when it comes to Congress’s Constitutionally-given powers, usurping power over naturalization is evil but usurping power over the purse is no big deal.
Lib media still in meltdown over no collusion report
- Thread starter beelit47
- Start date
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/444613-amash-defends-saying-trump-committed-impeachable-offenses
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Monday doubled down on his critical remarks of President Trump, detailing in a series of tweets why he thinks the case can be made that Trump should be impeached for obstruction of justice.
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Monday doubled down on his critical remarks of President Trump, detailing in a series of tweets why he thinks the case can be made that Trump should be impeached for obstruction of justice.
If you’re talking about Trump asking the Pentagon to free up money for the wall, I’d put forth that border security is within the purview of the Pentagon. They also would’ve had to find money not already bucketed to something else. I’d be more worried that the Pentagon found a billion that quickly except that I know how much waste there is in the defense budget.
^^^ Which is why Progressive policy has been a colossal failure. All these 'temporary, feel good' measures get old.
One of these days people will realize the Democratic party is not pro-immigration. They are pro-work visa, pro-temporary status, pro-"Can they vote yet"? All while they love the same 'cheap labor' for their corporate overlords that the Republicans do, with one exception ... they argue for the taxpayer welfare burden, even 10 years later.
We Libertarians merely point out that if we paid them a fair wage, we wouldn't need welfare at all, much less 10+ years later. But that would require us to repeal all of the work visa, refugee BS and other non-sense, along with $0 in public services, and move to the original way all American immigrants came in ...
"You get nothing but a Green Card, you're on your own, don't commit fraud, or you'll be jailed or deported."
Give immigrants that, and they will follow. But give them this undocumented, temporary, work visa crap, and they are just taken advantage of -- whether it's corporations (work visas) or organized crime (undocumented status).
Yes. Imagine if we actually enforced all laws! This is why US laws have become insane, mixed enforcement, and utterly useless.
Even our allies enforce their laws, especially at their borders. Have you seen how many Americans are rejected from migration to Canada over 'ability to generate positive revenue' for the state?
I laugh every time Progressives bring up moving to Canada. A Trump US is still a freer US for non-citizens than Canada!
That's not quite true. The DoD is not responsible for civil agencies involved with law enforcement, including the ATF, CBP, DEA, FBI, ICE and others. That's why the Pentagon is balking, and understandably so.
Now ... a little falls under the Coast Guard, but still, the Coast Guard is not allowed to operate within US boarders. So the wall wouldn't apply.
Did you even stop to remotely understand my point?
President Obama feared a President Romney with the same power. Isn't that the direct, obvious, even hypocritical litmus test of Executive abuse ... right there? The ultimate admission of guilt?
Can you at least see that?
What? I don't know how what you said just is an admission of guilt of anything, especially since you didn't provide any sort of quotes or anything to even really know what you are talking about.
NYTimes 2012 Nov 25:
Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy
"Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.
The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6.
...
There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an "amorphous" program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said. "
This is why we Libertarians think Democratic lawmakers, leaders and their supporters are just as hypocrites ... and we're right.The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6.
...
There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an "amorphous" program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said. "
Reason 2012 Nov 26:
President Obama Briefly Worried That His Unaccountable, Murderous Power Might Fall Into Republican Hands
"A reminder to most Democrats who spent 2002-08 telling us that abuse of executive power was at or near the top of the nation's most urgent moral concerns: You just didn't mean it."
That's why most of what you post is just prove of you either being utterly oblivious or purposely denying reality.
I'm a Libertarian ... I want all leaders held accountable. And yes, even if they are Libertarian. We have our own 'crackpot' in John McAfee who won't 'just go away.'
Even the massively left-leaning New Yorker had the same view ...
New Yorker 2012 Nov 26:
Obama’s Drone Problem
"For a brief moment, though, someone in the Administration apparently pictured Romney sitting down and doing what Obama had been doing, and worried. But even then, did they see the scene for the mess it was?"
And that's just 1 thing. Don't get me started.
NYTimes 2012 Nov 25:
Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy
"Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.This is why we Libertarians think Democratic lawmakers, leaders and their supporters are just as hypocrites ... and we're right.
The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6.
...
There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an "amorphous" program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said. "
Reason 2012 Nov 26:
President Obama Briefly Worried That His Unaccountable, Murderous Power Might Fall Into Republican Hands
"A reminder to most Democrats who spent 2002-08 telling us that abuse of executive power was at or near the top of the nation's most urgent moral concerns: You just didn't mean it."
That's why most of what you post is just prove of you either being utterly oblivious or purposely denying reality.
I'm a Libertarian ... I want all leaders held accountable. And yes, even if they are Libertarian. We have our own 'crackpot' in John McAfee who won't 'just go away.'
Even the massively left-leaning New Yorker had the same view ...
New Yorker 2012 Nov 26:
Obama’s Drone Problem
"For a brief moment, though, someone in the Administration apparently pictured Romney sitting down and doing what Obama had been doing, and worried. But even then, did they see the scene for the mess it was?"
And that's just 1 thing. Don't get me started.
A lot of people were critical of Obama and drone usage. I am not a fan of drone strikes either, so we aren't disagreeing on that.
I dont think a dictatorship has ever occurred because legal citizens didnt want people coming into their country illegally.
If you want to talk about demonizing certain groups, I'd love to hear your take on why its okay for the left to scream about white privilege, toxic masculinity, etc.
Not sure what your first paragraph has to do with anything, but ok.
White privilege is about equality and toxic masculinity about about dudes who don't know how to act properly in the workforce and other situations.
I'm sorry you dont understand the first paragraph, I'm willing to wager you're alone in that.
I know exactly what the made up problems of "white privilege" and "toxic masculinity" are supposed to mean, and I know that they're both bullshit too. Replace white and masculinity with "Jew" and tell me you dont sound like Hitler.
I didn't say I didn't understand it, I said I don't know what it has to do with anything we are talking about.
Toxic masculinity seems pretty self explanatory, so no real reason to dive into that.
We are allowed to talk about the advantages white people, specifically men, have had over the history of our country, and how that impacts society today. Things have certainly gotten better over time, but they are by no means still perfect and there are still valid conversation points.
Well it was 100% relevant to the conversation, sorry you're unable to understand that.
No its not self-explanatory. If I complain to you about "toxic Jewish behavior" I dont just get to say "well thats pretty self-explanatory". Both are made-up problems to get away with being an asshole and trying to drive narrrative towards having a preconceived notion towards those groups.
Specifically what advantages are offered only to white males? Your vague language is exactly how someone trying to demonize a group speaks.
I haven't demonized anyone. Pointing out the realities of society isn't demonization of anything, it is simply reality. Nobody said anything was only offered to white males. But just looking at things like schools. Schools in poorer areas don't tend to be as good as schools in more well off areas, and a lot of poorer areas (not all certainly), tend to be minority areas, especially in large cities, that would be an example of white privilege, and of course we can talk about relationships with police, etc etc. But also, generational wealth is certainly white privilege because other groups weren't allowed to really start to accumulate wealth until at least the 60s, and in reality probably after that.
Equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity, which everyone in the US has regardless of race. The 3 poorest countries in the world are The Republic of Congo, Liberia and Zimbabwe. Are they poor as a result of white privilege?
SOURCE: https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/world/poorest-countries-in-the-world/
Relationship with Police? More whites are killed by police than any other race.
SOURCE: https://www.copinthehood.com/2015/04/killed-by-police-2-of-3-race.html
Specifically who has all this generational wealth? 70% of wealthy families don't maintain that wealth into the 2nd generation, and 90% don't maintain into the 3rd generation.
SOURCE: http://money.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/
Everything you just said can be proven wrong quantifiably. That is demonization, trying to steer narrative based on myths.
Equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity, which everyone in the US has regardless of race. The 3 poorest countries in the world are The Republic of Congo, Liberia and Zimbabwe. Are they poor as a result of white privilege?
SOURCE: https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/world/poorest-countries-in-the-world/
Relationship with Police? More whites are killed by police than any other race.
SOURCE: https://www.copinthehood.com/2015/04/killed-by-police-2-of-3-race.html
Specifically who has all this generational wealth? 70% of wealthy families don't maintain that wealth into the 2nd generation, and 90% don't maintain into the 3rd generation.
SOURCE: http://money.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/
Everything you just said can be proven wrong quantifiably. That is demonization, trying to steer narrative based on myths.
"Equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity, which everyone in the US has regardless of race."- Equality of opportunity is most certainly not the same all across the board. As I have already noted, poorer areas tend to have worse schools. Based on that alone you cant say everyone has equal opportunity when not everyone even has access to the same quality of education.
I said nothing about being killed by police, I said relationships with police. But, your chart is also just raw #s and doesn't consider that there are more white people than other races. And of course every police shooting has different circumstances surrounding it which is the actual issue.
We arent talking about Africa, that is a whole other discussion.
Your article is talking about wealthy people. I am talking about wealth. Middle class people also have wealth. The US ranks below a lot of other Western nations in economic mobility. Essentially meaning, that most people in this country live and die in the economic class they are born into. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/economic-mobility-united-states-compared-europe-scandinavia/
Your article also says the reasons they lose money are pretty straight forward, in that they are entitled and never bothered to learn, or werent taught, how to handle money in the first place. It also doesnt really say how much they lose. If we are talking about inheriting $10 million, and ending up with $5 million or something alone those lines, then these are still wealthy people.
funny how you dont have a single number to back up any of your claims, just "we're not talking about that"
i went to a "poor" school in Houston, TX. That didnt take away the opportunity i was inherently given to crush the advanved placement classes I took and get scholarships for college. Any reason for that not being possible for others is just a poor excuse to not be personally responsible.
The number of people killed by police is directly related to who commits the most crime. It is not the fault of white privilege that blacks tend to commit a disproportionate amount of violent crimes.
this is why the left is losing and will lose 2020 in a landslide again
i went to a "poor" school in Houston, TX. That didnt take away the opportunity i was inherently given to crush the advanved placement classes I took and get scholarships for college. Any reason for that not being possible for others is just a poor excuse to not be personally responsible.
The number of people killed by police is directly related to who commits the most crime. It is not the fault of white privilege that blacks tend to commit a disproportionate amount of violent crimes.
this is why the left is losing and will lose 2020 in a landslide again
I posted an article with #s to back up my claim. The only think I said we werent talking about is when you tried to bring up Africa in a discussion about society in the US. Africa is a whole different discussion with entirely different issues which has nothing to do with opportunies in the US.
Nobody is saying it is impossible to come out of poverty. If that is what you did, then good for you. But #s dont lie. Most people remain in the economic class they are born into. Here is another article, and if you want to know more about the subject simply google economic mobility and there are loads of articles on the subject.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...ttner/it-easier-obtain-american-dream-europe/
Pardon me for not knowing that the US is the only country with white people.
Poverty and crime are linked to having children out of wedlock, failing to finish high school and not getting a job. None of those have anything to do with skin pigmentation and EVERYTHING to do with personal responsibility.
There is no white man forcing black fathers to be absent in their childrens life, there is no white man discouraging blacks from finishing high school, and there is no white man putting a gun to a black persons head telling them they must commit a crime.
White privilege is a conspiracy theory, nothing more.
Poverty and crime are linked to having children out of wedlock, failing to finish high school and not getting a job. None of those have anything to do with skin pigmentation and EVERYTHING to do with personal responsibility.
There is no white man forcing black fathers to be absent in their childrens life, there is no white man discouraging blacks from finishing high school, and there is no white man putting a gun to a black persons head telling them they must commit a crime.
White privilege is a conspiracy theory, nothing more.
Nobody said that the US is the only country with white people. I didnt even say the US was the only country with racial issues.
Yes, poverty and crime go hand in hand. There are plenty of poor white communities with high crime rates as well. So you admit it has nothing to do with skin color, which I agree. There is nothing about someones skin color that makes them commit crimes or have kids out of wedlock. But since we agree on that, then there obviously has to be other factors, and I think wealth is certainly one of those factors. We are only really about 60 years from the civil rights act, but the civil rights act was only a starting point. There was plenty of discrimination well beyond the civil rights act being passed. But, before the civil rights act, it was much easier for whites to accumulate wealth, buy homes, etc. That is simply not debatable. And those types of things most certainly change the starting point people have when beginning their lives. ANd I am by no means saying white people have it easy or dont have problems. Today with student debt and things of that nature, plenty of young white people are starting adulthood with mountains of debt as well, and there are plenty of poor white people, Appalachia for example, that dont start out their lives with many advantages. But generally speaking, it is simply not debatable that white people have had it better than African Americans since the founding of this country, and we all have never started out with the same advantages in life.
Last edited:
Not to get dragged down a rabbit hole but 10 USC 2808 allows them to build in the case of a war or national emergency. This is there because the DoD will be building things if we ever get into a war that threatens the homeland, not the civilian agencies.
So he can do it. But it’d get tied up in court and be a big waste of time so I hope they don’t try to go down that path.
The New York State legislature engaged in a little lawfare recently when they passed a law that made it easier for state prosecutors to go after individuals who received a presidential pardon. The hole they punched in their double jeopardy laws applies to people working on of aiding a presidential campaign and was directly targeted at Trump. It was supported by the state Attorney General, who is going after Trump.
Always a good look when the legislature changes laws mid-investigation to go after a single person.
Always a good look when the legislature changes laws mid-investigation to go after a single person.
I see your point, but honestly, it probably should have never been a loop hole in the first place. Federal pardons really shouldn't have any impact on potential state sentences.
i just double checked. no obstruction, no collusion, and trump is still potus. i look forward to barrs investigation.
I wasn't referring to that. But yes, that is one scenario. It's considered a nightmare for civil liberties too.
Spoken like a true Progressive that has shed their Liberal foundation. Seriously dude.
New York has utterly trumped California on due process and destroying civil liberties. At least California's courts get 'bogged down' in various debates, and even Brown takes issue in cases of sheer civil liberties being thwarted. The state of New York, on the other hand, just hides what they are doing ... until FOIAs and the courts intercede.
Huh?
Arent you the dude who pretends to be libertarian? But, you think federal pardons should over ride state laws? Seems like you have shed your libertarian foundation. Seriously dude.
Yes, I play one 100%, case-in-point ...
Yes! The whole purpose of the federal government is to protect individual, civil rights!
That's why people 'get confused' on 'states rights.' The idea of 'states rights' is that the States override the Federal by default ... with one huge exception ...
civil rights -- especially individual!
Sounds like you need a civics refresher.
It's funny to watch Liberals literally shed 'civil rights' when it serves their purpose of demonization and destruction.
I'm sure your Progressive friends are patting you 'on-the-back,' you believe prosecuting people as much as possible, when they don't fit your political agenda.
I suppose you love New York state's gun laws, and threating financial institutions to the point they withholding funds from anyone who sells gun merchanise too?
How is this a violation of civil rights? If they broke state law, the state shouldn't have the ability to prosecute? Do you think only the Federal government should have the ability to prosecute?
Yeah, those crazy libs go around demonizing women who discover they are pregnant and choose to have an abortion. Screw civil rights, they demand Big Government step into this personal affair and force these women to serve as human incubators regardless of rape or incest. Those villains!
Research how the courts have looked at a state that attempts to prosecute an alleged 'state crime' that matches the federal. They have not been too nice to prosecutors who do. In fact, federal pardons have been made to prevent multiple states from prosecuting an individual many times over the same crime.
I.e., in this rush to 'stop Trump,' we're undermining civil liberties ... which impacts every American citizen, not just the President or his Executive cronies.
Heck, I'm the Libertarian that screams 'accountability,' but it's scaring me how many Americans think the elected President of the United States should be 'accountable to Congress.' George Washington immediately had to deal with that early in his administration, over BS political non-sense.
Yes, non-elected, Executive officials are under Congressional accountability, and many have to be approved by Congress. But at some point, this is becoming completely partisan. It's like the whole Mueller investigation never happened.
Can we stick to the topic at hand? You have this habit of going off on these tangents and it makes it difficult to have a discussion in this format. We aren't talking about Trump and congress.
If it can be challenged in court then what really is the problem? Laws are blocked by the courts all the time, and maybe that will be the case here. If there is precedent like you say, then I would assume it will be shot down pretty quickly. Can you cite a few cases that show what you are saying though? I am not saying you are wrong, but some links would be nice and I looked briefly and didn't really find anything on this matter.
Also, this law isn't retroactive, so it wont apply to Manafort or Michael Cohen, only to people potentially charged in the future.
And yet ... the state of New York that just passed a law 'against Trump and Congress' that affects all of us! The state of New York keeps doing that.
Sigh ... total Liberal values fail. You are absolutely, 100% Progressive non-sense. We're done.
I miss Liberals. I really do. They are now dead. We Libertarians are the ones with the torch now.
This whole posts says a bunch of nothing. And yes, we get it, you are a libertarian, you don't have to point that out constantly. Anyway, Have a good day carrying the torch or whatever.
You told me everything here ...
"If it can be challenged in court then what really is the problem?"
The NeoProg attitude of "let's pass laws and if people don't challenge them, they must be good."
People like you are literally turning everyone into criminals. You're definitely Bill Clinton material. Run for President.
That is how laws and courts work. I also noticed when I asked you to cite anything to back up your claims, you don't or can't do it. Anyway, I thought we were done and you were going to carry the torch of libertarianism, better get to that, sounds important. Have a good one.
Yes, a court system has always been closely tied to totalitarianism, in some alternate universe I suppose. Anyway, thanks for the history lesson torchbearer.
