The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[fishonjazz]

Well, you need to consider the issue in a more reasonable light.

When a President does anything necessary to defend the nation from illegal assault, I'm not gonna bitch. We play games with semantics, but the profiteering gangs who do the smuggling of humans, or who regulate the flow and collect immense sums of extortion from immigrants, I consider the political agitators and promoters of such traffic as deserving whatever resistance we can muster. The Dems have lost their bearing in promoting "open border" ideals, and are subjecting me and most Americans to harm, in many respects.

legal immigration measures are needed to break up the smujggling/drug running/human trafficking cartels. It is beyond indefensible to let this go on. The Dems not acting to help regulate the illegal traffick is deplorable and indefensible.

Trump is doing what he legally can, under existing law, and under current Court rulings.

Wall ain't gonna do **** since the invention of ladders and shovels.

Then there is the fact that most illegal immigration doesn't happen via locations where the wall will be.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[JazzyFresh]

You brought up Obamacare in comparison with the wall. I was just showing you the difference between those two things you compared.
I have no idea what Iran was about or what I have my pen means.

However, whenever a president bypasses Congress and the Constitution for their own egos or pet projects we should be disappointed.

You seem to be disappointed over whatever happened with Iran and something about a pen. Which is fine if Obama bypassed Congress and the Constitution in those instances. You should be disappointed. I am too if that's the case.

I just ask that you be disappointed when Trump or any other president does it too. Not just the Democratic ones.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Actually I brought up Obamacare in reference to the empty campaign promises. And I'm not disappointed in any of it. I was simply pointing out that politicians lying to get elected is a pretty standard thing and that getting mad at one guy for doing it while ignoring the next is straight hypocrisy.

 

[Archie Moses]

Wall ain't gonna do **** since the invention of ladders and shovels.

I don't care for a wall, but I disagree. A wall would prevent a lot of illegal immigration.

Speaking of that, I saw a pic online yesterday that made me laugh. It was a Hispanic dude wearing a MAGA hat or something that said, Mexicans Always Get Across. Haha

 

[Safetydan]

Just want to help you understand the difference between what Obama did with Obamacare and what Trump is doing with his wall.

Obama got Obamacare passed through Congress.

Congress denied Trump his wall.

Presidents are not supposed to have spending power. With good reason.

The Constitution gives spending powers to Congress, not the president, part of the separation of powers that Madison crafted as a bulwark against tyranny.

The same Republicans who are cheering as Trump uses these unconstitutional powers will weep over it when a Democrat is in the White House.

it is dangerous to our liberty to let the president take the powers that belong to Congress.

When Congress lets presidents write their own laws, then he’s not a president, he’s a prince.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/andrew-napolitano-donald-trump-emergency-090230009.html



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

This is a great post. @JazzyFresh was wrong to conflate the two. He knows there is a clear difference but he isn't arguing in good faith.

 

[JazzyFresh]

This is a great post. @JazzyFresh was wrong to conflate the two. He knows there is a clear difference but he isn't arguing in good faith.

Actually I didn't. What I compared was the empty election promises not the allocation of money. You dudes are getting conversations crossed.

 

[fishonjazz]

Actually I brought up Obamacare in reference to the empty campaign promises. And I'm not disappointed in any of it. I was simply pointing out that politicians lying to get elected is a pretty standard thing and that getting mad at one guy for doing it while ignoring the next is straight hypocrisy.

I have stated many times that I never like it when I'm lied to.
You do apparently. Or at least are ok with it
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

Actually I brought up Obamacare in reference to the empty campaign promises. And I'm not disappointed in any of it. I was simply pointing out that politicians lying to get elected is a pretty standard thing and that getting mad at one guy for doing it while ignoring the next is straight hypocrisy.

Also this is what you actually said: To me he's doing what he has to. Just as Obama did with his Obamacare that the right didn't want.

So you were also comparing the way they went about achieving those campaign promises whether you wanted to or not.

They didn't both just do what they had to do. One went about it the way the Constitution intended. The other is doing what he has to cause he can't get it done the way the Constitution intended.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

I don't care for a wall, but I disagree. A wall would prevent a lot of illegal immigration.

Speaking of that, I saw a pic online yesterday that made me laugh. It was a Hispanic dude wearing a MAGA hat or something that said, Mexicans Always Get Across. Haha

I think you should say "could" rather than "would".
Can the wall not be ascended or dug under? Is it indestructible and impenetrable? Is the wall magical?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[JazzyFresh]

Also this is what you actually said: To me he's doing what he has to. Just as Obama did with his Obamacare that the right didn't want.

So you were also comparing the way they went about achieving those campaign promises whether you wanted to or not.

They didn't both just do what they had to do. One went about it the way the Constitution intended. The other is doing what he has to cause he can't get it done the way the Constitution intended.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5482004/affordable-care-act-court-ruling/?amp=true

 

[Safetydan]

Actually I didn't. What I compared was the empty election promises not the allocation of money. You dudes are getting conversations crossed.

Yeah backtrack all you want. Move those goalposts. Never acknowledge other people's salient points. This is why discussions involving you devolve into insults frequently.

 

[fishonjazz]

Another doozy from jazzy fresh: "It doesn't bother me that he's using whatever means to get his wall built".

Whatever means? Really? So I couldn't come up with a hypothetical way that Trump decides to get his wall money that wouldn't bother jazzyfresh?


Like if trump decided to fund his wall by using children as prostitutes as the means to get his wall built that wouldn't bother jazzy?

I think that statement by jazzy is inaccurate.

What he meant to say is that Trump taking money from the military for the wall doesn't bother him cause it doesn't effect him. Then again children being prostituted wouldn't effect him either (if they weren't jazzys kids anyway) so maybe that also wouldn't bother him.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5482004/affordable-care-act-court-ruling/?amp=true

Lol
So Obama didn't actually do anything unconstitutional with Obama Care but there is someone who thinks he did. Thinking something doesn't actually mean anything concrete though.

You should have read more than the first paragraph of the article you posted the link to.

Check it: However, the law has not been invalidated yet, and the White House, Healthcare.gov, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have said that 2019 enrollment will proceed as planned. Most legal experts agree that the law will likely stand, at least until it is reviewed by the Supreme Court. The high court is unlikely to hear the case until 2020, the Associated Press reported.

Abbe Gluck, a Yale Law School professor who specializes in health law, tells TIME that the federal judge in the case, Reed O’Connor, has overstepped by attempting to reshape the law.


Now the law could change in the future making what Obama did unconstitutional for future presidents.

Just like I could go buy an AR-15 today and wouldn't be breaking any laws. They could then pass a law making the purchase of an AR-15 illegal in the future but that still wouldn't mean I broke the law when I purchased my AR-15.
Do you understand?


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app