President vs Constitution

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So you claim I constantly post things that aren’t true, yet you acknowledge personal take on things might differ, thanks for making my point.

No, I didn't say you constantly post things that aren't true. I said you "just say stuff as if saying it made it true." And no, I'm not making your point. You're proving mine. You said that Trump "believes some of the constitution is just plain crap." You just said it, as if it were true, without any evidence that he believes that. He didn't specifically say it. Nor has he ever said it or implied it. You had no evident reason to do so.

What I feel is true and what you feel is true can both be right based on point of view. I still feel in his opinion the clause in the constitution raising such a fuss on both sides was crap, because he wanted his property to host the event and he feels he as president should be allowed to govern as he feels fit. It’s his MO.

You may "feel" that the Clause, in his opinion, was the reason for the fuss, but what evidence do you have that he had that opinion. Was it that because the Clause existed, it in and of itself was crap and that crap was being used to make a fuss about his wanting to host the event on his property, or was it that the Clause was being erroneously used to needlessly stir up the fuss. His legal staff had counseled him re hosting the G7 at Doral, and they didn't think there would be a conflict. Were they right or wrong--that would have been a good question to argue in the courts.

And you're doing it again. You're blatantly just saying his MO is to feel as President he should be allowed to govern as he feels fit. As if you have some authority on how he feels.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I said you "just say stuff as if saying it made it true."

he pontificates a lot....

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You may "feel" that the Clause, in his opinion, was the reason for the fuss, but what evidence do you have that he had that opinion. Was it that because the Clause existed, it in and of itself was crap and that crap was being used to make a fuss about his wanting to host the event on his property, or was it that the Clause was being erroneously used to needlessly stir up the fuss. His legal staff had counseled him re hosting the G7 at Doral, and they didn't think there would be a conflict. Were they right or wrong--that would have been a good question to argue in the courts.

And you're doing it again. You're blatantly just saying his MO is to feel as President he should be allowed to govern as he feels fit. As if you have some authority on how he feels.

When your defense of the location is my "legal" staff said it's ok, you are already behind the 8-ball, look at his own personal lawyer.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

When your defense of the location is my "legal" staff said it's ok, you are already behind the 8-ball, look at his own personal lawyer.

"no controlling legal authority"

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

When your defense of the location is my "legal" staff said it's ok, you are already behind the 8-ball, look at his own personal lawyer.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Perhaps you communicate in a sort of Got-Stripers-Speak.