Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Status
Not open for further replies.

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Well, that pretty much defines hypocrisy..::):
:chuckle: Is it apples to apples though?

Based on what I read in the article it appears that a team of Americans became regular advisers on Yeltsin's campaign.
In the Trump/Russia case you have Russians potentially giving ill-gotten information to Trump's team, and possibly more. It isn't as if Trump hired some Russians to advise on messaging and TV ads, which is what your Time article talks about.

Don't get me wrong, if Trump had done that I imagine there would still be a lot of criticism, but I also don't think it's a completely fair comparison.
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
Sorry the Fake Media got you hopes and dreams up again. Seems to be a pattern :idunno:

BBEpFGV.img


Its only "fake" when its critical of "The Donald" - the self-appointed arbitrator of what constitutes "truth!"
 

exminister

Well-known member
By Christopher Ingraham July 17 at 3:32 PM

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday said he'd be issuing a new directive this week aimed at increasing police seizures of cash and property.

“We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners."

Asset forfeiture is a disputed practice that allows law enforcement officials to permanently take money and goods from individuals suspected of crime. There is little disagreement among lawmakers, authorities and criminal justice reformers that “no criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime.” But in many cases, neither a criminal conviction nor even a criminal charge is necessary — under forfeiture laws in most states and at the federal level, mere suspicion of wrongdoing is enough to allow police to seize items permanently.


Additionally, many states allow law enforcement agencies to keep cash that they seize, creating what critics characterize as a profit motive. The practice is widespread: in 2014, federal law enforcement officers took more property from citizens than burglars did. State and local authorities seized untold millions more.


Since 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration alone has taken more than $3 billion in cash from people not charged with any crime, according to the Justice Department's Inspector General.

The practice is ripe for abuse. In one case in 2016, Oklahoma police seized $53,000 owned by a Christian band, an orphanage and a church after stopping a man on a highway for a broken taillight. A few years earlier, a Michigan drug task force raided the home of a self-described “soccer mom,” suspecting she was not in compliance with the state's medical marijuana law. They proceeded to take “every belonging” from the family, including tools, a bicycle and her daughter's birthday money.

In recent years, states have begun to clamp down on the practice.

“Thirteen states now allow forfeiture only in cases where there's been a criminal conviction,” said Robert Everett Johnson, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that represents forfeiture defendants.

In 2015, Eric Holder's Justice Department issued a memo sharply curtailing a particular type of forfeiture practice that allowed local police to share part of their forfeiture proceeds with federal authorities. Known as “adoptive” forfeiture, it allowed state and local authorities to sidestep sometimes stricter state laws, processing forfeiture cases under the more permissive federal statute.


These types of forfeitures amounted to a small total of assets seized by federal authorities, so the overall impact on forfeiture practices was relatively muted. Still, criminal justice reform groups on the left and the right cheered the move as a signal that the Obama administration was serious about curtailing forfeiture abuses.

In his speech Monday, Attorney General Sessions appeared to specifically call out adoptive forfeitures as an area for potential expansion. “Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate,” he said, “as is sharing with our partners.”

“This is a federalism issue,” Johnson said. “Any return to federal adoptive forfeitures would “circumvent limitations on civil forfeiture that are imposed by state legislatures … the Department of Justice is saying 'we're going to help state and local law enforcement to get around those reforms.'”

The Department of Justice did not return a request for comment.


LINK

Trump's cracking away at the First Amendment while Session's cracks away at the Fourth.
 

exminister

Well-known member
I suppose you liked the no regulation of the Bush era which brought on the economic collapse.

:rotfl:

Spoken like a true Keynesian....which basically means you haven't a clue

I have considered this and it still makes no sense, so I haven't a clue. My preference for dialogue is you would have explained rather than labeled. My gut told me this economic policy is let the government spend money to get the economy going. I wasn't referring to what Obama did but what George Bush did. I referenced Dodd-Frank and not the ARRA economic bail-out. That is entirely a different matter which I think you leaped to the conclusion I was onboard for that. I don't think we should let the foxes guard the hen house and with all the current mindless deregulation and cabinet appointees is essentially making that so. We have been gone down this path before and I don't want to see my investments tank again.

Do you, like Sod, see no value and even harm in Federal economic regulations like my original post had intended?
Also if you think there should not be any economic or financial regulation what are your thoughts on the FDA and the post I submitted a few days back about putting a harmful chemical in boxed Mac & Cheese? Has the government over-stepped its bounds yet again?

My post on chemicals in food
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...and-The-Ugly&p=5064373&viewfull=1#post5064373
 

shopkinslpskids

New member
Trump has been AWESOME for evangelicals like me. He took out a law Johnson made that said churches can't talk about Politics. He also banned taxpayer abortions.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 

shopkinslpskids

New member
He shocked the system, upended the apple cart, flipped over the table.
He destroyed the political power structure in America.
Where did Jeb! get the 100 million dollars for his primary campaign? Where did Hillary get the BILLION dollars she spent?
A lot of people got ripped off and I think that's hilarious.
The people spoke and they didn't say what they were supposed to say, nobody saw this coming.
It warms the cockles of my heart that the American people did something different for a change.



Wearing Crocs in public.
MAGA

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Trump has been AWESOME for evangelicals like me. He took out a law Johnson made that said churches can't talk about Politics. He also banned taxpayer abortions.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

wow, your knowledge is incorrect. The Johnson Amendment remains law. The other issue is probably a bit more complicated since for the most part taxpayer funded abortions have been banned for some time.
 

exminister

Well-known member
Trump has been AWESOME for evangelicals like me. He took out a law Johnson made that said churches can't talk about Politics. He also banned taxpayer abortions.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

All ceremonial like a lot of what Trump has done.
Churches have been preaching politics freely for quite awhile.
Weren't federal funds already pulled for abortions? The Hyde Amendment since 1976.
 

exminister

Well-known member
Trump has been AWESOME for evangelicals like me. He took out a law Johnson made that said churches can't talk about Politics. He also banned taxpayer abortions.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Jonah is right.
Trump,the snake oil salesman, makes you think you are getting something when you are not. Johnson Amendment still stands, but I don't think it is enforced.

Wiki said:
On May 4, 2017, Trump signed the "Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty." The executive order does not (nor can it) repeal the Johnson Amendment, nor does it allow preachers to endorse from the pulpit, but it does direct the Department of Treasury that "churches should not be found guilty of implied endorsements where secular organizations would not be." Douglas Laycock, speaking to The Washington Post, indicated that he was not aware of any cases where such implied endorsements have caused problems in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment

You should read up before you sing the praises of Trump.
 

shopkinslpskids

New member
All ceremonial like a lot of what Trump has done.
Churches have been preaching politics freely for quite awhile.
Weren't federal funds already pulled for abortions? The Hyde Amendment since 1976.
I'm sorry, but it wasn't ceremonial. The laws protect us, now.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 

shopkinslpskids

New member
Jonah is right.
Trump,the snake oil salesman, makes you think you are getting something when you are not. Johnson Amendment still stands, but I don't think it is enforced.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment

You should read up before you sing the praises of Trump.
Wikipedia is edited by Liberals and so is the Washington Post. I love at the same time you claim Johnson was right, while claiming Trump didn't do anything except ceremony.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 

shopkinslpskids

New member
wow, your knowledge is incorrect. The Johnson Amendment remains law. The other issue is probably a bit more complicated since for the most part taxpayer funded abortions have been banned for some time.
You are pro-choice but claim Trump actually supports your views. You are anti-Christian but claim Trump supports your views, secretly. All this while being anti-Trump. Suspicious.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 

exminister

Well-known member
Wikipedia is edited by Liberals and so is the Washington Post. I love at the same time you claim Johnson was right, while claiming Trump didn't do anything except ceremony.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
I wrote Jonah, not Johnson. You have some read comprehesion problems and it shows royally.

Shhh...Shop is in his bubble and doesn't want any facts to creep in.
 

shopkinslpskids

New member
I wrote Jonah, not Johnson. You have some read comprehesion problems and it shows royally.

Shhh...Shop is in his bubble and doesn't want any facts to creep in.
Jonah is blocked and so are you.

I think you were trying to say "reading comprehension". You spelled both of those words wrong while you tried insulting me, so might want to go back and do a bit of editing. Kind of takes away from it a bit. [emoji6]

Also, I'm a woman. God bless America. God bless Trump.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top