Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see, the burger king approach to law. Stick with the ones you like.
Immigration is far higher up the scale than the fake witch hunt you are referring.
Well when you put it that way counselor, just about any issue is higher up the scale than a "fake witch hunt."
Isn't really a case of either/or issue we look to our government officials to address at any one time. There are lots of issues that we should be able to expect our government to address at the same time. No doubt better immigration policy and how the POTUS uses his power are both issues worthy of both our attention and theirs, along with a good many others.
Just read any of the numerous posts and threads you have either started or commented upon and it will be illustrated and articulated in a variety of ways by many posters, myself included. Or, you could read about it in any mainstream newspaper as myriad real journalists have brought the facts and evidence clearly and concisely to those desiring honesty and integrity in their news.
Step one: objectivity. Not sure many people commenting in these threads are at all good at objective critical thinking (or all that well informed) so confirmation bias steps into the mental void and fills in the dead space.
We can start with fining Trump for his golf clubs hiring illegal workers and hiding the fact a year into his presidency.
I'm in favor of term limits, but Regan had no room to talk. Didn't he have Alzheimer's while in office? I know it was diagnosed 5 years after he left office and he most likely had it while serving. People in their late 70's need to retire from office. Heck you can't fly an airplane after a certain age, yet we have too many old people not in their prime running the greatest country in the world. Enough already.
Why respect the rule of law when you know you're not long for this planet? Just do what you want no matter how crooked.
When I hear McConnell say that Trump will not be removed from office because he will co-ordinate with the white house, and Lindsey Graham say that he doesn't pretend to be a fair juror? Yikes. That is not respect for the rule of law, nor their oath of office.
Hard not to mostly agree with you, but then there are the examples of good leaders and sharp people who get well beyond the age of 70. If we trust in how our democracy is supposed to work, only those fit for office far as us citizens are concerned will stay in office, so an age limit really shouldn't be needed. Term limits, however, now that's another subject and also another non-partisan approach to "draining the swamp" we should all better agree upon (and demand).
We used to work towards a goal of being americans. the only country in the world where assimilation of many cultures and people into one had worked.
now we are a country of tribes.
Americans no longer value E pluribus unum.
I'm reading this book right now (though only with the time to get through it much slower than I would like)...
"Over Here: The First World War and American Society," by David M. Kennedy
As I read this book I realize what I've read many times before. That America has many times been just as divided if not more in our history as compared to now, including the epitome of division that lead to our actual civil war. Seems Trump and all this going on today is just more of the same American story that continues one way or another in what always seems dysfunctional fashion...
The left no longer believes in the rule of law, only tribalism and partisan politics.
When the left adopted the concept that "truth is relative", they entered the fantastic realm of totalitarian manipulation of the populace, in which facts no longer matter.
As even some of the more conservative pro-Trump people commenting in this thread have argued, the rule of law has not always been so good to all "tribes" in America, and I think what we are seeing is something of a revolt against institutional ways that too many people no longer have the patience to count upon. All too many reasons people are losing patience about one thing or another. Be they right or wrong to feel and act the way they do, and so the pot begins to boil...
Again, what the author of the article is pointing toward or arguing should not be viewed in partisan fashion. "Two wrongs don't make a right" and all that sort of thing. My effort with a thread like this one is not to generate another tired old game of mud toss between all the usual people who love to wallow in that mud. The idea is to point at what needs fixing for all our sakes. What we all need to better demand from our elected officials. Though honestly and sadly, I don't feel like much demanded these days by everyday Americans gets translated too well into actions by our leaders...
What the author of the article is trying to say is that the FBI should be forgiven for existing and operating outside the rule of law because without them doing so, there is no rule of law. He defines rule of law as unelected, career law enforcement bureaucrats watchdogging elected officials, specifically Republican officials, using any and all means at their disposal and if mistakes re made, well, they are the brokne eggs that make the omelet, and since the law enforcement folks are patriotic and dedicated, it's all good, do not disparage them, else you risk damaging the rule of law.
That's his point. An ends-means fallacy to excuse the vast wrongdoing on the part of the FBI because they, and they alone apparently, are the symbol and standard for the rule of law.
I could care less about Trump and I assume every single elected official on this planet starts off corrupt and only gets worse with more power. But the FBI, CIA, IRS et al exist and operate almost entirely outside the bounds of the Bill of Rights, and virtually none are accountable to the People as they are unelected, entrenched bureaucrats. The 4th Amendment is meaningless to virtually every federal law enforcement agency, yet they pontificate about the rule of law. The 5th and 6th are equally meaningless, yet they pontificate about the rule of law. They are not even bound by the law, yet they claim to be its sacred guardians? If they didn't have the occasional scapegoat sacrifice on the altar of political optics, the President would absolutely be the single check on FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS etc power.
The entire federal, state and local government structure of this country is above, beyond and outside the rule of law. "Getting" Trump doesn't change that, it just makes you believe in that moment that oh no, the government cares about laws, rules, fairness, etc. They don't.
If getting Trump helps you buy the myth long enough to sleep well at night, good on ya. Me, I lump them all in together as domestic enemies and tyrants, and may a pox be upon all their houses.
What the author of the article is trying to say is that the FBI should be forgiven for existing and operating outside the rule of law because without them doing so, there is no rule of law. He defines rule of law as unelected, career law enforcement bureaucrats watchdogging elected officials, specifically Republican officials, using any and all means at their disposal and if mistakes re made, well, they are the brokne eggs that make the omelet, and since the law enforcement folks are patriotic and dedicated, it's all good, do not disparage them, else you risk damaging the rule of law.
That's his point. An ends-means fallacy to excuse the vast wrongdoing on the part of the FBI because they, and they alone apparently, are the symbol and standard for the rule of law.
I could care less about Trump and I assume every single elected official on this planet starts off corrupt and only gets worse with more power. But the FBI, CIA, IRS et al exist and operate almost entirely outside the bounds of the Bill of Rights, and virtually none are accountable to the People as they are unelected, entrenched bureaucrats. The 4th Amendment is meaningless to virtually every federal law enforcement agency, yet they pontificate about the rule of law. The 5th and 6th are equally meaningless, yet they pontificate about the rule of law. They are not even bound by the law, yet they claim to be its sacred guardians? If they didn't have the occasional scapegoat sacrifice on the altar of political optics, the President would absolutely be the single check on FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS etc power.
The entire federal, state and local government structure of this country is above, beyond and outside the rule of law. "Getting" Trump doesn't change that, it just makes you believe in that moment that oh no, the government cares about laws, rules, fairness, etc. They don't.
If getting Trump helps you buy the myth long enough to sleep well at night, good on ya. Me, I lump them all in together as domestic enemies and tyrants, and may a pox be upon all their houses.
Or...
There is what we actually read in his piece, like this for example, "I am deeply disturbed by the assertion of President Trump that our “current director” — as he refers to the man he selected for the job of running the F.B.I. — cannot fix what the president calls a broken agency. The 10-year term given to all directors following J. Edgar Hoover’s 48-year tenure was created to provide independence for the director and for the bureau. The president’s thinly veiled suggestion that the director, Christopher Wray, like his banished predecessor, James Comey, could be on the chopping block, disturbs me greatly. The independence of both the F.B.I. and its director is critical and should be fiercely protected by each branch of government."
Really having nothing to do with Trump's possible impeachment that you seem intent on focusing upon, along with a good deal else you can't seem to read and understand as intended. If I get you're drift, you want to "throw the baby out with the bath water." Am I right? A complete overthrow of government? A revolution?
I remember my father always used to ask me not to come to him with a problem unless I had a proposed solution. I've got a young liberal nephew who likes to do what you do, pointing at every problem under the Sun as if we don't all recognize they are there, but what are we called upon to do instead of just belly-aching? Take to the streets? Or more what Webster advocates?
There is what we actually read in his piece, like this for example, "I am deeply disturbed by the assertion of President Trump that our “current director” — as he refers to the man he selected for the job of running the F.B.I. — cannot fix what the president calls a broken agency. The 10-year term given to all directors following J. Edgar Hoover’s 48-year tenure was created to provide independence for the director and for the bureau. The president’s thinly veiled suggestion that the director, Christopher Wray, like his banished predecessor, James Comey, could be on the chopping block, disturbs me greatly. The independence of both the F.B.I. and its director is critical and should be fiercely protected by each branch of government."
Really having nothing to do with Trump's possible impeachment that you seem intent on focusing upon, along with a good deal else you can't seem to read and understand as intended. If I get you're drift, you want to "throw the baby out with the bath water." Am I right? A complete overthrow of government? A revolution?
I remember my father always used to ask me not to come to him with a problem unless I had a proposed solution. I've got a young liberal nephew who likes to do what you do, pointing at every problem under the Sun as if we don't all recognize they are there, but what are we called upon to do instead of just belly-aching? Take to the streets? Or more what Webster advocates?
The FBI is a corrupt bureaucracy. Period.
That said, it is an agency within the Executive Branch, and therefore, all FBI personnel ultimately serve at the whim of the President. When Clinton dismissed Sessions, as was his Presidential prerogative, did that bug you as much as Trump dismissing Comey and possibly Wray, which is his Presidential prerogative?
When Clinton had Reno fire every single US Attorney from the GHWB admin to fully reset the DoJ under his new admin, as was his Presidential prerogative, did that bug you?
Can you not accept that the President is the big boss of the ENTIRE Executive branch and all the agencies therein? Or does it only bug you when it is a Republican in that office?
The FBI is not independent. It is an agency that is part of the Executive Branch, and therefore, works on behalf of and at the direction of....you guessed it...the President of the United States. You do get that, yes?
A former FBI and CIA (especially the CIA) official talking about the rule of law?
Jesus H. Christ. Is it it April Fool's Day?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We can start with fining Trump for his golf clubs hiring illegal workers and hiding the fact a year into his presidency. 
