*Prompter Thread* (NO personal attacks, NO trolling)

[MDPrompter]

Let's see...where should I go for an opinion on whether or not Conway violated the Hatch Act....

1) The fair and balanced Jaime

or

2) The Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency

I gotta say, it's a toss up.

[Lcsulla]

Originally Posted by DMBstandUP1984

Lol her dads not Marion Barry

My bad, I know marion had a kid who got in trouble with the law and thinks somehow the arrests can parlay that into a political career. When it comes to politicians I generally do not care enough about the has been's to read too much about them unless they were a President or something where as a history person I can critique their decisions but a crooked crackhead mayor of DC - not worth my time, I didn't even know he croaked until I googled him.

[Climb2safety]

Remember when Coulter went in Comedy Central to roast Rob Lowe.

They completely eviscerated her. It was brutal, I felt sorry for her, and it was not a smart thing to do.

“The only person you will ever make happy is the Mexican that digs your grave.”

[MDPrompter]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

I see a woman who is angry and mean and extremely disliked all while craving attention, acceptance and love.

Honestly, how truly smart can she be with this being the case?

Hi IQ, low EQ.

[DMBstandUP1984]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

My bad, I know marion had a kid who got in trouble with the law and thinks somehow the arrests can parlay that into a political career. When it comes to politicians I generally do not care enough about the has been's to read too much about them unless they were a President or something where as a history person I can critique their decisions but a crooked crackhead mayor of DC - not worth my time, I didn't even know he croaked until I googled him.

He is dead?! Damn

[MDPrompter]

So is Cohn going behind Trumps back and trying to organize and united business front against these Tariffs?

[BTBaboon]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

She didn't my friend, read the text of the act about what is allowed and what is prohibited. Here is a quick cliff notes version on wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

The law basically says people in the executive branch, excluding POTUS and VP, are barred from engaging in some political activities.

The specific incident relates to the AL race in which she certainly seemed to weigh into the special election in an official capacity.

While the WH Spokesman says she was just reflecting POTUS's view of wanting more GOP in Senate seats vs Dems, she on 2 occasions dove into specifics of the race and laid out reasons to vote for Moore and against Jones. That, to the US Special Counsel's office, was viewed as more than speaking on the behalf of Trump and rather inserting her views in an official capacity. I'm inclined to agree when considering the context of what she said, and how she went about saying it on both occasions.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1GI2C1

[Lcsulla]

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

Let's see...where should I go for an opinion on whether or not Conway violated the Hatch Act....

1) The fair and balanced Jaime

or

2) The Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency

I gotta say, it's a toss up.

MD you are incorrect here, read the act about what a person like her is permitted to do, specifically the bold.

These federal employees may:

-register and vote as they choose
-assist in voter registration drives
-express opinions about candidates and issues
-participate in campaigns where none of the candidates represent a political party
-contribute money to political organizations or attend political fund raising functions
-attend political rallies and meetings
-join political clubs or parties
-sign nominating petitions
-campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, -municipal ordinances.

Admittedly the act is all fucked up IMO but I do not think she did anything that violates it by expressing her opinions of candidates on some interview. This special counsel is a waster of our tax dollars, as if the government doesn't piss enough of our money away on pointless garbage!

[Lcsulla]

Originally Posted by BTBaboon

The law basically says people in the executive branch, excluding POTUS and VP, are barred from engaging in some political activities.

The specific incident relates to the AL race in which she certainly seemed to weigh into the special election in an official capacity.

While the WH Spokesman says she was just reflecting POTUS's view of wanting more GOP in Senate seats vs Dems, she on 2 occasions dove into specifics of the race and laid out reasons to vote for Moore and against Jones. That, to the US Special Counsel's office, was viewed as more than speaking on the behalf of Trump and rather inserting her views in an official capacity. I'm inclined to agree when considering the context of what she said, and how she went about saying it on both occasions.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1GI2C1

Please see above Ben! Cheers man, hope you are well!

[MDPrompter]

Originally Posted by BTBaboon

The law basically says people in the executive branch, excluding POTUS and VP, are barred from engaging in some political activities.

The specific incident relates to the AL race in which she certainly seemed to weigh into the special election in an official capacity.

While the WH Spokesman says she was just reflecting POTUS's view of wanting more GOP in Senate seats vs Dems, she on 2 occasions dove into specifics of the race and laid out reasons to vote for Moore and against Jones. That, to the US Special Counsel's office, was viewed as more than speaking on the behalf of Trump and rather inserting her views in an official capacity. I'm inclined to agree when considering the context of what she said, and how she went about saying it on both occasions.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1GI2C1

[Route_2]

Originally Posted by BTBaboon

The law basically says people in the executive branch, excluding POTUS and VP, are barred from engaging in some political activities.

The specific incident relates to the AL race in which she certainly seemed to weigh into the special election in an official capacity.

While the WH Spokesman says she was just reflecting POTUS's view of wanting more GOP in Senate seats vs Dems, she on 2 occasions dove into specifics of the race and laid out reasons to vote for Moore and against Jones. That, to the US Special Counsel's office, was viewed as more than speaking on the behalf of Trump and rather inserting her views in an official capacity. I'm inclined to agree when considering the context of what she said, and how she went about saying it on both occasions.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1GI2C1

Yeah, but what if we ignore the context and just give her a slap on the wrist because #MAGA?

[Bostonsux013]

Originally Posted by FromTheMorning

You don't think the Right genuinely believes they are under attack on all those different fronts? Of course they believe it. I just posted this article the other day. Our country is full of self-absorbed cry babies.
http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rig...r-billy-graham

I don't know. White, conservative males that I know are fully aware of their heightened status in society because of things like their skin color. The problem they have with it is they see other groups gunning for that same treatment and need to create a faux 'were discriminated against too' defense in order to make sure they don't concede any of their heightened status.

[Route_2]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

Admittedly the act is all fucked up IMO but I do not think she did anything that violates it by expressing her opinions of candidates on some interview. This special counsel is a waster of our tax dollars, as if the government doesn't piss enough of our money away on pointless garbage!

TIL, ethical oversight is 'pointless garbage'.

[Bostonsux013]

That is not to say that there aren't those out there on the right who really do feel targeted as white males. I just think it's used more as a way to block others progress than to actually get anything achieved for their own 'cause'.

[Lcsulla]

Originally Posted by DMBstandUP1984

He is dead?! Damn

I was surprised too. That said I guess it would be like if the mayor of Philly (who had retired 20 years ago) died, not exactly front page material or a big deal.

I do find it funny that some fools wanted (and succeeded) to make a statue of him in DC! https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.5002985d4848

[Bostonsux013]

Originally Posted by FromTheMorning

My mom is a pretty moderate conservative, very Catholic though and absolutely thinks America is at war with Christianity and Christmas.

I will heed to the attack on religion concerns because religion is not something exclusive to the left or right. My comments were more in regard to the 'attack on white males' comment.

[Lcsulla]

Originally Posted by Route_2

Yeah, but what if we ignore the context and just give her a slap on the wrist because #MAGA?

According to the text of the act she is allowed to express her opinions on both candidates and issues. Not even sure why this is a big deal, people on the left and right have all done this before numerous times and have rightfully not been charged.

[zajDmB1]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

One could say the same about the left.

Yea, but one would be wrong.

[BTBaboon]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

Please see above Ben! Cheers man, hope you are well!

Federal employees can, but the executive branch (specifically) has more limitations.

If she wasn't speaking in an official capacity, it's no issue either. But in both instance it seems very much like she was there as "Counselor to the President" and not "Republican Strategist Kellyanne Conway".

It's all moot anyways, because all the Special Counsel can do (and note, this isn't Mueller's counsel, this is OSC) is refer the issue to POTUS and I doubt he'd do anything.

Anyways, hope you are well too Jamie!

[zajDmB1]

Our President, ladies and gentlemen

http://theweek.com/speedreads/759197...reas-president

[coldengrey12]

Originally Posted by Bostonsux013

I don't know. White, conservative males that I know are fully aware of their heightened status in society because of things like their skin color. The problem they have with it is they see other groups gunning for that same treatment and need to create a faux 'were discriminated against too' defense in order to make sure they don't concede any of their heightened status.

Who is pretending they are discriminated against in this sentence?

[rconverse]

"same treatment"

[coldengrey12]

Kellyanne wasn't advocating for one candidate or the other.

She just happened to say a bunch of misleading things about one candidate and not the other.

[Route_2]

Trump called on Fox News and the Daily Caller for his two questions in his joint press conference with the Swedish prime minister.

[Bostonsux013]

Originally Posted by coldengrey12

Who is pretending they are discriminated against in this sentence?

White Males. The same people who feel that Affirmative Action is racist towards white people.

[Bostonsux013]

I see that Nunberg backtracked on his commitment to rip up the subpoena.

[zajDmB1]

Now that you've mentioned affirmative action, wait for some rconverse posts and you'll see that people are not 'pretending'

[Lcsulla]

Originally Posted by zajDmB1

Yea, but one would be wrong.

Disagree, lets just agree to disagree on this one. You are a good dude and I have no wish to bicker with you over something neither of us will budge much on.

Originally Posted by BTBaboon

Federal employees can, but the executive branch (specifically) has more limitations.

If she wasn't speaking in an official capacity, it's no issue either. But in both instance it seems very much like she was there as "Counselor to the President" and not "Republican Strategist Kellyanne Conway".

Even if she was speaking in an official capacity her comments did not violate the act so to me the whole issue is moot. Who is driving this effort to claim she violated the act - the media, an idiot like chris murphy or some partisan hack like liz warren?

[coldengrey12]

Originally Posted by Bostonsux013

White Males. The same people who feel that Affirmative Action is racist towards white people.

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Lcsulla]

Originally Posted by Bostonsux013

I don't know. White, conservative males that I know are fully aware of their heightened status in society because of things like their skin color. The problem they have with it is they see other groups gunning for that same treatment and need to create a faux 'were discriminated against too' defense in order to make sure they don't concede any of their heightened status.

This is a stretch, unlike the left conservatives do not want a victim card in the deck that would beat out a royal flush in 5 card draw.