Very disappointed, thought this was a thread about the greatest firefighter/EMT show of all time.
(https://www.goldenglobes.com/sites/default/files/styles/portrait_medium/public/tv-shows/emergency.jpg?itok=TE8sPCqQ)
I think the best part is Pelosi warning that the next Dem pres could use this precedent to grab guns. :lol: Go for it.I mean, why not? It’s an equally ludicrous premise.
i hope he follows through, this is a premier opportunity for him to get devastatingly and permanently humiliated by congress
I think the best part is Pelosi warning that the next Dem pres could use this precedent to grab guns. :lol: Go for it.I mean, why not? It’s an equally ludicrous premise.
i hope he follows through, this is a premier opportunity for him to get devastatingly and permanently humiliated by congress
an ineffectual resolution that he can veto?
I think the best part is Pelosi warning that the next Dem pres could use this precedent to grab guns. :lol: Go for it.I mean, why not? It’s an equally ludicrous premise.
Wall won’t fix it, but you know that
Wall won’t fix it, but you know that
Wall has to come with much technological counter measures as well. But keep on pointing to studies from policy wonks shoving paper around on their desk who haven't stepped out of their cubicles in months.
Wall won’t fix it, but you know that
Wall has to come with much technological counter measures as well. But keep on pointing to studies from policy wonks shoving paper around on their desk who haven't stepped out of their cubicles in months.
Wall won’t fix it, but you know that
Wall has to come with much technological counter measures as well. But keep on pointing to studies from policy wonks shoving paper around on their desk who haven't stepped out of their cubicles in months.
Why would one risk running their drugs across unwalled border sections or putting their drugs on people doing so when it's so easy to run them through the legal points of entry by the truckload?
Freaking rubes believe anything this doink tells you. Really embarrassing.
Wall won’t fix it, but you know that
Wall has to come with much technological counter measures as well. But keep on pointing to studies from policy wonks shoving paper around on their desk who haven't stepped out of their cubicles in months.
The policy wonks are definitely unqualified. Best let super qualified Trump handle it.
Will probably be more effective to stack singles on the border for how much of this wall will actually get built.
The point is not that a gun control emergency wouldn’t be stupid. It would be really stupid! So would declaring a national emergency to build something we’ve gotten by without for 174 years without much problem.
Yeah, I don’t think a wall emergency will hold up, but if it does, the next dem president will absolutely declare a climate emergency which is 1000x more legit.
Sure. What was the process we went through to build those? Unilateral declaration of a national emergency to appropriate funds and eminent domain to seize land?The point is not that a gun control emergency wouldn’t be stupid. It would be really stupid! So would declaring a national emergency to build something we’ve gotten by without for 174 years without much problem.
Don’t we already have hundreds of miles of wall and other barriers along the southern border?
Dax, do you think that drugs are here mostly because they are coming across an insecure border? Is there some fantasy that once we secure the borders, Americans won’t love drugs?
Wall won’t fix it, but you know that
Wall has to come with much technological counter measures as well. But keep on pointing to studies from policy wonks shoving paper around on their desk who haven't stepped out of their cubicles in months.
The policy wonks are definitely unqualified. Best let super qualified Trump handle it.
Will probably be more effective to stack singles on the border for how much of this wall will actually get built.
Yes, because we all know the President has no access to those who actually protect the border. Your take is :jerk: :rolleyes: :jerk:
Republicans are still the only ones talking about confiscating all the guns.
Wall won’t fix it, but you know that
Wall has to come with much technological counter measures as well. But keep on pointing to studies from policy wonks shoving paper around on their desk who haven't stepped out of their cubicles in months.
The policy wonks are definitely unqualified. Best let super qualified Trump handle it.
Will probably be more effective to stack singles on the border for how much of this wall will actually get built.
Yes, because we all know the President has no access to those who actually protect the border. Your take is :jerk: :rolleyes: :jerk:
I mean, the Texas GOP rep on the border probably has better access to those who protect it and he thinks the wall is stupid. The incredible thing, Trump has dug in so far on the wall thing he probably could get more money for actually useful stuff but instead wants to waste it.
Well you answered the question with the first word, then rambled about unrelated stuff. Thanks.Dax, do you think that drugs are here mostly because they are coming across an insecure border? Is there some fantasy that once we secure the borders, Americans won’t love drugs?
No, but the drumbeat for what is essentially an unsecure/open border by LibDerp Nation would be absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. This is all about politics for you guys.
Sadly, the mega corrupt governments to our South are not capable of controlling their own territories. It would almost be better for our national security if there was strong armed dictators with huge police states at their disposal then the mega corrupt banana republics that are there now . . . which is extremely sad to say.
Well you answered the question with the first word, then rambled about unrelated stuff. Thanks.Dax, do you think that drugs are here mostly because they are coming across an insecure border? Is there some fantasy that once we secure the borders, Americans won’t love drugs?
No, but the drumbeat for what is essentially an unsecure/open border by LibDerp Nation would be absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. This is all about politics for you guys.
Sadly, the mega corrupt governments to our South are not capable of controlling their own territories. It would almost be better for our national security if there was strong armed dictators with huge police states at their disposal then the mega corrupt banana republics that are there now . . . which is extremely sad to say.
It's :lol: to read any LibDerp talking about government waste.
Republicans are still the only ones talking about confiscating all the guns.
The ironic part is civil forfeiture is likely the largest government confiscation effort in the country and it's extremely popular with the law and order kdub crowd.
It's :lol: to read any LibDerp talking about government waste.
As with any dax talking point, Trump can do all the things he hated because Obama did something or Hillary would have.
More confiscation obsession, good grief kdub
Yeah, I don’t think a wall emergency will hold up, but if it does, the next dem president will absolutely declare a climate emergency which is 1000x more legit.
Oooh even better! Declare an emergency to confiscate people’s cars, lightbulbs, working toilets and showerheads, etc. Thats just the ticket for electoral success! :lol:
Which non-sequitur would you like me to address? The part where I’m a member of “LibDerp nation”? I guess if you’ve defined it as anything to the left of Ann Coulter, sure, but I’ve rarely voted Democrat and always show up as an outlier on the political quizzes that are posted here. Maybe we should talk about your diatribe expressing Trumpian lust for powerful dictators leading police states?Well you answered the question with the first word, then rambled about unrelated stuff. Thanks.Dax, do you think that drugs are here mostly because they are coming across an insecure border? Is there some fantasy that once we secure the borders, Americans won’t love drugs?
No, but the drumbeat for what is essentially an unsecure/open border by LibDerp Nation would be absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. This is all about politics for you guys.
Sadly, the mega corrupt governments to our South are not capable of controlling their own territories. It would almost be better for our national security if there was strong armed dictators with huge police states at their disposal then the mega corrupt banana republics that are there now . . . which is extremely sad to say.
Tapout noted. Thanks
Which non-sequitur would you like me to address? The part where I’m a member of “LibDerp nation”? I guess if you’ve defined it as anything to the left of Ann Coulter, sure, but I’ve rarely voted Democrat and always show up as an outlier on the political quizzes that are posted here. Maybe we should talk about your diatribe expressing Trumpian lust for powerful dictators leading police states?Well you answered the question with the first word, then rambled about unrelated stuff. Thanks.Dax, do you think that drugs are here mostly because they are coming across an insecure border? Is there some fantasy that once we secure the borders, Americans won’t love drugs?
No, but the drumbeat for what is essentially an unsecure/open border by LibDerp Nation would be absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. This is all about politics for you guys.
Sadly, the mega corrupt governments to our South are not capable of controlling their own territories. It would almost be better for our national security if there was strong armed dictators with huge police states at their disposal then the mega corrupt banana republics that are there now . . . which is extremely sad to say.
Tapout noted. Thanks
And of course it’s politics, the most dangerous threat to The United States is currently the president. We would all be wise to oppose him at every turn. Especially when he tries to seize additional power.
using executive power to seize private citizen's land to then throw billions of dollars at a dubious solution to a premise that is mostly supported due to scare tactics ripped from a Netflix movie will be the rube's defining moment.Which congress expressly opposes.
I cannot wait
using executive power to seize private citizen's land to then throw billions of dollars at a dubious solution to a premise that is mostly supported due to scare tactics ripped from a Netflix movie will be the rube's defining moment.Which congress expressly opposes.
I cannot wait
So much for the party of limited government.
Good grief. I'm not a lib, dax.using executive power to seize private citizen's land to then throw billions of dollars at a dubious solution to a premise that is mostly supported due to scare tactics ripped from a Netflix movie will be the rube's defining moment.Which congress expressly opposes.
I cannot wait
So much for the party of limited government.
So now we can chalk LibDerp Nation up to opposing government land grabs? Multiple decades late to that table, but welcome none-the-less I suppose.
This presser is something.
"I'm going to sign a national emergency. Great thing"
This presser is something.
"I'm going to sign a national emergency. Great thing"
https://twitter.com/tamarakeithNPR/status/1096434977489731584
I wish I could have watched it.
using executive power to seize private citizen's land to then throw billions of dollars at a dubious solution to a premise that is mostly supported due to scare tactics ripped from a Netflix movie will be the rube's defining moment.Which congress expressly opposes.
I cannot wait
So much for the party of limited government.
So now we can chalk LibDerp Nation up to opposing government land grabs? Multiple decades late to that table, but welcome none-the-less I suppose.
It's mindblowing the lack of self-awareness on display here. Dax - take a moment and think about what you're supporting. You're arguing that the president is right to declare a national emergency -- not because of any existential security threat -- but instead to give him the power to seize land from private citizens to construct an expensive and dubious solution to a dramatized problem. And you're calling me a lib?using executive power to seize private citizen's land to then throw billions of dollars at a dubious solution to a premise that is mostly supported due to scare tactics ripped from a Netflix movie will be the rube's defining moment.Which congress expressly opposes.
I cannot wait
So much for the party of limited government.
So now we can chalk LibDerp Nation up to opposing government land grabs? Multiple decades late to that table, but welcome none-the-less I suppose.
I've always been opposed to it. It's weird as hell to see you so in support of the federal government seizing private citizens land to build a ridiculous wall. What if they won't give it up? Arrest them? Take by force?
More confiscation obsession, good grief kdub
I’m (probably) exaggerating, of course. The point I’m trying to make is that comparing the use of emergency power by pubs, to secure our border, to a future progressive president’s use of emergency power to further the progressive agenda, is silly. I expect that any such progressive actions would be wildly unpopular and politically damaging. I don’t think the same is true for increasing border security, no matter what the results of selectively worded and sampled polling might suggest to you.
People like Occassional Cortex may be too stupid or radical to care, the folks who are still in charge of the Dem party know better. It’s an empty threat.
Imminent domain has always been fairly popular with both parties. It's also very necessary for building any sort of public works project.The Republican Platform literally opposes expansion of eminent domain.
Imminent domain has always been fairly popular with both parties. It's also very necessary for building any sort of public works project.The Republican Platform literally opposes expansion of eminent domain.
For something as dodgy and novel as building a border wall to curtail illegal immigration, you would think the Republican viewpoint would err on the side of protecting individuals' property rights.
It's mindblowing the lack of self-awareness on display here. Dax - take a moment and think about what you're supporting. You're arguing that the president is right to declare a national emergency -- not because of any existential security threat -- but instead to give him the power to seize land from private citizens to construct an expensive and dubious solution to a dramatized problem. And you're calling me a lib?using executive power to seize private citizen's land to then throw billions of dollars at a dubious solution to a premise that is mostly supported due to scare tactics ripped from a Netflix movie will be the rube's defining moment.Which congress expressly opposes.
I cannot wait
So much for the party of limited government.
So now we can chalk LibDerp Nation up to opposing government land grabs? Multiple decades late to that table, but welcome none-the-less I suppose.
I've always been opposed to it. It's weird as hell to see you so in support of the federal government seizing private citizens land to build a ridiculous wall. What if they won't give it up? Arrest them? Take by force?
It's OK (and good!) to say "wait a minute, this isn't what we agreed to!" You're still allowed to support the party and even the president, while recognizing that this move is complete, complete bullshit.
It's mindblowing the lack of self-awareness on display here. Dax - take a moment and think about what you're supporting. You're arguing that the president is right to declare a national emergency -- not because of any existential security threat -- but instead to give him the power to seize land from private citizens to construct an expensive and dubious solution to a dramatized problem. And you're calling me a lib?using executive power to seize private citizen's land to then throw billions of dollars at a dubious solution to a premise that is mostly supported due to scare tactics ripped from a Netflix movie will be the rube's defining moment.Which congress expressly opposes.
I cannot wait
So much for the party of limited government.
So now we can chalk LibDerp Nation up to opposing government land grabs? Multiple decades late to that table, but welcome none-the-less I suppose.
I've always been opposed to it. It's weird as hell to see you so in support of the federal government seizing private citizens land to build a ridiculous wall. What if they won't give it up? Arrest them? Take by force?
It's OK (and good!) to say "wait a minute, this isn't what we agreed to!" You're still allowed to support the party and even the president, while recognizing that this move is complete, complete bullshit.
The only reason you're opposing this, is because 1. It's Trump 2. You want an open border.
First of all, the border which is the demarcation point for a nations sovereign territory absolutely falls under the purview of the Government, anything to the contrary is laughable. The fact that LibDerp Nation is trying to say a border and border security wall falls into the category of Bill or Barry stroking a pen and grabbing hundreds of thousands of acres of land in Utah or Nevada is comical in every respect.
It's mindblowing the lack of self-awareness on display here. Dax - take a moment and think about what you're supporting. You're arguing that the president is right to declare a national emergency -- not because of any existential security threat -- but instead to give him the power to seize land from private citizens to construct an expensive and dubious solution to a dramatized problem. And you're calling me a lib?using executive power to seize private citizen's land to then throw billions of dollars at a dubious solution to a premise that is mostly supported due to scare tactics ripped from a Netflix movie will be the rube's defining moment.Which congress expressly opposes.
I cannot wait
So much for the party of limited government.
So now we can chalk LibDerp Nation up to opposing government land grabs? Multiple decades late to that table, but welcome none-the-less I suppose.
I've always been opposed to it. It's weird as hell to see you so in support of the federal government seizing private citizens land to build a ridiculous wall. What if they won't give it up? Arrest them? Take by force?
It's OK (and good!) to say "wait a minute, this isn't what we agreed to!" You're still allowed to support the party and even the president, while recognizing that this move is complete, complete bullshit.
The only reason you're opposing this, is because 1. It's Trump 2. You want an open border.
First of all, the border which is the demarcation point for a nations sovereign territory absolutely falls under the purview of the Government, anything to the contrary is laughable. The fact that LibDerp Nation is trying to say a border and border security wall falls into the category of Bill or Barry stroking a pen and grabbing hundreds of thousands of acres of land in Utah or Nevada is comical in every respect.
now tell me why you support the use of the "national emergency" declarartion in this instance..
:bwpopcorn:
You can tell someone is losing an argument when they tell the other side what they believe.
"I'm not going to argue with what you're saying, I'm going to argue with what I say you believe!"
You can tell someone is losing an argument when they tell the other side what they believe.
"I'm not going to argue with what you're saying, I'm going to argue with what I say you believe!"
You can tell someone is losing an argument when they tell the other side what they believe.
"I'm not going to argue with what you're saying, I'm going to argue with what I say you believe!"
this makes me sad
:cry:
if it is true then it means Dax never wins
but really though Dax why do you support this use of executive overrreach?
because of poor guatemalans?
We should come to an agreement with Mexico and Canada that lets us move freely between the countries without a passport and even live and work there if we want to. That would be great.
We should come to an agreement with Mexico and Canada that lets us move freely between the countries without a passport and even live and work there if we want to. That would be great.
We should come to an agreement with Mexico and Canada that lets us move freely between the countries without a passport and even live and work there if we want to. That would be great.
Where is the capital of this North American Union?
You can tell someone is losing an argument when they tell the other side what they believe.
"I'm not going to argue with what you're saying, I'm going to argue with what I say you believe!"
this makes me sad
:cry:
if it is true then it means Dax never wins
but really though Dax why do you support this use of executive overrreach?
because of poor guatemalans?
So in your world immigration and national security does not fall under the executive branch?
The "poor Guatemalans" falls on deaf ears because I'll just redirect you back to your guy lovin all over those Central American thugs running those countries.
You are complicit in helping to create those "poor Guatemalans".
When arguing with Dax, it’s important to remember that he is a 9/11 truther (and JFK!). Nothing is going to convince him. Questionable propaganda is his bible.
How great would it be if we could get the AU capital to be in Kansas!? Pompeo??? Maybe we should invite the UK to be a part of the AU.
How great would it be if we could get the AU capital to be in Kansas!? Pompeo??? Maybe we should invite the UK to be a part of the AU.
How great would it be if we could get the AU capital to be in Kansas!? Pompeo??? Maybe we should invite the UK to be a part of the AU.
Salina has been building 100 years for this very day
How great would it be if we could get the AU capital to be in Kansas!? Pompeo??? Maybe we should invite the UK to be a part of the AU.
I think the UK would probably join us if we asked them nicely enough.
You can tell someone is losing an argument when they tell the other side what they believe.
"I'm not going to argue with what you're saying, I'm going to argue with what I say you believe!"
this makes me sad
:cry:
if it is true then it means Dax never wins
but really though Dax why do you support this use of executive overrreach?
because of poor guatemalans?
So in your world immigration and national security does not fall under the executive branch?
The "poor Guatemalans" falls on deaf ears because I'll just redirect you back to your guy lovin all over those Central American thugs running those countries.
You are complicit in helping to create those "poor Guatemalans".
You can tell someone is losing an argument when they tell the other side what they believe.
"I'm not going to argue with what you're saying, I'm going to argue with what I say you believe!"
this makes me sad
:cry:
if it is true then it means Dax never wins
but really though Dax why do you support this use of executive overrreach?
because of poor guatemalans?
So in your world immigration and national security does not fall under the executive branch?
The "poor Guatemalans" falls on deaf ears because I'll just redirect you back to your guy lovin all over those Central American thugs running those countries.
You are complicit in helping to create those "poor Guatemalans".
:jerk:
so for future discourse you believe this to be a legitimate use of the "national emergency" declaration?
Literally unable to answer a simple question lol:lol: Oh LibDerp7, you never answer anything.
Immigrants can't vote, dax. You have to be a citizen to vote.
School boards must be the first step in the ascendance to power.
Immigrants can't vote, dax. You have to be a citizen to vote.
You can tell someone is losing an argument when they tell the other side what they believe.
"I'm not going to argue with what you're saying, I'm going to argue with what I say you believe!"
this makes me sad
:cry:
if it is true then it means Dax never wins
but really though Dax why do you support this use of executive overrreach?
because of poor guatemalans?
So in your world immigration and national security does not fall under the executive branch?
The "poor Guatemalans" falls on deaf ears because I'll just redirect you back to your guy lovin all over those Central American thugs running those countries.
You are complicit in helping to create those "poor Guatemalans".
:jerk:
so for future discourse you believe this to be a legitimate use of the "national emergency" declaration?
First of all, it's absolutely pathetic (but not at all unexpected) that resident LibDerps never want to talk about the root cause.
Congress has had ample time to act. Think about it (well, let me think about it for your, since you won't) . . . you guys have absolutely melted down about the border but your only solution is just an open border free-for-all (and then to be able to go out and run on that with legions of new voters . . . weirdly, LibDerp Nation always forgets about the impact of local elections and the ascendance to power . . . which likely driven by the fact that numerous icons of the Lib movement ascended to power on the back of voter fraud in local elections . . . but I digress).
The president has asked for comprehensive immigration reform and the best that's been come up with is idiocy: Insta-Amnesty and additional mechanisms which only play straight into the hands of the traffickers. Like the idiocy of the expanded sponsorship status in this current bill.
You can tell someone is losing an argument when they tell the other side what they believe.
"I'm not going to argue with what you're saying, I'm going to argue with what I say you believe!"
this makes me sad
:cry:
if it is true then it means Dax never wins
but really though Dax why do you support this use of executive overrreach?
because of poor guatemalans?
So in your world immigration and national security does not fall under the executive branch?
The "poor Guatemalans" falls on deaf ears because I'll just redirect you back to your guy lovin all over those Central American thugs running those countries.
You are complicit in helping to create those "poor Guatemalans".
:jerk:
so for future discourse you believe this to be a legitimate use of the "national emergency" declaration?
First of all, it's absolutely pathetic (but not at all unexpected) that resident LibDerps never want to talk about the root cause.
Congress has had ample time to act. Think about it (well, let me think about it for your, since you won't) . . . you guys have absolutely melted down about the border but your only solution is just an open border free-for-all (and then to be able to go out and run on that with legions of new voters . . . weirdly, LibDerp Nation always forgets about the impact of local elections and the ascendance to power . . . which likely driven by the fact that numerous icons of the Lib movement ascended to power on the back of voter fraud in local elections . . . but I digress).
The president has asked for comprehensive immigration reform and the best that's been come up with is idiocy: Insta-Amnesty and additional mechanisms which only play straight into the hands of the traffickers. Like the idiocy of the expanded sponsorship status in this current bill.
so yes
The only reason you're opposing this, is because 1. It's Trump 2. You want an open border.I do not care that it's Trump. The border is one of the issues I care about least either way. I'm opposed to an "open border," but I'm not sure a wall is the best allocation of resources. Maybe it is? Who am i to say? If Congress put money up for it, I don't care. If Congress didn't, I don't care. But honestly - wall/no wall. I don't give a crap. My beef has little to do with the wall itself.
First of all, the border which is the demarcation point for a nations sovereign territory absolutely falls under the purview of the Government, anything to the contrary is laughable. The fact that LibDerp Nation is trying to say a border and border security wall falls into the category of Bill or Barry stroking a pen and grabbing hundreds of thousands of acres of land in Utah or Nevada is comical in every respect.
The great deal maker can't move Congress (which his team controls) in two years to act on an initiative rubes we're chanting about with bloodthirst and dax is over hear blaming everybody else in 2019.
Great stuff.
Not one person has ever posted."all I want is an open border" on here but dax needs that stawman to base his wall of text on.
The great deal maker can't move Congress (which his team controls) in two years to act on an initiative rubes we're chanting about with bloodthirst and dax is over hear blaming everybody else in 2019.
Great stuff.
Pubs control the House? Revisionism on display right there.
8 long years to pass comprehensive immigration reform: Phil's guy gets a solid F-
https://twitter.com/hale_razor/status/1096463616880963589?s=21
Not one person has ever posted."all I want is an open border" on here but dax needs that stawman to base his wall of text on.
The policies and politicians you support belie this statement in it's entirety.
Quit lying, Phil.
The great deal maker can't move Congress (which his team controls) in two years to act on an initiative rubes we're chanting about with bloodthirst and dax is over hear blaming everybody else in 2019.
Great stuff.
Pubs control the House? Revisionism on display right there.
8 long years to pass comprehensive immigration reform: Phil's guy gets a solid F-
Rubes aren't the best at reading.
I already agreed prior administrations (plural) have failed partly due to nobody was that into this topic until you got hoarse chanting build the wall. I also asked you to expand on what you think comprehensive immigration reform looks like.
Crickets.
Not one person has ever posted."all I want is an open border" on here but dax needs that stawman to base his wall of text on.
The policies and politicians you support belie this statement in it's entirety.
Quit lying, Phil.
Your tapout is noted. Moving on.
https://twitter.com/hale_razor/status/1096463616880963589?s=21
https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/1096242114520928258
Not one person has ever posted."all I want is an open border" on here but dax needs that stawman to base his wall of text on.
The policies and politicians you support belie this statement in it's entirety.
Quit lying, Phil.
Your tapout is noted. Moving on.
It's either one of two things, Phil. Either you guys are playing politics with national security, or you want open borders. Which is it?
The levels of illegal border crossing/attempted illegal border is at unprecedented levels.
Fixing the border without a rough ridin' medieval wall.
The great deal maker can't move Congress (which his team controls) in two years to act on an initiative rubes we're chanting about with bloodthirst and dax is over hear blaming everybody else in 2019.
Great stuff.
Pubs control the House? Revisionism on display right there.
8 long years to pass comprehensive immigration reform: Phil's guy gets a solid F-
Rubes aren't the best at reading.
I already agreed prior administrations (plural) have failed partly due to nobody was that into this topic until you got hoarse chanting build the wall. I also asked you to expand on what you think comprehensive immigration reform looks like.
Crickets.
The president called on Congress to bring immigration reform legislation repeatedly. Your guy stood up on multiple occasions as a Sen and extolled the need for comprehensive immigration reform while in the same breath saying that the U.S. needed much tougher border security. You people talked about walls all the time, except it was virtual walls using high tech gear. That was before your guy and his minions went about propping up the Central American thugs and the humanitarian and human rights crisis that entailed.
The levels of illegal border crossing/attempted illegal border is at unprecedented levels.
Good one, Dax!
:lol:
The great deal maker can't move Congress (which his team controls) in two years to act on an initiative rubes we're chanting about with bloodthirst and dax is over hear blaming everybody else in 2019.
Great stuff.
Pubs control the House? Revisionism on display right there.
8 long years to pass comprehensive immigration reform: Phil's guy gets a solid F-
Rubes aren't the best at reading.
I already agreed prior administrations (plural) have failed partly due to nobody was that into this topic until you got hoarse chanting build the wall. I also asked you to expand on what you think comprehensive immigration reform looks like.
Crickets.
The president called on Congress to bring immigration reform legislation repeatedly. Your guy stood up on multiple occasions as a Sen and extolled the need for comprehensive immigration reform while in the same breath saying that the U.S. needed much tougher border security. You people talked about walls all the time, except it was virtual walls using high tech gear. That was before your guy and his minions went about propping up the Central American thugs and the humanitarian and human rights crisis that entailed.
Dealmakers gets things done when he holds all the cards for 2 years. Just admit he failed.
I had no idea that dax was this horny for an emergency wall.
The levels of illegal border crossing/attempted illegal border is at unprecedented levels.
Good one, Dax!
:lol:
At current pace, it will at minimum blow by the previous 5 Federal Fiscal Years by a wide margin, likely months early. The current FFY avg is 60K caught/inadmissible a month . . . that's just what they catch.
The levels of illegal border crossing/attempted illegal border is at unprecedented levels.
Good one, Dax!
:lol:
At current pace, it will at minimum blow by the previous 5 Federal Fiscal Years by a wide margin, likely months early. The current FFY avg is 60K caught/inadmissible a month . . . that's just what they catch.
Where'd you get your numbers, Dax?
The only reason you're opposing this, is because 1. It's Trump 2. You want an open border.I do not care that it's Trump. The border is one of the issues I care about least either way. I'm opposed to an "open border," but I'm not sure a wall is the best allocation of resources. Maybe it is? Who am i to say? If Congress put money up for it, I don't care. If Congress didn't, I don't care. But honestly - wall/no wall. I don't give a crap. My beef has little to do with the wall itself.
First of all, the border which is the demarcation point for a nations sovereign territory absolutely falls under the purview of the Government, anything to the contrary is laughable. The fact that LibDerp Nation is trying to say a border and border security wall falls into the category of Bill or Barry stroking a pen and grabbing hundreds of thousands of acres of land in Utah or Nevada is comical in every respect.
My main beef with this is the president unilaterally expanding his power. This is why we have congress. This is why we have separation of powers. Letting the president unilaterally push through what amounts to legislation of his campaign promise tosses all that crap right in the garbage.
I griped about Obama doing similar stuff (just as I'm sure you did).
I had no idea that dax was this horny for an emergency wall.
I had no idea that dax was this horny for an emergency wall.
Obviously dax has had some really epic and memorable meltdowns, but I don't ever remember him being so enthusiastic.
And let's not forget we weren't even paying for it.
Failure. Just a microcosm of the entire administration
I'm happy for.you dax. You obviously love overreacting government and getting it in spades today. Enjoy the weekend!
The levels of illegal border crossing/attempted illegal border is at unprecedented levels.
Good one, Dax!
:lol:
At current pace, it will at minimum blow by the previous 5 Federal Fiscal Years by a wide margin, likely months early. The current FFY avg is 60K caught/inadmissible a month . . . that's just what they catch.
Where'd you get your numbers, Dax?
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
Coulter really hit the nail on the head.
Sorry guys, I’m on vacation and I just don’t have time to play whackamole with all your stupid arguments or even read all your posts. But I did see we appear to be circling back to eminent domain? :lol: Here’s the thing: the a slight difference between the use of eminent domain for a genuine public purpose, like say, building a border wall, and leveling a couple blocks of poorer homes to build a fancy new strip mall for more tax revenue (the kind of ED libs love - see Kelo). Of you own land on an international border then selling a strip of it for a border wall probably should not come as a great surprise. And I don’t think the “plight” of the ranchers subject to ED is going to sway much public opinion. But anyway, by all means keep going with this argument. :lol:You're lol'ing a lot about this, but I'm not sure there's any precedent for "public use" for a border wall or any other border security measure. This wall isn't a highway. Not to mention, it does seem odd that the executive of the federal government can unilaterally enact a taking for any reason. That doesn't strike you as troubling at all? Maybe I hold individual liberty in higher regard than you on this issue.
Trump said today that he didn't need to declare this emergency, but only did it so it would get done faster. Does him saying that make legal action against it more likely to succeed?It certainly should! But this whole thing is such a shitshow and otherwise intelligent people (e.g. Dax, Dub) are so tied in intellectual knots that who knows.
Trump said today that he didn't need to declare this emergency, but only did it so it would get done faster. Does him saying that make legal action against it more likely to succeed?It certainly should! But this whole thing is such a shitshow and otherwise intelligent people (e.g. Dax, Dub) are so tied in intellectual knots that who knows.
Conservatives cheering-on the president circumventing Congress' refusal to spend billions, execute "military eminent domain" (whatever that is), citing a "national emergency" that even the president admitted wasn't a "national emergency" - wake the eff up. This is conservatism now? This is the type of crap conservatives root for now?
Because it sounds a lot like government waste and executive overreach to me.
Neither of them believe anything they say on here. It’s just escapism from real life to flame everyone and construct arguments counter to everyone else.
You’re just a libtard and you were silent for decades while your guy committed countless atrocitiesTrump said today that he didn't need to declare this emergency, but only did it so it would get done faster. Does him saying that make legal action against it more likely to succeed?It certainly should! But this whole thing is such a shitshow and otherwise intelligent people (e.g. Dax, Dub) are so tied in intellectual knots that who knows.
Conservatives cheering-on the president circumventing Congress' refusal to spend billions, execute "military eminent domain" (whatever that is), citing a "national emergency" that even the president admitted wasn't a "national emergency" - wake the eff up. This is conservatism now? This is the type of crap conservatives root for now?
Because it sounds a lot like government waste and executive overreach to me.
Neither of them believe anything they say on here. It’s just escapism from real life to flame everyone and construct arguments counter to everyone else.I don't think kazdub is in support of the federal government seizing land.
Sorry guys, I’m on vacation and I just don’t have time to play whackamole with all your stupid arguments or even read all your posts. But I did see we appear to be circling back to eminent domain? :lol: Here’s the thing: the a slight difference between the use of eminent domain for a genuine public purpose, like say, building a border wall, and leveling a couple blocks of poorer homes to build a fancy new strip mall for more tax revenue (the kind of ED libs love - see Kelo). Of you own land on an international border then selling a strip of it for a border wall probably should not come as a great surprise. And I don’t think the “plight” of the ranchers subject to ED is going to sway much public opinion. But anyway, by all means keep going with this argument. :lol:
Neither of them believe anything they say on here. It’s just escapism from real life to flame everyone and construct arguments counter to everyone else.I don't think kazdub is in support of the federal government seizing land.
Neither of them believe anything they say on here. It’s just escapism from real life to flame everyone and construct arguments counter to everyone else.I don't think kazdub is in support of the federal government seizing land.
I support eminent domain for legitimate public use. It’s in the Constitution. There’s a big damn difference between a genuine public use, such as building an interstate highway or a dam or a border wall, and simply taking land from one owner to sell to a developer for the “public benefit” of higher tax revenue, as the Kelo decision held. What a shitty, inexcusably awful Supreme Court decision. A 5-4 decision with the libs plus Kennedy.
I believe everything I’ve said here about immigration. When I’m making fun of the liberals, it should be evident. Illegal immigration is a problem for all sorts of reasons: lack of assimilation, crime, a drain on public resources (health, education, etc.), driving down wages, etc. Border walls work, especially when combined with other resources, which is why we already have hundreds of miles of border wall and other barriers and why border agents overwhelmingly support more.
I think declaring an emergency to reallocate money to build the wall is legally complicated and questionable. It will certainly be enjoined by 9th circuit district and appellate judges, but that means nothing. Not sure how the SC would rule if they even granted cert. it’s certainly not my preferred way to build a wall, but Trump is never going to get adequate funds from Congress, and the Pubs are just as much to blame for that as the Dems.
Immigration is one of several areas where Trump has failed miserably because he is neither smart enough nor politically engaged to keep the Pubs in line. I have a seperate post outlining Trump’s successes and failures, and how those relate to his strengths and weaknesses.
What else do I need to say? Continue blathering away if it makes you happy.
Per google (biased?), “libderp” is still a gE exclusive. We need to figure out how to monetize the term before it goes mainstream.
Neither of them believe anything they say on here. It’s just escapism from real life to flame everyone and construct arguments counter to everyone else.I don't think kazdub is in support of the federal government seizing land.
I support eminent domain for legitimate public use. It’s in the Constitution. There’s a big damn difference between a genuine public use, such as building an interstate highway or a dam or a border wall, and simply taking land from one owner to sell to a developer for the “public benefit” of higher tax revenue, as the Kelo decision held. What a shitty, inexcusably awful Supreme Court decision. A 5-4 decision with the libs plus Kennedy.
I believe everything I’ve said here about immigration. When I’m making fun of the liberals, it should be evident. Illegal immigration is a problem for all sorts of reasons: lack of assimilation, crime, a drain on public resources (health, education, etc.), driving down wages, etc. Border walls work, especially when combined with other resources, which is why we already have hundreds of miles of border wall and other barriers and why border agents overwhelmingly support more.
I think declaring an emergency to reallocate money to build the wall is legally complicated and questionable. It will certainly be enjoined by 9th circuit district and appellate judges, but that means nothing. Not sure how the SC would rule if they even granted cert. it’s certainly not my preferred way to build a wall, but Trump is never going to get adequate funds from Congress, and the Pubs are just as much to blame for that as the Dems.
Immigration is one of several areas where Trump has failed miserably because he is neither smart enough nor politically engaged to keep the Pubs in line. I have a seperate post outlining Trump’s successes and failures, and how those relate to his strengths and weaknesses.
What else do I need to say? Continue blathering away if it makes you happy.
Yeah, blighting out an area so a developer can come bang out a project is not what ED is for. I agree with most of what you said.
I think legislating through National Emergency is a bad plan for a lot of reasons.
But congressional stalemates exist for a reason, right? The rules aren't supposed to be "well if Congress can't agree, the tiebreaker goes to the president and he can do whatever he wants." That's the whole point of separation of powers. Whether we want to fund a border wall seems like a quintessentially legislative task.Neither of them believe anything they say on here. It’s just escapism from real life to flame everyone and construct arguments counter to everyone else.I don't think kazdub is in support of the federal government seizing land.
I support eminent domain for legitimate public use. It’s in the Constitution. There’s a big damn difference between a genuine public use, such as building an interstate highway or a dam or a border wall, and simply taking land from one owner to sell to a developer for the “public benefit” of higher tax revenue, as the Kelo decision held. What a shitty, inexcusably awful Supreme Court decision. A 5-4 decision with the libs plus Kennedy.
I believe everything I’ve said here about immigration. When I’m making fun of the liberals, it should be evident. Illegal immigration is a problem for all sorts of reasons: lack of assimilation, crime, a drain on public resources (health, education, etc.), driving down wages, etc. Border walls work, especially when combined with other resources, which is why we already have hundreds of miles of border wall and other barriers and why border agents overwhelmingly support more.
I think declaring an emergency to reallocate money to build the wall is legally complicated and questionable. It will certainly be enjoined by 9th circuit district and appellate judges, but that means nothing. Not sure how the SC would rule if they even granted cert. it’s certainly not my preferred way to build a wall, but Trump is never going to get adequate funds from Congress, and the Pubs are just as much to blame for that as the Dems.
Immigration is one of several areas where Trump has failed miserably because he is neither smart enough nor politically engaged to keep the Pubs in line. I have a seperate post outlining Trump’s successes and failures, and how those relate to his strengths and weaknesses.
What else do I need to say? Continue blathering away if it makes you happy.
Yeah, blighting out an area so a developer can come bang out a project is not what ED is for. I agree with most of what you said.
I think legislating through National Emergency is a bad plan for a lot of reasons.
:cheers: I agree with you. I don’t like it either, but mainly because I don’t like that we’ve come to this point. If Trump we’re smarter and more politically engaged, if many Republicans weren’t so corrupt, if the Democrats weren’t so uniformly desicated to open borders - there’s a lot of blame to go around.
But congressional stalemates exist for a reason, right? The rules aren't supposed to be "well if Congress can't agree, the tiebreaker goes to the president and he can do whatever he wants." That's the whole point of separation of powers. Whether we want to fund a border wall seems like a quintessentially legislative task.Neither of them believe anything they say on here. It’s just escapism from real life to flame everyone and construct arguments counter to everyone else.I don't think kazdub is in support of the federal government seizing land.
I support eminent domain for legitimate public use. It’s in the Constitution. There’s a big damn difference between a genuine public use, such as building an interstate highway or a dam or a border wall, and simply taking land from one owner to sell to a developer for the “public benefit” of higher tax revenue, as the Kelo decision held. What a shitty, inexcusably awful Supreme Court decision. A 5-4 decision with the libs plus Kennedy.
I believe everything I’ve said here about immigration. When I’m making fun of the liberals, it should be evident. Illegal immigration is a problem for all sorts of reasons: lack of assimilation, crime, a drain on public resources (health, education, etc.), driving down wages, etc. Border walls work, especially when combined with other resources, which is why we already have hundreds of miles of border wall and other barriers and why border agents overwhelmingly support more.
I think declaring an emergency to reallocate money to build the wall is legally complicated and questionable. It will certainly be enjoined by 9th circuit district and appellate judges, but that means nothing. Not sure how the SC would rule if they even granted cert. it’s certainly not my preferred way to build a wall, but Trump is never going to get adequate funds from Congress, and the Pubs are just as much to blame for that as the Dems.
Immigration is one of several areas where Trump has failed miserably because he is neither smart enough nor politically engaged to keep the Pubs in line. I have a seperate post outlining Trump’s successes and failures, and how those relate to his strengths and weaknesses.
What else do I need to say? Continue blathering away if it makes you happy.
Yeah, blighting out an area so a developer can come bang out a project is not what ED is for. I agree with most of what you said.
I think legislating through National Emergency is a bad plan for a lot of reasons.
:cheers: I agree with you. I don’t like it either, but mainly because I don’t like that we’ve come to this point. If Trump we’re smarter and more politically engaged, if many Republicans weren’t so corrupt, if the Democrats weren’t so uniformly desicated to open borders - there’s a lot of blame to go around.
Hey Dlew . . . you guys facilitated a climate with your guy where he didn't ask Congress for multiple things and he just went ahead and did them.Yes. Dlew12, Obama apologist. You've got me nailed on that one.
Libya, Iran, Syria etc. etc.
Enforcing laws - including all the existing immigration laws - is quintessentially a task for the executive branch. That’s Civics 101.Sure, but allocating money for the wall (which is one, of many possible methods of "enforcing the law") isn't the responsibility of the executive. You're getting pretty liberal with your job description of the president if you think he can unilaterally fund something like this - and, hey, maybe you want to expand executive power, but you have to understand that's what's happening here.
I honestly think we’ve gotten to a point where people have actually forgotten that it’s against the law to enter the United States without authorization. The border wall isn’t a new law (purview of the legislature) - it’s means of enforcing existing law. That’s the job of the executive.
Now, compare to what Obama did with DACA. He stretched the concept of “prosecutorial discretion” to a whole new level by exempting a broad classification of people from enforcement of existing immigration law. Changing laws is quintessentially a legislative function, not for the executive.
It's an interesting question of law. All judges profess to uphold the separation of powers, but in reality the jurisprudence is "squishy" (<-- super technical legal jargon). Sure, the purse strings belong to the Legislative branch, but the Executive branch has plenary authority over international affairs. Could they take that angle, and would it work? Lots of room for judges to rule however they want. Me personally, I think you have to take a pragmatic view and call this an unlawful usurpation of power by the Executive. Would be nice to get some good precedent in the books.
This isn’t about enforcing laws. This is about Trump asking for a budgeted amount to build a new structure, getting only part of the amount he asked for, and then budgeting the rest himself.
Right. We're "getting into the source of the funding" in a thread criticizing the president's declaration of a national emergency in order to fund something.It's an interesting question of law. All judges profess to uphold the separation of powers, but in reality the jurisprudence is "squishy" (<-- super technical legal jargon). Sure, the purse strings belong to the Legislative branch, but the Executive branch has plenary authority over international affairs. Could they take that angle, and would it work? Lots of room for judges to rule however they want. Me personally, I think you have to take a pragmatic view and call this an unlawful usurpation of power by the Executive. Would be nice to get some good precedent in the books.
You’re getting into the source of the funding, which is an interesting and complicated legal issue. But more fundamentally, setting aside the cost of the wall, enforcing immigration law is not only appropriate for the executive - it is the executive’s responsibility. As for the funds, I think that Trump will probably prevail at the Supreme Court, but I wouldn’t say I’m nearly as confident as, say, the travel ban.
This isn’t about enforcing laws. This is about Trump asking for a budgeted amount to build a new structure, getting only part of the amount he asked for, and then budgeting the rest himself.
But the crux is that you're complaining about an empirical president, and yet you said nothing when your guy was acting like an empirical president.
The simple facts are, you stood complicity by and allowed forays to far off lands for unneeded wars, and now you complain when there is a real issue right at the front door of the homeland.
Once again, resident LibDerp Nation and the resident Fake Moderate think that agreement with Trump on one set of issues, is an agreement with Trump on all issues.I do not like when the executive effectively legislates. I didn't like it when Obama did it. I don't like it now. I disapprove of the practice, and I do not believe the ends justify the means on this issue.
Tremendous hyper partisanship on display as usual from these people. You quite literally had years to make your voices heard on these exact same kind of issues, but chose to remain utterly complicit to your party and your guy in the White House.
SMDH, sad.
Once again, resident LibDerp Nation and the resident Fake Moderate think that agreement with Trump on one set of issues, is an agreement with Trump on all issues.I do not like when the executive effectively legislates. I didn't like it when Obama did it. I don't like it now. I disapprove of the practice, and I do not believe the ends justify the means on this issue.
Tremendous hyper partisanship on display as usual from these people. You quite literally had years to make your voices heard on these exact same kind of issues, but chose to remain utterly complicit to your party and your guy in the White House.
SMDH, sad.
Dax/KSU-W (I assume) did not approve when Obama did it. Do they approve of it when Trump does it? Honest question.
Once again, resident LibDerp Nation and the resident Fake Moderate think that agreement with Trump on one set of issues, is an agreement with Trump on all issues.I do not like when the executive effectively legislates. I didn't like it when Obama did it. I don't like it now. I disapprove of the practice, and I do not believe the ends justify the means on this issue.
Tremendous hyper partisanship on display as usual from these people. You quite literally had years to make your voices heard on these exact same kind of issues, but chose to remain utterly complicit to your party and your guy in the White House.
SMDH, sad.
Dax/KSU-W (I assume) did not approve when Obama did it. Do they approve of it when Trump does it? Honest question.
You didn't really explain it. The overreach here is the president unilaterally securing funding for this, despite Congress' unambiguous opposition to the funding. Do you think the president should have the power to fund projects after congress refuses to fund them?Once again, resident LibDerp Nation and the resident Fake Moderate think that agreement with Trump on one set of issues, is an agreement with Trump on all issues.I do not like when the executive effectively legislates. I didn't like it when Obama did it. I don't like it now. I disapprove of the practice, and I do not believe the ends justify the means on this issue.
Tremendous hyper partisanship on display as usual from these people. You quite literally had years to make your voices heard on these exact same kind of issues, but chose to remain utterly complicit to your party and your guy in the White House.
SMDH, sad.
Dax/KSU-W (I assume) did not approve when Obama did it. Do they approve of it when Trump does it? Honest question.
I already explained above that at least with respect to immigration there is a significant difference between the propriety of Obama and Trump’s actions.
Do you think SCOTUS (or some other body) should provide a high level of scrutiny as to what constitutes an "emergency" or should the executive be left to its own devices when it legislates like this?Once again, resident LibDerp Nation and the resident Fake Moderate think that agreement with Trump on one set of issues, is an agreement with Trump on all issues.I do not like when the executive effectively legislates. I didn't like it when Obama did it. I don't like it now. I disapprove of the practice, and I do not believe the ends justify the means on this issue.
Tremendous hyper partisanship on display as usual from these people. You quite literally had years to make your voices heard on these exact same kind of issues, but chose to remain utterly complicit to your party and your guy in the White House.
SMDH, sad.
Dax/KSU-W (I assume) did not approve when Obama did it. Do they approve of it when Trump does it? Honest question.
I am on the fence if I agree with it on this particular issue. I would disagree with it very much if it meant another new war or similar.
They're apprehending (again, that's just the number caught) 60K a month at the Southern Border. It's an emergency. The only reason that LibDerp Nation doesn't think it is, is because of Trump, period.
In regards to immigration and maintaining of national sovereignty, that falls exclusively under the executive branch.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/border-patrol-agents-apprehend-large-group-del-rio
including nationals from Angola, Cameroon and Congo - apprehended on the Southwest border this year.
https://www.voanews.com/a/ebola-cases-soar-democratic-republic-of-congo/4945762.html
Gestational/incubation period of Ebola before the onset of symptoms can be as long as 21 days with a mean gestational period of approximately 12.5 days.
Tomorrow there are approximately 50 flights available that will carry a person from Ndjili International Airport, Kinshasa (Republic of Congo) and ultimately deposit the ticket purchaser in Mexico City in a little over a day.
Not an emergency though.
Having lived in a city that had an ebola "outbreak" I'm gonna say agree with Dax. Not an emergency.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/border-patrol-agents-apprehend-large-group-del-rio
including nationals from Angola, Cameroon and Congo - apprehended on the Southwest border this year.
https://www.voanews.com/a/ebola-cases-soar-democratic-republic-of-congo/4945762.html
Gestational/incubation period of Ebola before the onset of symptoms can be as long as 21 days with a mean gestational period of approximately 12.5 days.
Tomorrow there are approximately 50 flights available that will carry a person from Ndjili International Airport, Kinshasa (Republic of Congo) and ultimately deposit the ticket purchaser in Mexico City in a little over a day.
Not an emergency though.
no wall needed, caught. :driving:
Having lived in a city that had an ebola "outbreak" I'm gonna say agree with Dax. Not an emergency.
I lived in a city with a major flu outbreak, didn’t get the flu, never gonna get a flu shot again because I didn’t get the flu that one time.
Note to self: Never vote for catast for public health commissioner
Having lived in a city that had an ebola "outbreak" I'm gonna say agree with Dax. Not an emergency.
I lived in a city with a major flu outbreak, didn’t get the flu, never gonna get a flu shot again because I didn’t get the flu that one time.
Note to self: Never vote for catast for public health commissioner
Yeah I’m pretty sure he didn’t declare an emergency either.
Yeah I don’t think the WHO or CDC has declared an emergency in the US either.
I think you meant to quote chum1’s post.
This justification Dax is using is rough ridin' hilarious when a new vaccine is 97.5% effective. This talking point is just a cover for the real reason, it was never about Ebola.
https://www.statnews.com/2019/04/12/the-data-are-clear-ebola-vaccine-shows-very-impressive-performance-in-outbreak/
Ebola is pretty easy to contain in developed countries. Dax and the intellectual dark web appear to be the only ones who think otherwise.
What have they said about this crisis in the US again?
The part where you said the WHO had weighed in on it.
This justification Dax is using is rough ridin' hilarious when a new vaccine is 97.5% effective. This talking point is just a cover for the real reason, it was never about Ebola.
https://www.statnews.com/2019/04/12/the-data-are-clear-ebola-vaccine-shows-very-impressive-performance-in-outbreak/
Tell that to the nearly 1000 people who just died from Ebola in the Congo. You're such a rough ridin' idiot.
This justification Dax is using is rough ridin' hilarious when a new vaccine is 97.5% effective. This talking point is just a cover for the real reason, it was never about Ebola.
https://www.statnews.com/2019/04/12/the-data-are-clear-ebola-vaccine-shows-very-impressive-performance-in-outbreak/
Tell that to the nearly 1000 people who just died from Ebola in the Congo. You're such a rough ridin' idiot.
What if I told you if you hadn’t gotten the vaccine you are still susceptible :horrorsurprise:
It’s sad seeing Dax just flailing around like this. :frown:
Think dax is trying to reinvigorate the old Trump "why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?" quote.
I'm not familiar with what you are referencing
I'm not familiar with what you are referencing
You paying attention to nearly anything is a challenge.
I'm not familiar with what you are referencing
You paying attention to nearly anything is a challenge.
Sorry someone called your town a shithole. That was v mean of them.
The Ebola angle is very creative (combines white people's fear of Mexicans and Africans), where did this talking point originate?
Yeah this whole border/immigration thing is super new to me.
Twitter can be confusing
Will you Trump people ever learn all these other countries do is give trump.lip service which allows him the chance to declare victory and back down his dumb ideas nobody supports?
Guess that's why you are called rubes.
Will you Trump people ever learn all these other countries do is give trump.lip service which allows him the chance to declare victory and back down his dumb ideas nobody supports?
Guess that's why you are called rubes.
Will you Trump people ever learn all these other countries do is give trump.lip service which allows him the chance to declare victory and back down his dumb ideas nobody supports?
Guess that's why you are called rubes.
Useful Idiot LibDerp Nation whose leaders did a 180 on the border January 2017 (after years of Schumer and Pelosi talking tough on the border, and even at one time the horrible President Barry Obama railing on illegals for thinking they could just cross and stay . . . With all but the very far left pro immigration movement in full jackbooted lockstep with Pelosi, Schumer-Obama) . . . Are totally triggered by anything trying to stem the flow that’s topped 100k a month.
SMDH
Useful Idiot LibDerp Nation whose leaders did a 180 on the border January 2017 (after years of Schumer and Pelosi talking tough on the border, and even at one time the horrible President Barry Obama railing on illegals for thinking they could just cross and stay . . . With all but the very far left pro immigration movement in full jackbooted lockstep with Pelosi, Schumer-Obama) . . . Are totally triggered by anything trying to stem the flow that’s topped 100k a month.
SMDH
So you agree idiot Trump supporters get fooled monthly by his rooze
Useful Idiot LibDerp Nation whose leaders did a 180 on the border January 2017 (after years of Schumer and Pelosi talking tough on the border, and even at one time the horrible President Barry Obama railing on illegals for thinking they could just cross and stay . . . With all but the very far left pro immigration movement in full jackbooted lockstep with Pelosi, Schumer-Obama) . . . Are totally triggered by anything trying to stem the flow that’s topped 100k a month.
SMDH
So you agree idiot Trump supporters get fooled monthly by his rooze
Yeah Dax’s dear leader really cares about other people too.
This is like Mexico paying for the wall. Only rubes will believe it.
This is like Mexico paying for the wall. Only rubes will believe it.
You worry about money while you pretend that your leaders care about people.
Sad . . . SMDH
This is like Mexico paying for the wall. Only rubes will believe it.
You worry about money while you pretend that your leaders care about people.
Sad . . . SMDH
You 100% know I’m enjoying how stupid MAGAs are. Nothing more or less.
I don’t pretend any politician gives a crap. You need to learn to laugh at yourself b/c holy crap there is a ton of next level hilarity
Dax, do you tune in to the tucker carlson white power hour? He talks about the diseases immigrants bring into the USA a lot. I’m sure a lot of other quality outlets do as well but that’s the one I know of.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think anyone is calling tucker intelligent, semi or otherwise
Which ones were playing the race card Dax?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Won’t they give the wall Ebola though?
The wall is just part of better border security.
Resident LibDerp Nation who are clearly serious and heavy :bong: can't remember that the mantra is border security and immigration reform.
The :lol: is reading LibDerp Nation make fun of illegals walking around walls without acknowledging the fact that they had to walk by the existing wall to get to the part that doesn't exist.
While the people who have to secure the border want a wall, Dug and Phil know a guy in a cubicle with no windows who wrote that White Paper that said walls don't work. :lol:
The wall is just part of better border security.
Resident LibDerp Nation who are clearly serious and heavy :bong: can't remember that the mantra is border security and immigration reform.
The :lol: is reading LibDerp Nation make fun of illegals walking around walls without acknowledging the fact that they had to walk by the existing wall to get to the part that doesn't exist.
While the people who have to secure the border want a wall, Dug and Phil know a guy in a cubicle with no windows who wrote that White Paper that said walls don't work. :lol:
Weird post. Drunk?
I miss ksuw. At least he wasn’t stupid
:D (https://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=38695.msg1912055#msg1912055)The wall is just part of better border security.
Resident LibDerp Nation who are clearly serious and heavy :bong: can't remember that the mantra is border security and immigration reform.
The :lol: is reading LibDerp Nation make fun of illegals walking around walls without acknowledging the fact that they had to walk by the existing wall to get to the part that doesn't exist.
While the people who have to secure the border want a wall, Dug and Phil know a guy in a cubicle with no windows who wrote that White Paper that said walls don't work. :lol:
Weird post. Drunk?
Dug, my new name for you is: The Perpetual Tapout or TPT for short.
No emergency!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2019/06/16/who-surprised-many-by-not-declaring-ebola-a-public-health-emergency-why/#1f09b0f667d0