Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire DJ Trump... all bluff and bluster.

That depends on the aim of your question.

There's those that say Trump can't (whatever), as a slam, without any constructive suggestion re: The way it SHB done.

Then, there's those that are anticipatin (accurately, probably) an action by Trump that would be rejected by onea the other 2 branches.

The second possibility is where I'm askin for your input.

Obviously, Trump *can* nominate a ATF Director, cause he just did it.

SO, what ATF Director could be nominated, and get past confirmation, that President Trump could have nominated, but due to stupidity, did not?

Amazingly, President Trump didn't call to ask my opinion bout the nomination, so I can only guess that the guy is there cause he can get confirmed.

Which explains the guy's history of gettin along with libs. They can;t vote against him with a record like you've cited.

Cause if a nominee gets shot down, it's a bad headline.

And if the guy don't toe the line, he get shatcanned.

IMO, if Trump's administration had the highest turnover rate in history, it'd be a great compliment to his leadership abilities.

So, who's yer guy?

It is not like they lack reasons to be mad...

KAG!! 2020

Trump said during the campaign that he was.

It would be good if we could import Viktor Orban. But he's already taken.

It is not like they lack reasons to be mad...
At least he did not try to mask the fact he played catcher, by claiming he played baseball...

Obviously, I obfuscated the suppositional inquiry to the point that you misapprehended the thrust of the inquisition.

So, I'm makin you President.

You can thank me later.

You gotta appoint a ATF Director nominee that'll get confirmed by the Senate.

Who would you nominate that would be better than Trump's nominee?

The biggest problem with the Republican party is,..they understand that Republicans are so neurotic about Democrats that as Republicans, they can get away with anything.

As a result, you get what you get.

Both political parties are garbage.

I thought so before Trump. But I was hoping Trump would change that.

You.

Congratulations.

Suppressors for everybody!

But, I'd never get confirmed.

President Trump's gotta nominate *somebody* that can get confirmed.

But we *do* know, that any nominee by Trump, that's not a known swamp dweller, will immediately get back audited by the IRS, throwed outta restaurants, get drive-bys at their house, "protestors" shattin on their lawn, kids asked ta change schools, and wife slandered outta the local yoga class.

We'll never know who applied for the job.

Might been Piddler, Robert White, and Canterbury.

Pick one.

Tough choice.

Lemme think bout it.

So, as far as anybody knows, bury mighta been the "best" pick, outta a class of the classless.

Or he could just leave the position vacant.

Or he could just appoint an endless series of good men who Congress would refuse to confirm.

And if things get fcked up, President Trump can take the heat for *not* nominatin somebody.

No way ta win, or even break even.

So ya play it by the "rules", ta cover your ass.

Unless you know who the *other* applicants for the job were, it's sanctimonious ta criticize the choice made.

I like small government. He could leave a lot of positions vacant for all I care. In fact, he could eliminate entire government agencies as far as I'm concerned. Most of them have been corrupted beyond salvation, anyway,...as evidenced by Trump's
choice to head up the ATF.

That's a skilfull attempt to shift the debate.

But the fact is, you've criticized President Trump's choice for the next Director of the ATF.

Who were the other applicants for the position?

Which one would have better served 2nd Amendment supporters in the US?

If you can't answer both of those questions, you have no business criticizing the President's decision.

Why shouldn't he eliminate the ATF?

In any event, I told you that he should, if necessary, appoint an endless series of good men regardless of the actions of Congress.

He should put Congress on the spot every chance he gets,....not play along to appease them.

Ain't no reason.

But that wasn't the basis for your criticism of the President.

If you'd gone that way from the beginning (and not started a separate thread ta bitch bout the guy nominated), that thought would have more validity.

You called the tune, I'm just dancin to it.

Bitch bout Trump not eliminatin the ATF, and we'll agree all day.

Bitch bout the nominee, and ya should be able ta back it up with some kinda logic.

Otherwise, ya end up lookin like a liberal.

I don't really debate. I give my opinion.

My opinion is,...illegal immigration should have already been stopped by Trump.

If he's unable to make it happen, I want to hear from somebody who can.

If it's totally fuggin' impossible, I want to hear that.

I don't care to hear any more lies and excuses.

If it can't be done, then it can't be done. Don't run for President on a platform that's impossible. Just go do something else.

The entire situation has turned into a bad joke.

By your standards, every Presidential candidate's platform is impossible, if the President in question follows the Constitution.

Because the President, whoever it is, is only 1/3 of the equation.

Postin opinions is the attraction of this site, like any other.

But the strength of the reasoning behind the opinion posted, is the measure of the weight to be given to said opinion.

If your decision is to post opinions, and defer from supporting the reasoning behind them, that's certainly a choice that's available.

And something to be considered by those evaluating those opinions.