CrakHoBarbie Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 6 minutes ago, Venandi said: I suppose we could argue constitutional and immigration law and the duty of any serving President (of any stripe) to enforce it as a matter of federal law and jurisdiction... but it would likely be a long, and ultimately unproductive exchange. The short answer to your question, and putting aside my disagreement with the way you framed it is... yes. I did think it would happen, in fact I thought it was an inevitable dive into the same sort of madness that the previous madness precipitated. A sad comment on human nature perhaps but it's the way of the world. Taken a step further, I think it will soon happen in some European countries too. IMO, the whole thing is unfortunate but predictable. My concern from the start was the inevitable backlash, I think it could easily have been avoided and the missing ingredient is compassion... you must have considered the backlash a possibility or even a likelihood; or did you? At the risk of repeating myself, I do think the same thing will happen in the European theatre at some point and that it will happen for the same reason... it's simply my own view of consequences, immigration done poorly, and cynical view of human nature in general. Agreed. One step forward, two steps back. There is a right way, and a wrong way of doing things here in America. Obama managed to deport more illegal aliens then any other president. And, he followed the constitution. Thus. No protests. If ones agenda involves breaking Constitutional law, pushback is inevitable. Its how America was born. Quote
User Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 5 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Agreed. One step forward, two steps back. There is a right way, and a wrong way of doing things here in America. Obama managed to deport more illegal aliens then any other president. And, he followed the constitution. Thus. No protests. If ones agenda involves breaking Constitutional law, pushback is inevitable. Its how America was born. LOL, this is the worst kind of circular logic. Once again, the deportations were mostly all turnaways at the border... because Obama also encouraged so much open borders lawlessness that people came here in droves. Quote
eyeball Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 8 minutes ago, User said: So... let's get this right, people who think other people should not trespass into a Church, refuse to leave, and disrupt their services are the a$sholes? No, the people who think ICE are the bees knees. 10 minutes ago, User said: Yes, you are. You support this lawlessness. I support protesting ICE and getting in the face of people who don't. 1 Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
User Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: No, the people who think ICE are the bees knees. As usual, you play dumb. We were talking about Don Lemon and the people who unlawfully went to that church to "protest" 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: I support protesting ICE and getting in the face of people who don't. Which is why you are the a$$hole. Also, a cowardly one at that. You are all talk on a forum. You are not actually out doing any of this. Quote
eyeball Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 (edited) 8 minutes ago, User said: As usual, you play dumb. We were talking about Don Lemon and the people who unlawfully went to that church to "protest" That's what we're talking about alright. 8 minutes ago, User said: Which is why you are the a$$hole. Also, a cowardly one at that. You are all talk on a forum. You are not actually out doing any of this. It's your country. Have you been out getting between protesters and ICE? Edited January 23 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
CdnFox Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 10 hours ago, Venandi said: There's some wisdom in that I think, it's exactly how you got to where you are today and now you don't like it. The worst part of all this was the predictability, the fact that you were repeatedly warned about the destination, warned that a backlash was inevitable and warned that when it occurred.... you wouldn't like it. This is the cast iron truth. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
gatomontes99 Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 (edited) 4 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Simple. The redhats in those states "agree" with I.C.E.'s unconstitutional actions. So, they just step out of the way and allow the unconstitutional activities to happen. We in blue states dont abide by that shit. You mean the law. The law that we all agreed upon through representatives we elected. The law we all abide by...until the left got TDS so bad they de ided it was more important to break the law than allow Trump to enforce it. 4 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Obama deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants. More than any other president. If that were true, then your outrage would be hypocritical. Good news. You are not a hypocrite on this. Obama did not deport that many people. Most of those people were part of the hoards that were turned back at the border. Since we don't have illegals at the border at that same scale, the turnbacks are smaller. However, 2.2 million people have self deported and well over 100,000 more have been nabbed and shipped. This time next year, even Obama's inflated deportations will Peanuts in comparison. And you will still have TDS. 4 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said: But, he followed Constitutional law. Thus, there were no protests. How about you just accept responsibility for this clusterf__k you helped enable? I absolutely love everything we are doing. Edited January 24 by gatomontes99 1 Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
User Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: You mean the law. The law that we all agreed upon through representatives we elected. The law we all abide by...until the left got TDS so bad they de ided it was more important to break the law than allow Trump to enforce it. The argument is beyond absurd. They support this lawlessness, then they claim that because of the mess enforcing it (they created), ICE has to stop. Then they claim they support enforcing Immigration law. All the while, they support breaking the law more to stop ICE. The only consistent thing here is that they support breaking the law. 1 Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: I absolutely love everything we are doing. You just love unconstitutional activities, huh... Thats sweet. Well, hopefully, that same unconstitutional activity will land on your doorstep, huh? Id absolutely love that. Quote
User Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 (edited) 50 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: You just love unconstitutional activities, huh... Thats sweet. Well, hopefully, that same unconstitutional activity will land on your doorstep, huh? Id absolutely love that. Arresting people here illegally is not unconstitutional. You support this open borders lawlessness and then you support more lawlessness to stop ICE from enforcing federal immigration laws. In the end, honestly, it is people like you who cause this mess, support this mess, then whine and cry about how messy it is to clean it all up, then argue we shouldn't do that because it is so messy. Why would we have to worry? We are not here unlawfully. I can't even think of a time I have ever seen an ICE officer. Ever. Do you go to bed at night crying yourself to sleep worried ICE is going to bust down your door and shoot you? LOL Edited January 24 by User Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said: You just love unconstitutional activities, huh... Thats sweet. Well, hopefully, that same unconstitutional activity will land on your doorstep, huh? Id absolutely love that. Your hysterical reaction does not make anything that is being done unconstitutional. 1 Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
CrakHoBarbie Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 (edited) 23 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Your hysterical reaction does not make anything that is being done unconstitutional. Here a short list of some of the unconstitutional activity perpetrated on the American people by donalds regime: 14th Amendment (Birthright Citizenship): The administration issued an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens. Federal judges have blocked this, ruling it "blatantly unconstitutional" as the 14th Amendment broadly confers citizenship to those born in the U.S.. Separation of Powers (Power of the Purse): The administration has frozen trillions of dollars in Congressionally appropriated funds, including for USAID and environmental programs. Courts have ruled that only Congress has the constitutional power to allocate and set conditions on federal spending. 5th Amendment (Due Process): The administration has utilized the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to conduct mass deportations without individual hearings. Courts have ordered the return of some individuals, finding they were denied the due process required by the 5th Amendment. 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech and Retaliation): Retaliation Against Lawyers: The administration has targeted law firms that represented political opponents or challenged its policies by stripping security clearances and barring them from federal buildings. Academic Censorship: Judges have blocked attempts to deport non-citizen pro-Palestinian protesters, finding these actions "infringe the First Amendment rights" of individuals in the U.S.. Scientific and Artistic Censorship: The administration has been sued for deleting LGBTQ-related research from government websites and requiring arts grant applicants to certify they will not promote "gender ideology". 4th Amendment (Privacy): The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reportedly seized sensitive private data—including IRS financial records and medical information—without warrants or probable cause, which critics argue violates 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. Article II (Executive Overreach): The administration has fired numerous career civil servants and independent agency officials (such as members of the National Labor Relations Board) without following statutory "for cause" requirements. Defiance of Judicial Orders: The administration has faced criticism for failing to comply with court rulings, leading to at least one federal judge finding probable cause for criminal contempt of court regarding illegal removals. Goodness.... You just cant stop being wrong, huh.... Edited January 24 by CrakHoBarbie Quote
User Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 6 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Here a short list of all the unconstitutional activity perpetrated on the American people by donalds regime: So, instead of responding to the actual point here, about ICE, you engage in the dishonest tactic of just throwing a bunch of random mud at the wall instead. So... what specifically is it about ICE and their enforcement? The only one you listed was the Alien Enemies Act use, which was used to very specifically and narrowly target Venezuelans that had ties to or were members of a violent gang. This fight is still not over in the Courts and isn't being used at the moment. 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 (edited) 50 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: 14th Amendment (Birthright Citizenship): The administration issued an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens. Federal judges have blocked this, ruling it "blatantly unconstitutional" as the 14th Amendment broadly confers citizenship to those born in the U.S.. OK, no. What they did is apply the definition that was the intended definition. The SCOTUS will determine if the original definition applies. The SCOTUS did strike down the nationwide injuction. That is a sign that they intend to rule in favor of the President. AP 50 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Separation of Powers (Power of the Purse): The administration has frozen trillions of dollars in Congressionally appropriated funds, including for USAID and environmental programs. Courts have ruled that only Congress has the constitutional power to allocate and set conditions on federal spending. That is called a recission. It is a viable tool the President has. Rescissions 101: Key Facts The president can request rescissions via a special message to Congress. Presidents of both parties have used this authority since 1974, though it has been used less frequently since 2000. 50 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Retaliation Against Lawyers: The administration has targeted law firms that represented political opponents or challenged its policies by stripping security clearances and barring them from federal buildings. This is neither unconstitutional nor a first amendment issue. It may be immoral or unethical, but it is not as you described. Which calls into question why they lost their security clearances. Is it because they were against Trump or did they do something wrong? Bring the hammer down on Perkins Coie and every other player in the Russigate scandal Oh, that's right. They were envolved in President Obama's scheme to create fake intelligence to discredit President Elect Trump. In so doing, these law firms misused their security clearances to undermine a duly elected President and the fair, democratic election. But don't let facts get in the way of a good hysterical scream. 50 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Academic Censorship: Judges have blocked attempts to deport non-citizen pro-Palestinian protesters, finding these actions "infringe the First Amendment rights" of individuals in the U.S.. The students did not lose their visas for speech. They lost their visas because they threatened and intimidated Jewish students. That level of antisemitism will not be tolerated. Would you agree that white South Africans that threatened and intimidated black students should get the same treatment? The Trump administration says it's going to take a tough stance on antisemitism. Now, one way they're going to try and do that is by signing an executive order - that's what the president did last week - that aims to deport international students who've participated in university protests over the war in Gaza. 50 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Scientific and Artistic Censorship: The administration has been sued for deleting LGBTQ-related research from government websites and requiring arts grant applicants to certify they will not promote "gender ideology". Good. So what? The Constitution says the government CAN fund science and art. It does not say they have to. In fact, the government does pick and choose what they sponsor. They used to fund space exploration through NASA. Not so much now. They could choose to shutdown SETI or not fund certain field studies of tornados. So they certainly don't have to fund anything to do with gender studies. In fact, you only want them to do it because of a political bent. But politics is not supposed to taint science. So how can the government fund such programs as a result of their political motivations? To do so ruins any scientific findings a.la. global warming. 50 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: 4th Amendment (Privacy): The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reportedly seized sensitive private data—including IRS financial records and medical information—without warrants or probable cause, which critics argue violates 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. Lol, no. The government owns your ssn. If they want to look at it, they can. 50 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Article II (Executive Overreach): The administration has fired numerous career civil servants and independent agency officials (such as members of the National Labor Relations Board) without following statutory "for cause" requirements. Yeah, one judge wrote one opinion. He even acknowledged that his opinion was so full of shit that there was no way the SCOTUS would uphold it. But, nice try. It was clear to him, he explained, that the Supreme Court would overrule such relief given recent decisions the court had issued on related matters. At least he knew he was full of shit. I give him props for that. 50 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Defiance of Judicial Orders: The administration has faced criticism for failing to comply with court rulings, leading to at least one federal judge finding probable cause for criminal contempt of court regarding illegal removals. That dipshit judge tried to get the government to turn around a jet that was damn near ready to land. Even if they could have gotten the message to them, they almost certainly didn't have the gas to return. He was later over ruled any way. Edited January 24 by gatomontes99 1 Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
CrakHoBarbie Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: OK, no. What they did is apply the definition that was the intended definition. The SCOTUS will determine if the original definition applies. The SCOTUS did strike down the nationwide injuction. That is a sign that they intend to rule in favor of the President. AP That is called a recession. It is a viable tool the President has. Rescissions 101: Key Facts The president can request rescissions via a special message to Congress. Presidents of both parties have used this authority since 1974, though it has been used less frequently since 2000. This is neither unconstitutional nor a first amendment issue. It may be immoral or unethical, but it is not as you described. Which calls into question why they lost their security clearances. Is it because they were against Trump or did they do something wrong? Bring the hammer down on Perkins Coie and every other player in the Russigate scandal Oh, that's right. They were envolved in President Obama's scheme to create fake intelligence to discredit President Elect Trump. In so doing, these law firms misused their security clearances to undermine a duly elected President and the fair, democratic election. But don't let facts grt in the way of a good hysterical scream. The students did not lose their visas for speech. They lost their visas because they threatened and intimidated Jewish students. That level of antisemitism will not be tolerated. Would you agree that white South Africans that threatened and intimidated black students should get the same treatment? The Trump administration says it's going to take a tough stance on antisemitism. Now, one way they're going to try and do that is by signing an executive order - that's what the president did last week - that aims to deport international students who've participated in university protests over the war in Gaza. Good. So what? Lol, no. The government owns your ssn. If they want to look at it, they can. Yeah, one judge wrote one opinion. He even acknowledged that his opinion was so full of shit that there was no way the SCOTUS would uphold it. But, nice try. It was clear to him, he explained, that the Supreme Court would overrule such relief given recent decisions the court had issued on related matters. At least he knew he was full of shit. I give him props for that. That dipshit judge tried to get the government to turn around a jet that was damn near ready to land. Even if they could have gotten the message to them, they almost certainly didn't have the gas to return. He was later over ruled any way. Just because you "agree" with what donalds doing, doesnt make it Constitutional. Whine some more. It pairs so well with your unbending tribalism. 1 Quote
User Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 22 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Just because you "agree" with what donalds doing, doesnt make it Constitutional. Whine some more. It pairs so well with your unbending tribalism. LOL, you're hiding from me like a coward, too, now? Quote
CdnFox Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 (edited) 17 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said: You just love unconstitutional activities, huh... But it is constitutional. That's what's got you so cranky Edited January 24 by CdnFox Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
West Posted January 24 Author Report Posted January 24 Now Don Lemon is comparing himself to Jimmy Kimmel, the man who mocked Charlie Kirk after being shot in the neck Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 8 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Just because you "agree" with what donalds doing, doesnt make it Constitutional. Whine some more. It pairs so well with your unbending tribalism. I gave you links to news articles that disproved those claims. You being hysterical doesn't make it unconstitutional. 1 Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
CrakHoBarbie Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 7 hours ago, West said: Now Don Lemon is comparing himself to Jimmy Kimmel, the man who mocked Charlie Kirk after being shot in the neck Don't you find it ironic how Charlie said: “I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights,” and then, fell victim to gun violence? Quote
CdnFox Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Don't you find it ironic how Charlie said: “I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights,” and then, fell victim to gun violence? No. That's not irony. Nor does it mean that he thinks that the gun deaths are good thing. 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
User Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Don't you find it ironic how Charlie said: “I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights,” and then, fell victim to gun violence? No. Once again, you conflate gun violence with gun control. Charlie was not OK with criminals, the criminal use of guns, and supported punishing them. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.