Can we adopt the tone as well? If I'm arguing for Trump policies, does that mean I'm not bound by logic and reality anymore?

I think Trump's latest twitter storm was deeply restrained and presidential, because it wasn't Obama who was wire tapping him. It was ALIENS! Aliens in black UN helicopters. But if people knew that there were aliens at the UN, then the stock market would spook and crash and the border would be flooded by illegal mexican rapist rushing to Wall Street to snatch up deals on Snap, Inc. stock. So, obviously, he couldn't say that. Instead he very Precedentially signed another Muslim ban to keep Muslims from sneaking in across the boarder because everyone knows that everyone from a Muslim country is an ISIS commando sent to the US to kidnap scientists in order to fake their data to push the Chinese hoax of climate change. I don't know, but people say that ISIS is teaming up with the Chinese to push climate change to push a socialist agenda in the US so that America goes bankrupt providing health care and schools. As everyone knows, schools are WAAY more expensive than high tech fighter jets, because he forced down the price. So now we can buy $54 billion worth of them now that they're buy two, pay extra for the third. That's a way better deal than paying for health care, because sick people are just a bunch of moochers Sad! We can't afford it, especially now that "our GDP is less than zero" (actual quote).

how am I doing?

Yeah, uh, I get that it's really difficult to do without dripping in sarcasm, but this is more challenging than championing the left. Are you up to the challenge or do your abilities plateau somewhere lower?

dude, I'm a lawyer, I can present a case for anything. Whether its worth the trouble or whether parody is more fun is the question.

The issue of trying to do it in a reality based way is tricky, since so much of it isn't based in reality.

Surely, you have to admit that you feel safer now that the new travel ban is in effect, right? If a single traveler with bad intent from those countries is kept out, then that makes America safer. The real question is whether we should stop travel from many more countries. Like voter fraud, we need to have a zero tolerance policy.

Somehow, I knew you were a lawyer Ogion. Takes one to know one. Would be interesting to see you (or me) take up Trump as "a client" and argue for that client you detest, without the sarcasm.

I'll try (while screaming inside)...

The attacks against Trump for the Russian connections are really unfair. All he's done is lay out valid policy positions for dealing with Russia and started laying out relationships with Russian leaders a little early? Where's the harm in that? Don't give me the unconstitutional Logan Act as a crime - that thing wouldn't hold up under a constitutional challenge. And Trump wasn't elected, then it would have been meaningless - it's not as if he was committing the US to any policy that Clinton would have had to follow. And is it so bad if he happened to start planning interactions with Russia a little early in the event he got elected - planning ahead actually is sound policy, no? Because that's all we seem to have here. The conspiracy theorists claiming Trump got a quid pro quo for helping or promising to help Russia have nothing but speculation to go on there - where's the real evidence? We should be more upset that Clinton was hiding emails and burying her bad behavior than the fact it all came to light, regardless of the source.

Ok - my first effort. How did I do? Give me another Trump policy to support - this could be fun to try.

Pretty good, actually.

I'd add that that in fact, efforts to investigate the exploratory talks constitute a violation of executive privilege, because preliminary discussions of one of the more complex and delicate relationships must take place out of the limelight to be successful. I'd point out for the contacts between the campaign and the Russian government that if there were any contacts, which we neither admit nor deny, the campaign has a right to engage in those just as the campaign has a right and duty to begin the transition process before the election (which both Clinton and Trump did). Thus, the nature and extent of any communications between the campaign and the Russian government is merely part of a transition diplomatic process and a necessary component of setting up foreign policy for the incoming administration. So, bascially, you can kiss my executive privilege.

(I feel you about having to swallow the bile. I like the diversion about Clinton (which is inflammatory but irrelevant. Very Roy Cohn. Well done.)

Of course, that doesn't help Session and Pruitt in their contempt of Congress charges. Maybe we can argue executive privilege there even though that should have been asserted in the hearings.

on the muslim ban, I'll argue that the power of the president is at its zenith in foreign relations, and this policy is as narrowly crafted as can realistically be done, given the location of activities by ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Although a more narrowly crafted ban targeted at those for whom there is actual evidence to ground suspicion, this is not practical where the targets are adept and concealing their intent. Whether the policy is or is not effective since there is a rational basis for it, no suspect classes are targeted (disparate impact? what's that?) and presidential authority includes the authority to make not very good policy, so effectiveness isn't part of the analysis.

Basically, my authority, even if stupid, and now we've ducked the obvious constitutional issues.

And even the mentally ill have the right to guns. I don't see anything in the 2nd Amendment that says they don't. If anything, we need to fight for the protections of minority groups like the mentally ill and at least give them due process under the 14th Amendment before taking away their guns.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/28/trump-sign-bill-blocking-obama-gun-rule/98484106/

Go ahead ND, Capt_Brad, Fieldler, ssorenn - try to prove me wrong here.
Ok

Is it just me, or are the Trump supporters a little slow to pick up the "Opposite Day" gauntlet here?

I'd like to see James come in and pick a policy and argue both sides, frankly. I think he'd be good at that. (yes, that's a compliment)

i don't like guns. if i have a beef i use sixteen inch naval guns or 1000 lb laser guided munitions.

oh i have a joke. there was a shipwreck and four people fell into shark infested waters but the rescue ship found only one survivor. when asked why he, the lawyer, survived the encounter the shyster replied: 'professional courtesy'.

i am still looking for the pizza party.

oh and slypups are you always so prejudicial? why must someone that is conservative have to like guns or support their possession by mentally ill persons?

You started off strong there Brad but unfortunately, you reverted to form. But I appreciate your playing along and encourage your continued participation.

Its not that conservatives like guns, conservatives support the 2nd amendment...and freedom.

i support the whole constitution, not just parts of it.

oh and i need your GPS location. i am programing a Tomahawk cruise missile and i need a few numbers.

i muted the other threads and Og the skinhead but i saw my name mentioned and was curious. i will probably mute this one too.

oh and another joke: what is the difference between a serial killer and a lawyer?


beats me if i can tell

Hey Brad, i live in Long Beach, CA. It's near LA. Fire away, buddy!

*Grabs popcorn*

Sorry that area is restricted

Hey are you gonna eat all of that popcorn yourself?

Oh and another thing ..... (muted)

If conservatives don't protect our 2nd Amendment rights, who will? Certainly not the anti-gun liberals.

Great day for America folks! The unconstitutional mandate is going away. Now the government can't force me to buy health insurance or penalize for not buying it. With that extra money I can either pay back debt or open a business or help the economy. I know it's not too much money, but when you add up the benefits to the economy from everybody, it really adds up. Economic growth should accelerate to 3-4% according to the President.

Thank goodness for repealing health care (a plan anyway). Now finally we can stop making people pay in advance for health care so that those that refuse to get insurance can be leeches on the rest of us when they can't afford to pay for expensive health care later, as we're too charitable to deny them care.

You missed the fine print where insurance companies can charge a 30% penalty under some conditions when you try to buy it later.

I loved the early part where if you are on a state plan and win the lottery, the state can seize your lottery winnings.

Isn't it that the state can disenroll you from Medicaid? Or is there another provision I'm not hearing about?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/06/gop_health_plan_preoccupied_with_lottery_winners_on_medicaid.html

I loved both Trump and Clinton and had a hard time choosing which one to win.
Clinton was fantastic and had a very clean and competent track record. Also, how cool would it be to have a female president for our daughters to look up to.
Trump was also really good since he was an outsider business man and not a corrupt politician. He must have a good grip on the reality of the outside world working class.

I'm so sick of making too much money (barely) to qualify for medicaid and to have to pay for some lazy piece of shit to get free benefits. What is the incentive for me to continue working? I should quit and put my feet up like the takers. The poor get all the breaks!

@ Hauta..you may expect all you like.
The only proselytising on behalf of Turniphead TrumpGod that I will be doing is satirical.