Trump is a Winning Machine

Adorable. You want to try and call me out on my comprehension abilities all while making false assumptions about what you think the argument is. Swing and a miss. I’ll let you figure it out with your amazing intellectual abilities that I supposedly lack.


I’ll drop this here as an additional hint to where you went wrong.
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/publi...s_want_strong_borders_say_wall_is_not_immoral

Still waiting on an actual response from you on my specific question. How, exactly, is using federal funds to provide national border security wiping his ass with the Constitution?? I can’t wait to be amazed at your astonishing intellectual abilities.

P.S. The purse ain’t da anser. If it wer, all dem past Prezidents were rong, two, and all ready whiped der asses wit it.

 

I legit have no idea what you’re saying so I’ll simply wish you a Happy Sunday.

 

From that link:
"Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree and say it is better to open our borders to anyone who wants to come here as long as they are not a terrorist or a criminal. "

How cute in their innocence?

Almost as if there is a way to control that with NO walls/border control. You cannot fabricate this level of stupid up. smdh!

To answer your question, SB like many other liberals think he's subverting Congress' wishes by using this method. They're also perfectly OK with throwing American taxpayer money to help foreign nation issues rather than OUR own security. That's a tough one to argue party line wise since we had soooo many COWARD RINO's doing the same damn thing up until this Trump Presidency.

 

That’s what I figured. No answer to specific questions because you’re full of shit and can’t back up your statements in any way.

1) At no point did I mention a wall. You did. I specifically refer to border security. Polls clearly show a majority in support of the same. But when you google what you think you wanted me to say versus what I actually said ...

2) Declaring a national emergency to use federal funds & resources to secure the border is against the Constitution, how? That’s what is being done.

Using your “purse” argument to say that’s how he’s “wiping his ass with the Constitution” is just intellectually lazy. Gaining access to funds/resources he wouldn’t otherwise have is the same as every past President that declared national emergencies. If they didn’t “wipe their asses with the Constitution”, then Trump isn’t, either. Trump’s is arguably even less so since it directly/indirectly impacts national security and sovereignty. Dem’s refusal to uphold their oaths of office to even attempt to address what is most definitely an issue, (illegal immigration/drugs/etc) while likely NOT an emergency/crisis, is the true “ass wiping”.

 

Somebody please tell me this was one of those rhetorical questions, I've been googling for my opinion and have nothing.

 

First off, see the underlined parts and make note for your exam: You cannot amend an amendment; it can only be superseded with a new amendment. Second, it really isn't very ambiguous, as evidenced by 150 years of case law, but go ahead and align yourself with IYC when it comes to legal matters. You'll go far.

I'm not sure if he just went off-script, or what, but in his speech declaring the State of Emergency , he said this:

"I could do the wall over a longer period of time," ... "I didn't need to do this. But I would rather do it much faster."

If the American Enterprise Institute is making the case for a constitutional mistake (here and here and here), you would think it would give conservatives pause, at least for those not in the tank. It will be interesting to see how the courts hash this.

 

1) My bad - I forgot Trump's campaign slogan "we're going to build border security and Mexico is going to pay for it." It's interesting that you're pretending like that goalpost hasn't moved, but whatever - whatever pneumonic he had to use to remember his talking points is relatively unimportant at this juncture of the discussion.

2) I'm not sure if you're being intentionally dense or know that you have no argument and you're just trolling me, but the reason this time is different is because no sitting president has ever declared an emergency to secure funding for a project which Congress has previously voted to not fund. There's copious amounts of articles on the subject (I even linked one earlier in post 9315 which you quoted).

BTW, your name-calling and condescension when you clearly don't understand the subject being discussed is absolutely mind-blowing to me.

 

How is this different from Obama writing his own law, DACA (and DAPA) after Congress refused to pass
"Dreamer" legislation multiple times?

 

I didn't listen to the press speech so this maybe out of context or I could be lucky and get it write. I took the "I didn't need to do this" as saying if the House worked as a true bipartisan group then they would have come to a better agreement...they gave me 55 miles and I could go thru another shutdown to negotiate for more but this would take longer blah, blah, blah. I am just not correlating the words to it being unconstitutional. Moving funds around is beyond my payscale and maybe yes. Since the house funded some it also proves his border crisis along with all the previous pres saying the same thing,could it be construed as being a precedent? Still about the stupidest issue ever with all the past rhetoric from both parties.

 

This from the dipshit who can't explain how he knows what 50% of an unknown quantity is.
As usual, when you have nothing you attack the messenger.

The article I linked which was written by this guy explained it quite well and
you have offered nothing but an insult in return. Good job, genius.

 

You can reliably determine population characteristics (like, say, proportion of brown eyes) without knowing the entire magnitude of a population...genius. I would add in some basics as to how the data was captured, and assumptions about independence, but...it seems pretty pointless with your history.

May I suggest sticking to legal arguments? (To which I offered the body of case law upholding birth citizenship under the 14th. Its going to take more than a von Spakovsky opinion piece to get that interpretation institutionalized, but please, carry on with your constitutional acumen. It's a ...sight).

 

Who is talking about a stupid campaign promise? And you still claim I don’t understand what’s being discussed? Lol. You. Are. Awesome. Yet again making a point about something I haven’t said, or even inferred. I’ve stuck to the actual issue at hand and have been consistent throughout ... the need for improved border security, which is supported by the majority. Sorry to confuse you that way.

Still can’t answer the actual, specific question? That’s cool. Hint: using powers specifically granted by Congress isn’t unconstitutional even if others haven’t done so. Is it different? Sure. You made the comment that he’s “wiping his ass with the Constitution”. That implies its unconstitutional. You have yet to even try to explain how that’s so. I’ve asked multiple times now, which you have yet to answer. Hint 2: Your linked article doesn’t even attempt to address that. In fact, it pretty much argues just the opposite, and suggests this might lead to an amendment/clarification of the actual law. But again, I’m clearly the lesser intellectual in this discussion.

Keep on living in that bubble of awesomeness, my man. You’re good enough. You’re special enough. And gosh darn it, I’m sure somebody likes you.

 

That is not in my citizenship test study guide that I printed off...

 

Semantics...Once an amendment is ratified it becomes part of the Constitution. The text cannot be changed: it is part of the history of the document. Instead, new text can be added (an amendment) that supersedes older text.


As for your complete misinterpretation of "I didn't need to do this. But I would rather do it much faster.", that was reference to the Dems stonewalling, but you are smart enough to figure that out on your own.