-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Tonight's debate
- Thread starter Zaac
- Start date
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Not only did he throw his running mate under the bus, he threatened to jail his opponent if he becomes President .
Now he OBVIOUSLY knew that wasn't a wise thing to say because he said he wasn't gonna say it. But being as disciplined as he is, he said it anyway.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
Now he OBVIOUSLY knew that wasn't a wise thing to say because he said he wasn't gonna say it. But being as disciplined as he is, he said it anyway.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
I would call this debate a draw as both candidates drew blood. Given that a draw goes to the defender Trump can tally this one as an ugly win, ugly being the operative word. It will not be enough to change the trajectory of this campaign especially after this weekends firestorm.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I'm going to defend Trump on this. He said he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary's emails. Hillary then said it was a good thing Trump was not in charge of the laws in the US, whereupon Trump shot back, "Because you'd be in jail!"
I took it as a sarcastic jab, not a threat.
.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Zaac
Well-Known Member
My point is that in classic Trumpian discipline he DID say it no matter how he meant it.
I think it left that visual again that he is undisciplined and would use the office as his own personal tool of vengeance.
Not to mention the comparisons that will inevitably be made between him and some of the world's other dictators who jailed their opponents.
It might amount to nothing. But I think it was a big mistake to say.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
I pretty much agree with you. Trump "won" in that he improved on his low, low current standing by showing up and being competitive. He fumbled the early questions, gained strength and scored some points on the emails, then flubbed up the Syria question.
Hillary did not harm herself, but didn't really land any punches. Trump "wins", but only because the bar is set so low.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I find it odd how he wiped the floor with them yet still never really answered any question that was asked with any substance. All he did was deflect.
But he's done because his apology wasn't an apology and did him no favors with women. They ask him about the tape and he says it was lockerroom banter?[emoji57] And then still tries to lessen his culpability by talking about Bill Clinton and ISIS?
The debate will be overshadowed by the tape.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
The problem with this is that the President has NO authority to appoint a special prosecutor. If Trump actually knew anything about the office (and our justice system), he wouldn't make such a threat.
And it was indeed a threat.
Her point was absolutely valid.
He had already threatened her with a special prosecutor. How could the follow up not be part of that threat?
A Special Prosecutor is appointed by the Attorney General, who is part of the Executive Branch of government, and serves at the pleasure of the President.
If a sitting president instructed his Attorney General to appoint a Special Prosecutor, the AG would do so if he wanted to keep his job.
Or Congress.
The attorney general can appoint a special prosecutor. You can bet that if Trump is President he would be sure to get an AG that would investigate Clinton.
Like I said, it was a sarcastic jab.
Totally off-topic and irrelevant to the discussion.
Yes, we know that. But the point was that, as a sitting President, he could order his AG to appoint a Special Prosecutor. As the AG is part of the Executive Branch, and thus works for the President, he could give such an order.
On the other hand, as there is a separation of powers in the US, and Congress, being part of the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch, does not serve at the pleasure of the President, but at the pleasure of the electorate of his/her home district or state, and thus cannot be given an order by a sitting President.
So, the objection that Trump could not appoint a Special Prosecutor is moot.
"I built a new retirement home in Texas." I never lifted a hammer or held a saw. I told somebody else to do it (and paid dearly for them to do so). Did I build a new home in Texas? Yes, of course I did. Did I do so directly or indirectly? Indirectly, obviously. Just as Trump could, indirectly, appoint a Special Prosecutor.
(Does this really need to be explained?)
No, but I'm sure you will plow right ahead and tell us all.
Au contraire. The AG serves at the pleasure of the President and the President has the authority to order the AG to appoint a Special Prosecutor. The AG can either do so or resign.
Were you under the impression the President could order congress to appoint a Special Prosecutor? If not, why even bring Congress into the discussion?