I understand the whole "granting yourself powers" thing but I don't get why you think the executive branch deciding who inside the executive branch should attend meetings or briefings is somehow unconstitutional. I don't get that. It is his branch, not the judiciary and not the Congress. I am not saying it is good judgement, just not unconstitutional or granting himself powers. Unless I missed something which is possible as this discussion had worm me out. But by all means, continue.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017, 5:45 PM Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you support a president removing access to hearings for individuals in > positions that were confirmed by the senate via executive action. > > Do you support a president removing access to hearings for individuals in > positions that were confirmed by the senate via the passing of a bill or > bills? > > On Jan 29, 2017 5:41 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > ask a less purposefully vague question > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Answer this question: > > Should we allow any government official to bestow powers upon their own > office? > > I know exactly what the founding fathers thought of this, because they > wrote extensively about it. > > I'm asking for your opinion here. > > > On Jan 29, 2017 5:32 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > no, we need compartmentalization of government. Thats exactly what is > happenning. and people like you are just too ego pilled to actually see it > happen. > > "he will waterboard" who? "Drumf" really? "yeas, he said so" interesting, > will he hold the towel, or pour the water? "well no, but hes going to" > really? "well, not him directly" oh, so who? "he will put people in charge > to do it" really? "yes" like mattis and pompeo? "exactly" interesting > > he cant run, he cant win, his numbers are too low, he wont get the > primary, he wont get those states, why is he there, he doesnt know what he > is doing...... really? > > The problem with people like you, you think very very small, not bigly. > You cant comprehend this presidency has been in the works since the 80s. > People like you are exactly why its going to grow, youve already clinched 8 > years. Why you ask? See above. > > There has never been a presidency like this presidency, where the > constitution fully worked exactly as intended, yet you want to pull the > "when in history" well, thats easy... never. > > 1 week and the whole nation is in play, this has never happened before, on > this many fronts, and you are still talking about what you know. You are > begging, pleading, insulting for the status quo, because thats what you do > actually know. > > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > So I sit here and go through the trouble of providing a historical list of > times this has happened. > > Your response would be "doesn't matter, that isn't Trump". > > And on one hand you'd be right, Trump isn't them. > > It still sets up a terrible precedent for himself and future presidents > that allows for rampant abuse that remains unchecked by the house and > senate. Do we really need more government shadow organizations that have no > mechanism for congressional oversight? > > > > On Jan 29, 2017 5:08 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > you are living in what ifs, assumptions, and biased logic. youre doing > fine for yourself. Carry on comrade, in fascism younite > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I can't dispense of pretenses I never claimed to hold. > > You said it wasn't a big deal, you couldn't find a source. I provided a > source, and you also found a copy (but failed to read it). Then you said it > didn't read that way, so I highlighted the exact line in question to save > you the time from reading it. Then you went on some batshit tangent about > filing a FOIA on the National Security Council of all things. Then you > brought up "it hasn't happened yet". > > Can you please provide a reference in the history of the world when a > power was granted to someone BY THEMSELVES in government that later wasn't > abused? > > You're blindly trying to maintain a position on this without any sort of > rational thought. > > This is the world our kids are going to grow up in. > > Please, at least try to make it a better one. > > > > On Jan 29, 2017 4:51 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > how centrist of you to devolve so quickly > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Steve, you are a prime example of the failure of the public education > system :P > > On Jan 29, 2017 4:46 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > oh.... so you are saying youre complaining about something that hasnt even > happenned... at least thats clear > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm saying if you're going to have a meeting of the security council, it > would be fucking prudent to have the Director of National Intelligence. > > You can't file a FOIA request until after something has taken place, and > FOIA requests are redacted or denied in the name of national security. > > On Jan 29, 2017 4:20 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > thats an awful small amount of text to deliver the entirety of the message. > hwat check and balances are you describing here by a person attending a > meeting that doesnt pertain to them? > are you saying they have excluded appropriate personell from meetings? > File a FOIA for the specific meetings you are referencing. > reply in line now with the specific meetings you are referencing having > taken place so that when you recieve the FOIA response we can correlate > them to the listed grievances you are referencing today > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Here's the line you are looking for. Above and below it lists, by item, > who is allowed to attend at all times, and who shall attend when it > pertains to them. So who's to say that it ever pertains to them? > > Our government is based on checks and balances, right? This removes quite > a bit of balance when the only individuals confirmed by the Senate may > spend the next 4 years without anything "pertaining to them". > > > > On Jan 29, 2017 4:09 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Im assuming this is excerpt of this: > https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and > > this sounds like bannon is becoming the equivalent of an executive > secretary, not jesus of jihadi as its being portrayed. The NSA and HSA (why > isnt there a big stink here?) are glorified secretaries (like the girl at > the desk on steroids) > > At no point does it state that the directors are disinvited to anything > that pertains to them. > > A restructuring with formal time management. Have you watched the senate > hearings... very inefficient time management. > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > His position is mandatory for them to meet. The JCoS and DNI may only > attend when it is determined it is required. > > Text attached from the order. > > > > On Jan 29, 2017 3:39 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > this im still trying to find a legitimate source of what is actually > happening on. just like youre saying it makes him more important than the > director of the cia, i cant find much other than ego inflated opinions. > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > What's your take on making Steve Bannon's new role critical to the > National Security Council (making him more important than the Director of > the CIA) while only allowing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of > National Intelligence to attend "when it pertains to them"? > > This was an executive order... > > On Jan 29, 2017 2:40 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I can't believe everyone is arguing about who lies more. Wouldn't it be > great if we could argue about the policy and theory rather than the > character, or lack thereof? > > On Jan 29, 2017 2:23 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: > > It sounds like you want a dictatorship. > > On Jan 29, 2017 2:11 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > i truly hope you maintain your thought process, exactly as it is, and > those of like mind, it will make 2020 a breeze. And ivankas 8 year reign > will be glorious > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > He's trying to use the very tactics he promotes in "art of the deal", > which basically means "lie about everything, and negotiate down". > > I will be absolutely amazed if he makes it into a second term. I am also > thinking that the Dems won't have their shit together over the next 4 > though. > > What a fucked up place we are in. > > On Jan 29, 2017 2:04 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > then even more work can be done > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > > The real question is whether he can keep it up for 207 more weeks. And > once the news organizations stop fawning over him, what does he do? Start > wars? Drop a nuke on Mexico? He can't stand anything else being the shiny > object, but you tell the news media to shut up and listen, at some point > they will shut up and cover something else. > > Anybody notice all the old actors kicking off? Did they really die over > the past 18 months and the news is just now dribbling out, or did the Trump > victory just take away their hope? Barbara Hale was 94, I guess waiting 4 > more years to see if the Orange One wins re-election might seem a bit much > to ask. John Hurt was 77, Mary Tyler Moore was 80. I'm 66, it's always a > bit unnerving when someone younger than me dies. But they say, only the > good die young. Carrie Fisher must have been very, very good. We miss > you, Princess. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Prince > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in > office > > That is just not true. > > Several fact organizations made it pretty clear that untruths from > Orange's mouth were about twice as plentiful as untruths from any other > politician from either party ( and that includes Obama and Clinton). > > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 1/29/2017 10:44 AM, Rory Conaway wrote: > > Nobody will ever lie as much as Obama or Hillary. That is a bar the > will never again be reached. > > > > Rory > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Prince > > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 11:32 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in > > office > > > > Nothing factually incorrect in that piece. It is largely opinion, so > take it for that. > > > > One thing that I disagree with is calling him a liar. I think he's not > necessarily lying; he just doesn't know the truth. Most of what he says > appears to be just made up on the fly, and my observation is that his > memory is not so good. > > > > > > bp > > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > > > On 1/28/2017 10:48 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote: > >> First week...What a joke... > >> > >> > >> http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170127/fact-check-on-donald-trumps-fir > >> s > >> t-week-in-office > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > >
