Giuliani has had to go some pretty crazy lengths to defend Trump. He also said that the President can obstruct justice if it occurs in the Executive branch and that he has the power to pardon himself.

Technically, Giuliani could be correct on both counts. But what kind of country do we want to live in? One where a sitting President cannot be indicted, can pardon himself, and can obstruct an investigation into his campaign?

If it's true that a sitting president cannot be indicted, or can pardon himself, or is legally allowed to obstruct justice, I say we demand change. The best thing that can come out of the Trump presidency is reeling in the power of the chief executive.

Obama did everything 10x worse as a simple example of executive overreach, but even that is irrelevant here.

The biggest dishonesty in the media right now is proportionality.

If the media spent time on the most important topics, the national debt would be 50% of coverage and this Russia bull**** would be maybe 2% of coverage. Media cant stop beating this dead horse for some silly reason.

The power of the chief executive is out of control. It's been steadily expanding since the 1930s and saw another spike post-9/11. It's well past time to reign it back in.

The President apparently doesn't even need Congressional approval to attack a country that doesn't directly threaten the US anymore. That's absurd. There's so much potential for abuse.

Agreed that the media has a proportionality issue. However this fault probably lies more with people and less with the media in the sense that the medie supplies what we demand.

It's been a year and a half since Trump took office. Congress still hasn't come up with a way to make the US follow it's own immigration laws.
These are the people you want, deciding if we should go to war?

I always thought Congress was part of the Legislative branch of govt. By their very ways of doing things they are very ill suited to decide (rapidly) if there is a need for the US to go to war.
You may not like the fact that Trump, at the moment, has that power. But that's to be dealt with at the voter box.

if the country is under attack, there is no time for congress to discuss it to death; in this case, the executive branch has to take action.

but when it comes to attacking a country that is no very imminent threat to america, it really should be congress who decides about whether to go to war or not. in the end, congress has a much higher democratic legitimization than the president - every vote has a much higher influence on determing the representative for its house district, and also on who gets to represent its state in the senate.

I agree, sort of. When you have a law that states, when the US is attacked or IF there is an imminent threat to America. I can see Congress doing the dawdle dance over things like IF America is under imminent threat.

Donald J. Trump
‏Compte certifié @realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
04:58 - 31 juil. 2018

==>

Collusion with Russia during elections ?
If not: which kind of collusion he's talking about ?

Hypothetical

The far left has no sense of nuance

?? That's an awkward response for someone posting a tweet and asking 2 questions about it. Not even adding any form of judgement on the matter.

/e: Your polarization of the far left lacks a bit of nuance

This post was edited by Knoppie on Jul 31 2018 07:58am

bear trap questions