I guess it will now be ok to declare a national emergency to take guns away

[crockett]

Guns have killed far more people in this country than illegals have. I supposed the next national emergency will be to take everyone's guns..


Republicans are the dumbest of the dumb. They are too busy yelling at people to get off their lawn that they routinely walk right into to poles..

[OneHungLo]

What demographic makes up most of the gun homicides?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by OneHungLo

What demographic makes up most of the gun homicides?

What demographic walks into polls while yelling at cars the most?

[beerptrol]

You know the alt right will have their confederate panties in a bunch when the next democratic president does the same thing as Chump!

[RedFred]

A national emergency declaring Republicans as traitors is what's needed.

[Robbie]

The big problem with that line of thinking is that guns are a constitutional right.

Any attempt at a national emergency to take guns would not only trigger a massive revolt, but also the Supreme Court would immediately strike it down.

Also...there are currently THIRTY "national emergencies" still in use as we speak by former Presidents.
So far that did not even cause a whimper from the media and nobody tried to use a national emergency to take guns.

Presidents have done this dozens of times over the years.

Only with Trump is there an uproar from the Democrat politicians, the media, and of course the low-information crowd.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Robbie

The big problem with that line of thinking is that guns are a constitutional right.

Not all guns you idiot.

The kind of guns we have now are not the same as the single shot muskets in 1787 ( that's when the Constitution was created )

Kids with machine guns is not a constitutional right. Common sense gun ownership will solve a lot of our problems.

[RedFred]

Robbie believes the wall is already halfway built. Next Trump will tell him Hillary is locked up and he'll believe that too.

[brassmonkey]

that's fake as hell

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Robbie

The big problem with that line of thinking is that guns are a constitutional right.

Any attempt at a national emergency to take guns would not only trigger a massive revolt, but also the Supreme Court would immediately strike it down.

Also...there are currently THIRTY "national emergencies" still in use as we speak by former Presidents.
So far that did not even cause a whimper from the media and nobody tried to use a national emergency to take guns.

Presidents have done this dozens of times over the years.

Only with Trump is there an uproar from the Democrat politicians, the media, and of course the low-information crowd.

Any attempt by congress to take all guns away from citizens would start a riot. Congress is within it's rights to limit the type of guns allowed by citizens.

Just educating you on the American Constitution and how it is amended.

[King Mark]

I don't think it'll happen, but guns kill more people in America than Mexicans do. So it'll be an easier case. Especially if the good ol boys keep mass shooting and suiciding themselves into minority status.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Robbie

The big problem with that line of thinking is that guns are a constitutional right.

And? You all know we can change the constitution, right?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Rochard

And? You all know we can change the constitution, right?

Not with an Executive Order.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

The big problem with that line of thinking is that guns are a constitutional right.

Any attempt at a national emergency to take guns would not only trigger a massive revolt, but also the Supreme Court would immediately strike it down.

Also...there are currently THIRTY "national emergencies" still in use as we speak by former Presidents.
So far that did not even cause a whimper from the media and nobody tried to use a national emergency to take guns.

Presidents have done this dozens of times over the years.

Only with Trump is there an uproar from the Democrat politicians, the media, and of course the low-information crowd.

Sure you can keep "1" single chamber rifle per household. The rest can be outlawed legally. Did you forget already that Trump banned bump stocks? Trump set that precedent by signing a EO to ban a piece of gun. The next guy could sign a EO banning the lower receiver of semi automatic rifles or pistols or mags & clips that hold more than 1 bullet. (Why do you think all the gun nutters were outraged about Trump doing that or did Fox news not tell you about it?)

All you Republicans are too busy yelling at people walking on your lawn that you don't watch where you are walking..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by baddog

Not with an Executive Order.

Trump disagrees with your opinion.. he already banned bump stocks..

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Any attempt by congress to take all guns away from citizens would start a riot. Congress is within it's rights to limit the type of guns allowed by citizens.

Just educating you on the American Constitution and how it is amended.

Thanks Paul.
Pretty sure that you really didn't say much to me there. But okay!

This is a discussion of Pres. Trump using a "national emergency" Executive Order (as other Presidents have done dozens of times) to get funding.

Some Democrat politicians have declared (wrongly), that a future Democrat President could use such an Executive Order to take away guns from citizens.

My reply was that it would indeed cause an uprising in this country AND the Supreme Court would immediately rule it unconstitutional.

As I have said COUNTLESS times right here on GFY...
IF the citizens of the United States feel we should be disarmed by the govt., the CONGRESS needs to start the procedure in place in our Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

They had no hesitation in adding the 16th amendment about a hundred years ago to make it constitutional to take our money via Income Tax (something the Founding Fathers didn't want).
They also had no problems repealing and adding other amendments in the 20th century.

So IF anyone in the United States wants to be disarmed by their govt., it's pretty simple:
Vote for Congressmen and Senators who will repeal the 2nd Amendment.

[Acepimp]

Most gun deaths are suicides, moron. The opioid crisis is killing far more people. Moron. The left are such authoritarian fascists. How bout you fuck off to North Korea, all of you.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Robbie

The big problem with that line of thinking is that guns are a constitutional right.

Any attempt at a national emergency to take guns would not only trigger a massive revolt, but also the Supreme Court would immediately strike it down.

Also...there are currently THIRTY "national emergencies" still in use as we speak by former Presidents.
So far that did not even cause a whimper from the media and nobody tried to use a national emergency to take guns.

Presidents have done this dozens of times over the years.

Only with Trump is there an uproar from the Democrat politicians, the media, and of course the low-information crowd.

I like to learn stuff and so I went and looked this up

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...ntly-in-effect

it's true, 31 are still in effect.

Though none of them is about something like the wall which Trump didn't get funded even when he had both congress and senate.

And I don't think they are meant for purposes like that either.

Actually none of them - the 9/11 one aside - is even noteworthy for the public. And most people very likely never heard of them.

The topic, the reasoning behind it and the fact that Trump can't even get his own party fully behind it and he has to resort to this, makes it a lot more newsworthy than the other 31.

And can we really call people "low information crowd" when they dont know about

Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (November 2015)

[MaDalton]

Jimmy Carter (2 national emergencies declared, 1 remains active)
Blocking Iranian Government Property (November 1979)

Bill Clinton (17 national emergencies declared, 6 remain active)
Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (November 14, 1994)
Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (January 1995)
Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (March 1995)
Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (October 1995)
Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba (March 1996)
Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan (November 1997)

George W Bush (13 national emergencies declared, 11 remain active)
Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (June 2001)
Continuation of Export Control Regulations (August 2001)
Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (September 2001)
Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (September 2001)
Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (March 2003)
Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest (May 2003)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 2004)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (June 2006)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (October 2006)
Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (August 2007)
8 Continuing Certain Restrictions With Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals (June 2008)

Barack Obama (12 national emergencies declared, 10 remain active)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (April 2010).
Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (February 2011)
Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (July 2011)
Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (March 2014)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (April 2014)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 2014)
Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (March 2015)
Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (April 2015)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (November 2015)

Donald Trump (4 national emergencies declared, 3 currently active)
Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption (December 2017)
Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election (September 2018)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua (November 2018)

None of those say "I couldn't get my shit funded and so I pretend it's an emergency cause otherwise I look like an idiot to my followers"

[Busty2]

Why not just get rid of all military style weapons except for those in the Armed Forces & Police / Swat ?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Thanks Paul.
Pretty sure that you really didn't say much to me there. But okay!

This is a discussion of Pres. Trump using a "national emergency" Executive Order (as other Presidents have done dozens of times) to get funding.

Some Democrat politicians have declared (wrongly), that a future Democrat President could use such an Executive Order to take away guns from citizens.

My reply was that it would indeed cause an uprising in this country AND the Supreme Court would immediately rule it unconstitutional.

As I have said COUNTLESS times right here on GFY...
IF the citizens of the United States feel we should be disarmed by the govt., the CONGRESS needs to start the procedure in place in our Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

They had no hesitation in adding the 16th amendment about a hundred years ago to make it constitutional to take our money via Income Tax (something the Founding Fathers didn't want).
They also had no problems repealing and adding other amendments in the 20th century.

So IF anyone in the United States wants to be disarmed by their govt., it's pretty simple:
Vote for Congressmen and Senators who will repeal the 2nd Amendment.

There is a very big flaw in your argument. Every single one of those other "national emergencies" dealt with actions against other nations or foreign entities. Most often terrorist or rogue entities.. Not a manufactured crisis..


Trump's is the only one that's ever been directed at the domestic United States and to be used to steal people's rightful property. (aka their land as Trump can not build his wall with out taking people's property)

This is what you are arguing in favor of, stealing people's land who do not want to sell it.


Wasn't it also you complaining while Obama was in office that the BLM was taking ranchers land, now you support stealing rancher's land. because it's different now because "Republican" is doing it. I remember you ranting and raving about Obama somehow being at blame because of the BLM/Bundy ordeal. Where a rancher had set multiple fires once almost getting firemen killed, then acting like a terrorist on federally owned land..

Yet now you are ok when Trump wants to steal people's land.. Amazing how you change your convictions by whoever wins an election..

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by StefanG

None of those say "I couldn't get my shit funded and so I pretend it's an emergency cause otherwise I look like an idiot to my followers"

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by StefanG

I like to learn stuff and so I went and looked this up

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...ntly-in-effect

it's true, 31 are still in effect.

Though none of them is about something like the wall which Trump didn't get funded even when he had both congress and senate.

And I don't think they are meant for purposes like that either.

Actually none of them - the 9/11 one aside - is even noteworthy for the public. And most people very likely never heard of them.

The topic, the reasoning behind it and the fact that Trump can't even get his own party fully behind it and he has to resort to this, makes it a lot more newsworthy than the other 31.

And can we really call people "low information crowd" when they dont know about

You don't know what you're talking about Stefan.

Paul Ryan was the Speaker Of The House. He is the reason that nothing was done.
Hell, he didn't do a lot of anything as Speaker except the tax bill.

Just because a party has both houses of Congress doesn't mean that they can do things...ESPECIALLY when the entire Republican Party hated Trump (remember? Trump called them all "puppets" of the Koch Brothers).

Trump did a hostile take-over of the Republican Party. And I'm glad he did.

And yes...you are VERY low-information on my country. Not your fault. Your being fed bullshit by the mainstream media.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by StefanG

None of those say "I couldn't get my shit funded and so I pretend it's an emergency cause otherwise I look like an idiot to my followers"

EVERY one of the "national emergency" executive orders by Pres. Obama were done because Congress would NOT act on them.

Remember? (of course you don't)...Pres. Obama said this:
"If Congress won't act...I will" And when Congress wouldn 't pass things he said: "I have a pen, and a phone".

Educate yourself...or better yet, just don't make comments on shit you don't know.

P.S.: The media APPLAUDED Pres. Obama for going usurping Congress to get what he wanted. Weird how now they are attacking Pres. Trump.
But of course you don't see it that way because you are blinded by hate.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

You don't know what you're talking about Stefan.

Paul Ryan was the Speaker Of The House. He is the reason that nothing was done.
Hell, he didn't do a lot of anything as Speaker except the tax bill.

Just because a party has both houses of Congress doesn't mean that they can do things...ESPECIALLY when the entire Republican Party hated Trump (remember? Trump called them all "puppets" of the Koch Brothers).

Trump did a hostile take-over of the Republican Party. And I'm glad he did.

And yes...you are VERY low-information on my country. Not your fault. Your being fed bullshit by the mainstream media.

Once again Robbie changes his narrative depending on who is president. When Obama was president and the same Republicans (Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell) were in charge of the House & Senate Robbie used to say the reason Obama couldn't get anything done was because he was a bad leader.

Now that Trump is POTUS, suddenly the reason he can't get anything done is because of Republicans in Congress.

Robbie used to claim a good leader could negotiate and get things done even if those running Congress were unwilling. Suddenly now it's not bad leadership, but Paul Ryan & Mitch McConnell who are to blame.

So does this mean Robbie will now change his mind and say it was not Obama's fault but rather Republican in Congress that nothing got done?


Robbie lives in lala land a fantasy land which he makes up on the fly.. Is Robbie the biggest hypocrite on GFY? I honestly think so.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Robbie

But of course you don't see it that way because you are blinded by hate.

ok, let's agree I am blinded by hate and you are blinded by your god like emperor Trump, the supreme leader that cannot fail in the eyes of Robbie


man, I miss the times when Obamas tan suit made the Fox headlines

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by crockett

Once again Robbie changes his narrative depending on who is president. When Obama was president and the same Republicans (Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell) were in charge of the House & Senate Robbie used to say the reason Obama couldn't get anything done was because he was a bad leader.

Now that Trump is POTUS, suddenly the reason he can't get anything done is because of Republicans in Congress..


Robbie lives in lala land a fantasy land which he makes up on the fly..

bingo - but i am sure there is also an explanation for that

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by StefanG

ok, let's agree I am blinded by hate and you are blinded by your god like emperor Trump, the supreme leader that cannot fail in the eyes of Robbie


man, I miss the times when Obamas tan suit made the Fox headlines

That's a pretty stupid comment to make Stefan. I never thought of you as stupid...but that's just stupid.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by StefanG

bingo - but i am sure there is also an explanation for that

I did say that. I said the truth...Pres. Obama (as it was widely reported) did not even TRY to reach out to the Congress. He never asked for meetings, no phone calls, nothing.
He was very arrogant about it.
That was a mistake and bad leadership.

Trump HAS reached out over and over. Invited the Democrats to the White House over and over.

But the Democrats have stuck to their tired "resist" mantra and refuse to work with him at all.
THAT is poor leadership by the Democrat politicians.

[crockett]

In fact I will prove that Robbie used to blame Obama for Congress doing nothing..

GFY search sucks ass but I found a post where he blamed Obama for being a poor leader because he couldn't get Congress to do anything..


GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Clinton favorability hits 7-year low

Originally Posted by Robbie

How much "experience" can you have to be President?
Does "experience" mean being a politician all your life and playing that game?
Does it mean being a governor of a state with a proven track record of being in the executive branch?

I'm not sure that "experience" is something that really exists for a job that you can only hold one time for 8 years.

And I voted for Pres. Obama in 2008 when he had ZERO "experience" that qualified him to be President. Turns out that he wasn't that good at it after all in my opinion. lol

But it still didn't disqualify him in my mind from being President (or the minds of the majority).

I think we need a President with even LESS "experience" than even Obama.

There is NO "experience" for being President.
What we need is a LEADER with a focused vision and the courage to follow his vision. And he needs something else that Pres. Obama does not have: The ability to convince and sway votes in Congress (both Reagan and Clinton had that important gift...maybe from their own experience as governors?)

Also funny Robbie says we need a leader with a focused vision and follow his vision. That's what Obama did with healthcare and Robbie hasn't stopped complaining about it since. Obama was very upfront about fixing healthcare when he ran the 1st time and yet Robbie claims to have voted for him. Obama got us healthcare and then Robbie couldn't stop complaining about something Obama told him he was gonna do..



Funny how I nailed it... in 2014 while Robbie is still making excuses 5 years later..

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - I thought Democrats were a "sure win"

Originally Posted by crockett

The problem with the Republican Party the last 6 years is they could blame the other guy and ignore their own infighting. Now they will actually have to "DO" something but they won't be able to, because the differences inside their own party are about as extreme as the differences with the right and the left.

The moderates will never get anything done because of the far righties and the far righties will be too extreme for the moderates. It will be grid lock with in their own party.

It's like the Al Queida and ISIS.. They both hate the west but they still kill each other. This is the problem with extremist with in the right. The Tea Party and Religious Right will never let anything happen that doesn't fit their extreme agendas.

I guess we are at least making some progress with Robbie. It took 5 years, but at least he now understands the reason Congress was gridlocked all that time, was because Republicans were in charge.. At least now the House is actually getting stuff done, but sadly Senate is still gridlocked..

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by crockett

In fact I will prove that Robbie used to blame Obama for Congress doing nothing..

GFY search sucks ass but I found a post where he blamed Obama for being a poor leader because he couldn't get Congress to do anything..


GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Clinton favorability hits 7-year low







Funny how I nailed it... in 2014

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - I thought Democrats were a "sure win"

You were right in 2014 well done

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by baddog

Not with an Executive Order.

In fact, no. You can not do it with an Executive Order.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants...xecutive-order

However, we can with an Amendment. We've done it before.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I did say that. I said the truth...Pres. Obama (as it was widely reported) did not even TRY to reach out to the Congress. He never asked for meetings, no phone calls, nothing.
He was very arrogant about it.
That was a mistake and bad leadership.

Trump HAS reached out over and over. Invited the Democrats to the White House over and over.

But the Democrats have stuck to their tired "resist" mantra and refuse to work with him at all.
THAT is poor leadership by the Democrat politicians.

BULLSHIT DETECTED.....


McConnell's own staffers said he would pretend to be busy as excuse to not meet with Obama..

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-busy-to-avoid



https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/...snubbed-obama/


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ancy/80801866/

https://mic.com/articles/22662/5-way...ted#.w3T9gweFo



You are completely out of touch with reality..


I wanted to actually post the last link to show the many ways Obama tried to work with Republicans in Congress but they rejected it. Maybe Robbie will start to get a grasp on reality and not what he is spoon fed on Fox news..


To President Obama’s critics, he will never bring about the era of bipartisan cooperation that he campaigned on in 2008, but the facts prove otherwise.

The president’s nomination of conservative Republican Chuck Hagel to his cabinet is just another example in a long line of Obama’s attempts to reach across the aisle and work with a recalcitrant Republican minority. Here are a few other gems, as we highlight some of Obama’s most bipartisan gestures of his first term and the Republican response.

1) Keeping Robert Gates as secretary of defense

In January, 2009: Obama is inaugurated and immediately seeks out Republican lawmakers willing to work with his new agenda. He makes it a point to maintain Robert Gates (previously appointed by Republican President George W. Bush) as his Secretary of Defense. Some Republicans on the Hill even whisper that Obama was working with them more than Bush ever did.

Republican response in January, 2009: Rush Limbaugh welcomes the president with a hearty “I hope he fails."

2) Obama meets with pro-choice and pro-life advocates

In May, 2009: Obama begins the first of several sessions meeting with pro-choice advocates and their detractors in order to help design legislation that protects both the lives of women and the unborn.

Republican response in September, 2009: South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouts “You lie!” at the president during Obama’s speech to Congress wherein he intended to reach out to Republicans and voice his concerns with our failing healthcare system and his plans to fix it. To make matters worse, fact checkers have disproved Wilson’s claim, saying that the healthcare proposal explicitly does not provide for illegal immigrants.

3) Obama listens to Republicans on health care

In January, 2010: Obama holds a meeting with Republicans in Baltimore, where he allows for a candid question-and-answer session in order to hear directly from the opposition and allow them to express their skepticism. A month later, he speaks with Republicans in what will be dubbed the “Healthcare Summit.” Obama compromised his initial plan for a single-payer system, instead seeking a Republican-promoted individual mandate mirroring the one Mitt Romney created as Governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s.

Republican response in October, 2010: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell states that the most important objective of the Republican Party is to make Obama a one-term president, not fixing our budget/debt issues, our broken healthcare, education or immigration systems, and certainly not protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.

4) Obama compromises on 2010 budget deal

In December, 2010: Obama compromises on his previously-stated goal of not prolonging the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy by agreeing to a budget deal. By doing so, Obama provides for the continuation of unemployment benefits to the needy, establishes a payroll tax holiday, renews the inheritance tax, and ensures that the government continues paying its debts.

Republican response by Spring of 2012: Senate Republicans have blocked Obama’s judicial nominees at an unprecedented rate, delaying their being placed on the bench by greater than four times more than Democrats ever did to Bush judicial nominees.

5) Obama compromises on "fiscal cliff"

On January 1st, 2013: Obama once-again compromises on a “fiscal cliff” deal by raising the threshold of the income level for whom taxes would rise from $250,000 to $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families and pushing back sequestration of funds allocated to the military. His deal-making resulted in the Federal government receiving even less revenues than Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner had previously offered to allow.

[Struggle4Bucks]

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Thanks Paul.
Pretty sure that you really didn't say much to me there. But okay!

This is a discussion of Pres. Trump using a "national emergency" Executive Order (as other Presidents have done dozens of times) to get funding.

Some Democrat politicians have declared (wrongly), that a future Democrat President could use such an Executive Order to take away guns from citizens.

My reply was that it would indeed cause an uprising in this country AND the Supreme Court would immediately rule it unconstitutional.

As I have said COUNTLESS times right here on GFY...
IF the citizens of the United States feel we should be disarmed by the govt., the CONGRESS needs to start the procedure in place in our Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

They had no hesitation in adding the 16th amendment about a hundred years ago to make it constitutional to take our money via Income Tax (something the Founding Fathers didn't want).
They also had no problems repealing and adding other amendments in the 20th century.

So IF anyone in the United States wants to be disarmed by their govt., it's pretty simple:
Vote for Congressmen and Senators who will repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I agree with him using the Emergency take funds to build one of the foundations of his campaign. Just as I agree with a Democrat using the same method to keep one of his basic promises. IMO too many promises made by politicians are forgotten after they get elected.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I agree with him using the Emergency take funds to build one of the foundations of his campaign. Just as I agree with a Democrat using the same method to keep one of his basic promises. IMO too many promises made by politicians are forgotten after they get elected.

You are not educated on the intricacies of our government.

Trump can't use this "emergency declaration" to steal money from states to recover from fire destruction, hurricanes and fliods. He's trying and he'll fail, yet again.

[crockett]

Looks like we will have to declare a national emergency.. another mass shooting just happened..

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/act...ois/index.html


What are the odds it's a deranged Trump nutter pissed off at Trump signing the budget..

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by crockett

There is a very big flaw in your argument. Every single one of those other "national emergencies" dealt with actions against other nations or foreign entities. Most often terrorist or rogue entities.. Not a manufactured crisis..


Trump's is the only one that's ever been directed at the domestic United States and to be used to steal people's rightful property. (aka their land as Trump can not build his wall with out taking people's property)

This is what you are arguing in favor of, stealing people's land who do not want to sell it.


Wasn't it also you complaining while Obama was in office that the BLM was taking ranchers land, now you support stealing rancher's land. because it's different now because "Republican" is doing it. I remember you ranting and raving about Obama somehow being at blame because of the BLM/Bundy ordeal. Where a rancher had set multiple fires once almost getting firemen killed, then acting like a terrorist on federally owned land..

Yet now you are ok when Trump wants to steal people's land.. Amazing how you change your convictions by whoever wins an election..

So if the land is owned by someone who wants to keep it open. Nothing should be done to stop that?

Think about it before you reply.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So if the land is owned by someone who wants to keep it open. Nothing should be done to stop that?

Think about it before you reply.

Maybe you should think about it...

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by Busty2

Why not just get rid of all military style weapons except for those in the Armed Forces & Police / Swat ?

No reason to get rid of them. They cost a fortune and are never used in crimes.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/791689890

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/794791298

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/799913775

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/797909592

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/795273404

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by crockett

Looks like we will have to declare a national emergency.. another mass shooting just happened..

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/act...ois/index.html


What are the odds it's a deranged Trump nutter pissed off at Trump signing the budget..

Wasn't it just yesterday (or Today) when CNN's Jim Acosta was confronted by "Angel Moms" at the White House. An Angel Mom is a parent who has had a son murdered by an illegal immigrant.

Yet American children are being killed in the own schools, and our government is doing nothing about?

In Texas last week five people were executed, and it barely registered on the news.

[beerptrol]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Wasn't it just yesterday (or Today) when CNN's Jim Acosta was confronted by "Angel Moms" at the White House. An Angel Mom is a parent who has had a son murdered by an illegal immigrant.

Yet American children are being killed in the own schools, and our government is doing nothing about?

In Texas last week five people were executed, and it barely registered on the news.

Murders committed by illegals is a million times worse than those committed by fellow americans in the eyes of the alt right!

When he was talking about the "Angel Moms" I thought it was a big fuck you to the parents of children killed in mass school shootings

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by beerptrol

When he was talking about the "Angel Moms" I thought it was a big fuck you to the parents of children killed in mass school shootings

The disconnect there on the right is massive. They actually act like child gun victims are actors and not dead or deserve it. The brain washing is deep on that one.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I agree with him using the Emergency take funds to build one of the foundations of his campaign. Just as I agree with a Democrat using the same method to keep one of his basic promises. IMO too many promises made by politicians are forgotten after they get elected.

So.... You think it's a good idea for any political candidate to make a campaign promise, and then use a national emergency to keep his campaign promise, even when absolutely no emergency exists?

So... By your logic... the next political candidate can make a campaign promise - healthcare, gun control, free schooling - and then when they can't get it passed through Congress they can just declare a national emergency and pass it anyhow?

No. That's not how it works. We don't create fake emergencies to keep campaign promises. Ever.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by beerptrol

Murders committed by illegals is a million times worse than those committed by fellow americans in the eyes of the alt right!

When he was talking about the "Angel Moms" I thought it was a big fuck you to the parents of children killed in mass school shootings

How many murders have been committed by illegal immigrants? According to ICE in 2017 it was 1900 people. Six times that die every year in the United States due to firearms. Seems to me like firearms is the national emergency.

[Diomed]

Originally Posted by Rochard

How many murders have been committed by illegal immigrants?

Rochard doesn't understand..

GFY has turned into Trumps Anonymous, with the MSM issuing you your very own "12 step" rule book.

Prisoners.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So if the land is owned by someone who wants to keep it open. Nothing should be done to stop that?

Think about it before you reply.

Right

So now you attack all border land owners as wanting to allow illegals in the country. You are so fucked in the head cum is dripping out of your nose!

[King Mark]

Bruh, Robbie wants to know how the Obama's can afford to live in nice neighborhood. He wants them investigated for that. True story.

Why TF are y'all trying to talk sense into that dude?

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Dead Eye

Bruh, Robbie wants to know how the Obama's can afford to live in nice neighborhood. He wants them investigated for that. True story.

Why TF are y'all trying to talk sense into that dude?

I've had him blocked for months now but peak now and then to see how far down the rabbit hole he's gone.

[King Mark]

He's way gone. He has a right to be as stupid as he wants tho.

#MAGA