, they don't like what the new boss says.
I wonder how many of those on this committee are highly experienced tactical business negotiators? Public sector top level management, don't ya just love em?
Well I guess we both read the same article but saw different words? Apparently their opinion is:
"We are concerned that the president is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic, that he might order a nuclear-weapons strike that is wildly out of step with US national-security interests."
On a side issue I wonder how many of the committee members have gone bankrupt six times, and/ or claimed these bankruptcies were a smart decision?
Admittedly declaring bankruptcy can be a a help to an owner (to keep his private stash of cash) but it will typically not help creditors or employees. Six times does seem careless to me...
As it drags out over time, think it's becoming obvious to even those who said it wasn't happening, that it is. Those opposed to a democratically elected president, are prepared to sink America for no other reason than they feel democracy did not work for them.
As to his financial doings, as far as I understand they were all legal using the very same rules previous presidents could have changed had they chosen too. However we certainly would not use the Clinton foundation as the moral gold standard of financial matters, would we?.
I would certainly not tout Clinton as a gold standard financial foundation. I would respond to anyone who said it was though.
That's exactly my point - they have a democratically elected president and they're basically saying "we don't like the way he speaks, we don't understand his tactics, but we believe we're able to make better decisions".
The President of the United States, as head of the executive branch, has certain powers which he can exercise within the constraints of the US Constitution, within the budget he is given, and within the legislation passed by congress. If any President (including Mr Trump) tries to act unconstitutionally, the judiciary has the duty of restraining those actions. He cannot spend money he doesn't have, nor incur debts without authority. And congress can legislate to increase or reduce the powers of the executive in many areas. It is perfectly legitimate for congress to debate the extent of the President's powers as it frequently does.
Generally a President does not have power to declare war or make peace without the authority of Congress. But there exists a historical anomaly whereby in the case of nuclear weapons a President has discretion to use them at a moment's notice; this discretion is absolute and unfettered, needing no justification and no approval from anyone.
For the past 70 years all the 12 successive Presidents have been entrusted with this power by Congress, and all have exercised that power responsibly. In view of the irresponsibility and extreme mental instability of the current President, it is reasonable for Congress to reconsider this position as it apparently is doing.
Anyone would think that some people on here don't like Donald.
I must have missed the physciatric evaluation by his medical team. He was voted in by the established system. One of the reasons because like most of us, it was thought lets get rid of conventional politicians and see what would happen if a business man ran things. That was always going to rub the cosy arrangement between business, politicians and media.
This does not mean there is insanity here or that he is unable to do the job. In fact i would go as far to say every move he makes is well calculated by him knowing the predictable doom and gloomers retort.
I would doubt when you mention 70 presidents and responsible if that was the train of thought when Bush jr was in charge, I certainly remember some also doubting his sanity whilst ignoring the philandering of Clinton who put the moral compass of president way off base.
He is not very presidential but is their president and the mud slinging is still continuing hoping to remove him because he wasn't some voters first choice. Boo fucking hoo