Originally Posted by spence (Post 1216721)

This makes some sense actually.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1216722)

sure. gonna play great on election day. so keep advocating for it.

it makes sense to you, that people
who break our laws and get separated from families while being processed, are entitled to
more money than the family of servicemen who are killed in action. that makes some sense to you?

figures…
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1216723)

I don’t know what the actual numbers could be, this entire story seems to be unverified. But it looks there about a thousand complaints already filed and a good number will likely be headed to the courts where the penalties could be significant. It wouldn’t surprise me if they are calculating it would be easier to settle.

This is a mess largely of Trump’s making.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1216725)

Under Obama it was done when in the interest of the child, huge difference.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1216728)

i mean, obviously the intentions were noble when obama did it. no need to mention. trump was hoping to kill them all and sell their organs on ebay.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1216729)

Jim, Trump’s policy at the time was draconian.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1216730)

and a policy encouraging illegals to rent children and bring them
across is what? brilliant?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1216731)

:huh:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1216732)

groups that look like “family units” are given more consideration than single men, who get deported more quickly.

this is why we now see so many kids and women crossing, when it used to be that almost everyone crossing were single men. now we see way more children and women than ever before.

the cartels obviously saw this, and are renting kids out to adults who want to cross. so what looks like families, are sometimes fake families. but you can’t tell by looking at them who is who.

believe it or not, it might be in the short term interests of some of those kids, to get separated from whoever they’re caught with, it all of these kids are traveling with adults who live them.

in any event, the us government provided all the incentive in the world, for illegals to bring kids and women with them. when crossing points are co trolled by cartels, that’s not a good thing. lots of women making the journey get sexually assaulted on the other side.

it’s a mess. incentivizing people to bring women and children, was one of the very. few ways it could have been made worse

it’s a huge humanitarian crisis ( dubbed a manufactured crisis by the left). much better to get people to
cross legally, at legal
points, not ruled by cartels of sociopaths.

your side sees no issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1216755)

GAO confirms that Trump suspending funding to Central America undermined the administration’s own goals in the region, a major driver of migrants north to the U.S.

What a Stable Genius
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1216759)

of course it’s all trumps fault! he’s still living in your head rent free. still obsessed with him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1216766)

Oh I do worry about what’s happening in this country

Let’s be clear what happened here: Basically, once Trump realized he couldn’t keep secret his support for and coordination of the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol, he just decided to embrace it and call it a protest.

So now, every R will have to either embrace Jan 6 as a valid form of protesting a “stolen” election (as Trump now has) or condemn it as wrong.

Their line has changed so many times. First: Antifa. Then: wrong, but not an insurrection. Then: bad apples but the police let them in.

These are unserious people who are trying to come up with any line that will allow them to stay in good graces with an increasingly deranged base while speaking through the mainstream channels of normal society and institutions.

You know whose line hasn’t changed?

Liz Cheney’s

Trump’s now explicit embrace of the January 6 attack this many months later is just the latest example of what is becoming the newest truism in American politics…

Never Trumpism is never wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1216777)

how many elected republicans can you point to, who are saying g that january 6th was a valid form of protest?

“never trumpism is never wrong.”

never trumpers planted fake racists in the VA republican governor candidates side. that’s not wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1216778)

Ever hear of Gaetz, Gohmert and MTG?

Wasn’t that 5 people in VA, I assume it’s all over the media that feeds your opinions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1216791)

it was 5 people, planted there by an anti trump group. i’m not sure why an anti trump group has such a problem with the republican running for governor in VA, he’s not Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1216802)

Because when people who are never Trump were asked, Why are you as a Republican not for Youngkin?

I worked for and supported many Republicans. I’m mostly proud to have done so. But if being a good Republican today means supporting Trump or acquiescing in and enabling Trumpist authoritarianism, I say: No. Country first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1216821)

you’re saying all republicans are acquiescing to authoritarianism


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1216822)

The democrats/left aren’t acting like authoritarians….nope…not at all…lalalalala
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1216821)

you’re saying all republicans are acquiescing to authoritarianism? so what are liberals for, smaller government.

backwards as always.

trump was many many bad things. he wasnt a dictator. a dictator wouldn’t let the media trash him the way they trashed trump. first thing a republican dictator would
do, is get rid of the media. but they never do that.

Duh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1216848)

Trump valued personal fealty while despising fidelity to oaths to the Constitution. He failed to see value in selfless actions that benefit others.

But you think he should be worshipped because he’s a billionaire and he worships the same things as you.

But since you keep going on--wishfully or disingenuously--about how GOP governors like Abbot and DeSantis are the future and there's NOTHING authoritarian about the former guy or them: You guys good with the TX vigilante law? You fine with FL professors being denied academic freedom?

You’re absolutely fine with both of those things since it serves your political purposes. Authoritarianism is fine if it's right wing authoritarianism, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1216855)

No President or Party has ever abused the Constitution like the Stable Genius

For someone who chastises others for not knowing what you refer to as "history," you display a blatant ignorance of it. Other Presidents in the past have abused the Constitution far worse than anything you claim "the Stable Genius" has done. Try FDR for one of the several. His whole "New Deal" was the most flagrant abuse of the Constitution ever done by a presidential administration.

Here’s how he as much as amended it thru his actions and the failure of the spineless members of his party to do anything other than express fealty.

Amendment 1. No president shall be removed from office for treason, bribery, or any other crime or misdemeanor, no matter how high, should a partisan minority of the Senate choose to protect him.

That has always been true. See the Clinton impeachment.

Amendment 2. Congressional oversight shall be optional. No congressional subpoena or demand for testimony or documents shall bind a president who chooses to ignore it.

Nothing new there. A President who unconstitutionally ignores congressional oversight can be removed from office if Congress has the numbers to do it.

Amendment 3. Congressional appropriations shall be suggestions. The president may choose whether or not to comply with congressional spending laws, and Congress shall have no recourse should a president declare that his own priorities supersede Congress’s instructions.

Congress has the power to override a presidential veto of any congressional legislation. That's not changed or "as much as" been amended by Trump.

Amendment 4. The president shall have authority to make appointments as he sees fit, without the advice and consent of the Senate, provided he deems his appointees to be acting, temporary, or otherwise exempt from the ordinary confirmation process.

That's not a new thing that Trump "as much as" amended.

Amendment 5. The president shall have unconstrained authority to dangle and issue pardons for the purpose of obstructing justice, tampering with witnesses, and forestalling investigations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1216857)

The President has always been able to pardon anyone for any reason related to a federal crime, even for treason. Trump has not made any change to that.

And increments to presidential power beyond that which is given in the Constitution has always been a goal of Progressives. Even though it can bite them in their political ass sometimes, it still facilitates the progress toward replacing the Constitution with their preferred centralized government by an administrative state.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1216861)

As I said

Here’s how he as much as amended it thru his actions and the failure of the spineless members of his party to do anything other than express fealty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1216863)

Doing what you're constitutionally allowed to do is not amending the Constitution, it is following the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1216865)

And just what would have happened if his “Fire in the Reichstag” had worked on January 6th?
Would Eastman’s plan also have been constitutional in your view?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1216855)

No President or Party has ever abused the Constitution like the Stable Genius

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device