You love the President seizing more power...when it's a Republican...

  • Thread starter Thread starter JDs Couch
  • Start date Start date
J

JDs Couch

Well-known member
The next Democratic president should declare that the National Emergencies Act and Article II of the Constitution allow him to:

•admit D.C. and Puerto Rico as states
•abolish ICE
•grant citizenship to any immigrant
•disband the 5th Circuit
•expand the Supreme Court

Seriously: Why the hell not?
 
JDs Couch said:
The next Democratic president should declare that the National Emergencies Act and Article II of the Constitution allow him to:

•admit D.C. and Puerto Rico as states
•abolish ICE
•grant citizenship to any immigrant
•disband the 5th Circuit
•expand the Supreme Court

Seriously: Why the hell not?
Click to expand...

Would this be in new zealand? Or canada?
 
Monkey Man said:
What's good for the goose, no?

How can you dispute that logical conclusion?
Click to expand...
Exactly. That's the point. They want to give all the power to one guy, as long as it's their guy. But, eventually it's gonna be the other guy. That's why distribution of power is so important in a democracy.
 
Again, non-sequitur.

You said that any migrant (that would include all manner of criminals and illegals) should be accepted by-law, no exceptions.

I stand by my obvious, logical conclusion that you should therefore be willing to accept anyone who wants to live in your house, no exceptions, no excuses.

The absurdity of the statement should be obvious; this is a waste of time man. You're smarter than that. A whole-lot smarter.
 
Monkey Man said:
Again, non-sequitur.

You said that any migrant (that would include all manner of criminals and illegals) should be accepted by-law, no exceptions.

I stand by my obvious, logical conclusion that you should therefore be willing to accept anyone who wants to live in your house, no exceptions, no excuses.

The absurdity of the statement should be obvious; this is a waste of time man. You're smarter than that. A whole-lot smarter.
Click to expand...
No he isn’t.
 
Monkey Man said:
Again, non-sequitur.

You said that any migrant (that would include all manner of criminals and illegals) should be accepted by-law, no exceptions.

I stand by my obvious, logical conclusion that you should therefore be willing to accept anyone who wants to live in your house, no exceptions, no excuses.

The absurdity of the statement should be obvious; this is a waste of time man. You're smarter than that. A whole-lot smarter.
Click to expand...
Eh, I disagree MM
The last few months of him posting has revealed him to be a complete idiot who is just shit flinging for the sake of shit flinging.
When you lack the self control to leave OT shit in OT and not let it bleed into other forums and threads where nobody wants to see that stupid shit, you have outed yourself as a person with limited comprehension skills and the self control of a teenage girl..
He’s half serious and half shit flinging on everything, and that’s fine, but please don’t think he’s smarter than that 😂
 
Monkey Man said:
Again, non-sequitur.

You said that any migrant (that would include all manner of criminals and illegals) should be accepted by-law, no exceptions.

I stand by my obvious, logical conclusion that you should therefore be willing to accept anyone who wants to live in your house, no exceptions, no excuses.

The absurdity of the statement should be obvious; this is a waste of time man. You're smarter than that. A whole-lot smarter.
Click to expand...
I never said that. I said:
"The next Democratic president should declare that the National Emergencies Act and Article II of the Constitution allow him to:"

"Allow him to" doesn't mean he will automatically do it. And "make any immigrant a citizen" doesn't mean make all immigrants citizens. It just gives the pres the discretion.
 
JDs Couch said:
Exactly. That's the point. They want to give all the power to one guy, as long as it's their guy. But, eventually it's gonna be the other guy. That's why distribution of power is so important in a democracy.
Click to expand...
You mean the same democracy that the left has tried to rig in the last 3 elections?
That democracy?
Your an idiot
 
JDs Couch said:
I never said that. I said:
"The next Democratic president should declare that the National Emergencies Act and Article II of the Constitution allow him to:"

"Allow him to" doesn't mean he will automatically do it. And "make any immigrant a citizen" doesn't mean make all immigrants citizens. It just gives the pres the discretion.
Click to expand...
But when trump does it, it’s unconstitutional
😂😂
 
JTyson said:
Yes there is tons of proof. You just choose to ignore it. It’s there for anyone who wants to see it. You don’t want to see it because it proves what an idiot you are.
Click to expand...
Then I'm sure they could win a single court case with all the "proof" instead of losing every single one. You really are a gullible bitch.
 
JTyson said:
Yes there is tons of proof. You just choose to ignore it. It’s there for anyone who wants to see it. You don’t want to see it because it proves what an idiot you are.
Click to expand...
I know, Rudy's comimg with the proof in two weeks. Any day now....
 
JTyson said:
Oh the court case is coming wether you like it or not and there is nothing you can do to stop it
Click to expand...
You morons lost all 62 court cases. Even from Trump appointed judges.

After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed 62 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in 9 states (including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia.[1][2]

Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped for lack of evidence or lack of standing,[3][4]: 4, 10–14 [5][6][7] including 30 lawsuits that were dismissed by the judge after a hearing on the merits.[8] Among the judges who dismissed the lawsuits were some appointed by Trump himself.[9] Judges, lawyers, and other observers described the suits as "frivolous"[10] and "without merit".[11][12] In one instance, the Trump campaign and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost multiple cases in six states on a single day.[13] Only one ruling was initially in Trump's favor: the timing within which first-time Pennsylvania voters must provide proper identification if they wanted to "cure" their ballots. This ruling affected very few votes,[14] and it was later overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.[15
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top