The Trump Presidency...

As an elected legal officer, do you think it would be negligent and incompetent NOT to inform the public that you are investigating an organisation within your jurisdiction with some very peculiar and possibly criminal financial practices?

Do tell.
Of course, if the NRA were registered in, say, Texas, it would be up to their law officials to Err... wilfully ignore the NRAs affairs.

But that would be what the Texan voters elect them to do. Err...
Informing the public and blatantly campaigning against an organization are different things, don't ya think? The NY attorney general is as biased as the rest of us, but using her powers to conduct a politically motivated witch hunt against alleged practices is not wise.
 
Informing the public and blatantly campaigning against an organization are different things, don't ya think? The NY attorney general is as biased as the rest of us, but using her powers to conduct a politically motivated witch hunt against alleged practices is not wise.
Sigh.
Law officials often blatantly campaign against corrupt organised crime groups.
It is their job.
They are elected to do so in the US.

If the NRA didn't like the legal environment in NY, it could move. Clearly the NY tax and charity laws were attractive, but that means it must comply with NY law, and its elected legal officials who implement it.

Frankly, the whining sounds like a jet turbine. The NRA has some explaining to do. Like where $60 million dollars of its members money went in a couple of years.
It would be remiss of the local law not to look into this, but above all:
Being a Trump supporter does not make you immune to the law.
However much you think it should.
 

offog

LE
COVID 19 is real. It has killed people. But the sky is not falling and life continues. But never before have we shut down for something that is responsible for less than one percent of the population's demise. The financial impacts outweigh the lock down benefits.
This underlines you misunderstanding of the situation. How many more would have died if restrictions had not been put in place. Would having been off work for three to four weeks. The general consensus from the right seems to be that it is only effecting the old so it's ok as I am not old. But if it had run rampant those old would have gone belly up and taken up the hospital spaces need for those who had a greater chance of survival. You are having 1000 deaths a day.

Now ask yourself the question, instead of it having a greater effect on the old what would be the reaction if its main target audience was the under 12s. Would you still hold that the financial impact outweigh the lock down. 12 year old don't go to work so them pushing up daises will not effect the finances of the country.

Has Trump mismanaged it? Trump does not have the ability to tell 50 states what to do or how to do things. States have their own very real powers. You would need to look at each one to see who has done well and who was screwed the pooch.
So if Trump had produced an executive order saying that masks are to be worn states would have ignored it?

If Trump had stood up and said for the benefit of us all masks should be worn and I will lead the way, states would have ignored it.

What could Trump have done and what did he do. An awful lot more than he did and has spent the time shouting "look Squirrel" like he is doing now with tiktok.

Leadership and Trump are words that should not be use together as they have absolutely no connection when used with him.
 
Sigh.
Law officials often blatantly campaign against corrupt organised crime groups.
It is their job.
They are elected to do so in the US.

If the NRA didn't like the legal environment in NY, it could move. Clearly the NY tax and charity laws were attractive, but that means it must comply with NY law, and its elected legal officials who implement it.

Frankly, the whining sounds like a jet turbine. The NRA has some explaining to do. Like where $60 million dollars of its members money went in a couple of years.
It would be remiss of the local law not to look into this, but above all:
Being a Trump supporter does not make you immune to the law.
However much you think it should.
Especially when the law is selectively applied by an elected official with a vendetta on full display.


But now gun rights have managed to make it on the 2020 election issues list.
 
What shenanigans?
If you want to know first hand follow the Portland PD Twitter feed and all the other police departments that are dealing with protesters and rioters and anarchists. I have found it rather informative to get their views and actions first hand.
 
This underlines you misunderstanding of the situation. How many more would have died if restrictions had not been put in place. Would having been off work for three to four weeks. The general consensus from the right seems to be that it is only effecting the old so it's ok as I am not old. But if it had run rampant those old would have gone belly up and taken up the hospital spaces need for those who had a greater chance of survival. You are having 1000 deaths a day.

Now ask yourself the question, instead of it having a greater effect on the old what would be the reaction if its main target audience was the under 12s. Would you still hold that the financial impact outweigh the lock down. 12 year old don't go to work so them pushing up daises will not effect the finances of the country.


So if Trump had produced an executive order saying that masks are to be worn states would have ignored it?

If Trump had stood up and said for the benefit of us all masks should be worn and I will lead the way, states would have ignored it.

What could Trump have done and what did he do. An awful lot more than he did and has spent the time shouting "look Squirrel" like he is doing now with tiktok.

Leadership and Trump are words that should not be use together as they have absolutely no connection when used with him.
What am I misunderstanding? Nature came up with a virus that kills the elderly and immunize compromised...Shocker it happens and this won't be the last time either. The general consensus is that the lockdown occurred after most people were already sick in January and February. The horse had bolted.

As for kids, people will sacrifice everything to save their children, so on that point I concede. But I disagree, without children to replace aging workers life will suck for everybody. They are the future, where as the 93 year old pensioner is at the end of their time.

Yes, many states would ignore an executive order to mask up. Unless you are willing to enforce said order good lucky carrying it out.

Your problem is that you think man can dominate nature and bend it to its will. We can't, and this virus is just proof enough of it. Sometimes the only thing you can do is ride the storm out and pray.
 

offog

LE
Especially when the law is selectively applied by an elected official with a vendetta on full display.


But now gun rights have managed to make it on the 2020 election issues list.
There have been reports about the misuse of fund by the NRA management team for a number of years. This is not new just that some one is doing something about it.

Who are the main funders of the NRA?
 
...and has spent the time shouting "look Squirrel" like he is doing now with tiktok.

Leadership and Trump are words that should not be use together as they have absolutely no connection when used with him.
Not that the orange one would be petulant or hold a grudge.

Maybe the 2A defenders should spend a bit of time thinking about 1A too.

Lest we forget the true source of his ire:


 
Especially when the law is selectively applied by an elected official with a vendetta on full display.


But now gun rights have managed to make it on the 2020 election issues list.
Sigh again.
It seems that if the law was ALSO applied against Democrat leaning organisations that had a 60 million dollar hole in their accounts it would be OK, because then the law is applied equally?

Or is it "Selectively" applied only when organisations without a 60 million dollar hole are overlooked and ONLY the NRA is investigated?

Is it a "Vendetta" when a legally elected law official investigates potential crime in their jurisdiction ONLY when the criminals are Trump supporters? Would it still be a vendetta if they investigated potential crime if the suspects were Democrat supporters?

Gun rights and abortion are ALWAYS on the American election platform. No change there.

Basically, you are pleading for special treatment of the NRA because it supports two things you love. Trump and guns.
If it didn't have a big smoking hole in its accounts, there wouldn't be a case to investigate.
It does.
So there is.
It is a civil case, and they are easy to prove compared to criminal.
The criminal stuff follows on after.
 
There have been reports about the misuse of fund by the NRA management team for a number of years. This is not new just that some one is doing something about it.

Who are the main funders of the NRA?
... apart from Russian Intelligence?
 
There have been reports about the misuse of fund by the NRA management team for a number of years. This is not new just that some one is doing something about it.

Who are the main funders of the NRA?
The 5 million plus members and certain companies in the firearms industry would be my guess without the facts and figures present.
 
Sigh again.
It seems that if the law was ALSO applied against Democrat leaning organisations that had a 60 million dollar hole in their accounts it would be OK, because then the law is applied equally?

Or is it "Selectively" applied only when organisations without a 60 million dollar hole are overlooked and ONLY the NRA is investigated?

Is it a "Vendetta" when a legally elected law official investigates potential crime in their jurisdiction ONLY when the criminals are Trump supporters? Would it still be a vendetta if they investigated potential crime if the suspects were Democrat supporters?

Gun rights and abortion are ALWAYS on the American election platform. No change there.

Basically, you are pleading for special treatment of the NRA because it supports two things you love. Trump and guns.
If it didn't have a big smoking hole in its accounts, there wouldn't be a case to investigate.
It does.
So there is.
It is a civil case, and they are easy to prove compared to criminal.
The criminal stuff follows on after.
So you say. But we shall see how easy this case will be and the repercussions to follow.
It is a "vendetta" when one campaigns against an organization because you don't like what they stand for.
 
The 5 million plus members and certain companies in the firearms industry would be my guess without the facts and figures present.
What, the private flights for the pet and the $3000 suits X 3 are not a clue?
 
Finally.... after almost 4 years, you are here......nonsense is now acceptable sense, 1000 American deaths a day is considered "acceptable", there are so many other examples.... 150,000 Dead now. 4% of the worlds population but 22% of the deaths.
 
An article written by a gun rights advocate about an investigation into the NRA is unlikely to be impartial.

Edit to add - Author information: John Lott - Wikipedia
I know this Tappet. The whole issue will not be impartial and both sides will dig in. But if the Dem's want to win they sure are doing a bang up job making sure the other side wants to show up at the ballot box to get some serious payback.
 

Latest Threads

Top