I wish I could find the CSPAN video of Joe Biden on the Senate floor railing against semiautomatic weapons back in the day of the Assault Weapons ban. Joe Railed the made the Machine Gun sound, Ack ack ack... Then rail somemore. To me he seemed the complete fool with his vocal impression of a full auto weapons that had been banned for 50 years. Then back to railing about a semi-auto, calling it an Assault weapon. Weapons that no military anywhere use. Ack ack ack... Phony fucker! A Clown really.
You already have a firmly implanted view. There's no explaining that could ever change that. I give up.
I have voted for Democrat Presidents. JFK rather than Nixon, Bill Clinton rather than Bush GH, guys that seemed as if they would at least vist the logical point of view. Joe Biden is not of this cut. He is bullshit artist, sometimes a clown, but never clearly logical.
You were planning on explaining something that only God and Joe Biden (or his therapist) could know? You think you can explain that? You can explain it until the end of time and be right about one thing....that you're not going to change my mind about the creepy behaviors I saw on legitimate videos. If you'd like to link an article that "explains" how to prove this was all innocent I'd read every damn word of it.
Nobody needs to say Trump bad. He pretty much proves and shows it on a daily basis. You just keep hanging on as one of the thirty percenters.
You just keep ignoring that you'll be fine with someone else just as bad as long as he has a D next to his name and doesn't tweet mean stuff. I'm pretty sure you're in the bottom 30 percent yourself.
lmao! That's where you are completely wrong. I'm neither a democrat or republican but can't stand trump and his pathetic followers. I want the best person available to be president and couldn't care less if they are Blue, Red, Green or any other party affiliate. Now that you know that about me, please kindly post the truth rather than made up bullshit like you often do.
Then you should quit deflecting when people say things about Biden. This line of discussion was about Biden. You turned it into Trump bashing as usual. A sure symptom of TDS if ever there was one.
Derp a derp. No shit. You changed his post to Trump. Not me. Again with the deflecting. You did it. Own it.
derp a derp? what are you, in the 5th grade? I changed the discussion to trump just like someone else changed it to Biden. You don't control the content in this forum so quit trying to. If you don't like the direction then simply pass the post by (as hard as I know that is for you).
CW wants us to get back to discussing border security, soooo............................. Judge tosses House Dems' lawsuit over Trump's use of emergency military funds for border wall By Gregg Re | Fox News Trump vow dramatic action on border crisis; Arizona Republican Party chair Kelli Ward reacts. Washington, D.C., district court Judge Trevor McFadden threw out House Democrats' lawsuit seeking an injunction against President Trump's emergency border wall funding reallocation, saying that the matter is fundamentally a political dispute and that the politicians lack standing to make the case. Trump had declared a national emergency this past February over the humanitarian crisis at the southern border, following Congress' failure to fund his border wall legislatively. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Democrats then filed suit in April, charging that Trump was "stealing from appropriated funds” by moving $6.7 billion from other projects toward border wall construction. Democrats argued that the White House had "flouted the fundamental separation-of-powers principles and usurped for itself legislative power specifically vested by the Constitution in Congress." But, in his ruling, McFadden, a Trump appointee, suggested Democrats were trying to usurp the political process. "This case presents a close question about the appropriate role of the Judiciary in resolving disputes between the other two branches of the Federal Government. To be clear, the court does not imply that Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers," McFadden wrote in his opinion. "The Court declines to take sides in this fight between the House and the President." McFadden's ruling contrasted with Barack Obama-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam’s injunction last week, which blocked the administration from using the reallocated funds for projects in specific areas in Texas and Arizona. McFadden began by focusing on two guiding Supreme Court cases he called "lodestars"-- the 2015 case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, and the 1997 case Raines v. Byrd. Raw video: Over a thousand migrants caught crossing border near El Paso, Texas Border Patrol has picked up the migrants caught on this tape. "Read together, Raines and Arizona State Legislature create a spectrum of sorts," McFadden wrote. "On one end, individual legislators lack standing to allege a generalized harm to Congress’s Article I power. On the other end, both chambers of a state legislature do have standing to challenge a nullification of their legislative authority brought about through a referendum." But McFadden quickly distinguished the Arizona State Legislature case, which found institutional standing for legislators only in a limited instance. The case, the judge noted, “does not touch or concern the question whether Congress has standing to bring a suit against the President," and the Supreme Court has found there was “no federal analogue to Arizona’s initiative power." Democrats' dispute was more similar to the one in the Raines case, McFadden wrote. Under the framework and factors considered in Raines -- including how similar matters have been handled historically, and the availability of other remedies besides litigation -- McFadden ruled House Democrats lacked standing. Concerning past practice, the Trump administration argued in its brief that when Congress was concerned about "unauthorized Executive Branch spending in the aftermath of World War I, it responded not by threatening litigation, but by creating the General Accounting Office" -- an argument the judge cited appprovingly in his opinion. Examples of hotly debated political questions being resolved without involving the courts, McFadden said, "abound" throughout history. For example, McFadden wrote, in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt "fired an official from his Senate-confirmed position at the Federal Trade Commission. ...The President removed the official without providing a reason. ... The Senate likely had a 'strong[] claim of diminution of' its Advice and Consent power. ... Yet the Senate made no effort to challenge this action in court." Additionally, McFadden said Democrats retained constitutional legislative options with which to remedy their objections about the president's purported misuse of the Appropriations Clause. Under Supreme Court precedent in the Raines case, McFadden asserted, that finding suggested Democrats lacked standing. McFadden noted in particular that Democrats retained the power to modify or even repeal the appropriations law if they wanted to "exempt future appropriations" from the Trump administration's reach. Because the White House had not "nullified" that legislative power, McFadden wrote, there was no urgent need for judicial intervention sufficient to override the considerations of the political question doctrine, which holds that courts generally stay out of politically sensitive matters best left to voters. "Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power," McFadden wrote. "These tools show that this lawsuit is not a last resort for the House. And this fact is also exemplified by the many other cases across the country challenging the administration's planned construction of the border wall." McFadden continued: "The House retains the institutional tools necessary to remedy any harm caused to this power by the Administration’s actions. Its Members can, with a two-thirds majority, override the President’s veto of the resolution voiding the National Emergency Declaration. They did not. It can amend appropriations laws to expressly restrict the transfer or spending of funds for a border wall under Sections 284 and 2808. Indeed, it appears to be doing so." The judge added that House Democrats had the burden of demonstrating that they had standing -- a difficult hurdle for any plaintiff to clear, which involves showing a particularized injury that the court can address. To that end, McFadden quoted former Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the seminal 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, in which Marshall wrote, the "province of the [C[ourt is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to enquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion." McFadden also wrote, quoting from another Supreme Court case, "Intervening in a contest between the House and President over the border wall would entangle the Court 'in a power contest nearly at the height of its political tension' and would 'risk damaging the public confidence that is vital to the functioning of the Judicial Branch.'"
Number of new citizens hits 5-year high under Trump administration, despite Dem criticism By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News The new White House proposal to focus on border security and merit-based immigration; William La Jeunesse reports from San Ysidro, California. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services set a five-year high in 2018 for the number of people who took the oath of citizenship – despite heated criticism from Democrats about the Trump administration's immigration policies. That criticism largely centers on President Trump's immigration rhetoric, his push for a border wall and policies cracking down on asylum applications and more. But according to a report released late last week by USCIS, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, the administration has processed citizenship applications at a rapid clip. USCIS processed just under 850,000 naturalization forms in 2018 and swore in almost 757,000 people as new citizens. The number of new citizens marked a 6 percent increase from 2017 and a 16 percent rise from 2014 when just over 653,000 people became U.S. citizens. “In the last fiscal year, USCIS adjudicated more than eight million requests for immigration benefits, which is a 28 percent increase over the last five fiscal years,” USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna said in a statement. “USCIS also helped make the American dream become a reality for 757,000 new citizens, a five year high in new oaths of citizenship.” The USCIS report comes amid a heated fight between the Trump administration and congressional Democrats over immigration and funding for the president’s proposed border wall. Trump’s critics have lambasted the administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration and argued that its efforts have only worsened a backlog of cases in immigration courts. U.S. immigration courts currently have a backlog of 850,000 cases with only 450 judges nationwide to handle them despite a record number of Central Americans arriving at the U.S.’s southern border, many seeking asylum from the widespread violence and poverty engulfing the region. Video The president has argued it is not the courts' fault there are so many cases. “We don’t need a court system,” Trump said during an interview with Fox Business Network anchor Maria Bartiromo in late April. “We have a court system that is — has 900,000 cases behind it. In other words, they have a court which needs to hear 900,000 cases. How ridiculous is this?” He added, “What we need is new laws that don’t allow this, so when somebody comes in, we say: ‘Sorry, you got to go out.’ ” Trump last month unveiled his long-awaited immigration overhaul plan that would assess immigrants with a points-based system that would favor high-skilled workers – accounting for age, English proficiency, education and whether the applicant has a well-paying job offer – instead of the current system that strongly favors family ties in the country. “Democrats are proposing open borders, lower wages and frankly, lawless chaos,” he said. “We are proposing an immigration plan that puts the jobs, wages and safety of American workers first.” “Our plan is pro-American, pro-immigrant, and pro-worker,” he said. “It’s just common sense.” The plan, however, has been dismissed by Democrats as a partisan effort that does not take into account the hard work of immigrants from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds. “Our country was built in large part by people who came here with nothing and risked everything to build a better life for their families,” Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said in a statement. “In doing so, together we built the strongest, most prosperous, and powerful nation on Earth. We did not cherry-pick our way to greatness.” Castro added: “Besides, who gets to define ‘merit?’ Few among us could work on a roof in the July Texas sun, or work the fields of the Central Valley or Midwest for eight hours a day. That seems like a ‘highly skilled’ worker to me.”
Holy shit there's a good reason I ignore you half the time. You quoted my response to you bringing Trump up again as ME changing the topic to Trump. Holy fuck how wrong do you have to be over and over before you'll give up? The little quote of yours that says "fify" is from your stupid post that edited what someone else said. Here's a screenshot, see if you can find it.
