Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is why we can't take this crap seriously. At least be consistent in your whining. Please. If not.. We know its partisan crap.
How can you back something so obviously politically driven and organized by rich liberal elites like Soros or out of out touch liberal celebrities and obvious inconsistent whining?
I have been asking this for the past week. Same with Cuba. Nobody objected when Obama became friends with them but we decided to hate Russia forever just because of Trump. If we can make peace with our previous enemies (like japan, italy, germany, vietnam), then why not have an open mind about Russia? If Obama had suggested turning them into allies, we would be all over it.
Cubans are just no longer afforded special treatment under the "wet foot dry foot" policy that was a relic of the Cold War and now have to go through the same process to become legal residents as any other nationality. They aren't banned and never were.
Liberals have no principles they support their lying leaders no matter what. Hypocrisy party should be their name. Interest rates near zero is s depressed economy not s recovering one.thanks obummer
This is why we can't take this crap seriously. At least be consistent in your whining. Please. If not.. We know its partisan crap.
How can you back something so obviously politically driven and organized by rich liberal elites like Soros or out of out touch liberal celebrities and obvious inconsistent whining?
He banned neither. These lies are the partisan crap. Also nice attempts to deflect from a president who cannot seem to accomplish anything.
Feel free to post anything at all to back up your falsehoods.
If only Trump hasn't repeatedly stated it was a Muslim ban. Seriously. That's what stopped it. HIS failure.
No, activist judges stopped it, and they will lose when the case is heard. It's very possible that the insane 9th circuit could very well even rule the EO legal, if not, the Supreme Court will slap down these activist clown judges.
No, activist judges stopped it, and they will lose when the case is heard. It's very possible that the insane 9th circuit could very well even rule the EO legal, if not, the Supreme Court will slap down these activist clown judges.
You mean people following the constitution? Those activists?
Seriously, read the decisions. This is Trumps failure
You mean people following the constitution? Those activists?
Seriously, read the decisions. This is Trumps failure
The order didn't violate the constitution (that will be confirmed when this goes to trial), and it was within the power of the presidency.
A judge in MA stopped the stay because he know the challenge had no chance in court.
Just like I said about Trump is not going to be impeached over the Emoluments Clause, I will go on the record stating that Trump's EO will be ruled constitutional, possibly in the 9th circuit, or if not, it will be in the Supreme Court.
You balked on going on the record saying Trump will be impeached over the Emoluments Clause, are you willing to go on the record saying that Trump's EO will be ruled unconstitutional?
The order didn't violate the constitution (that will be confirmed when this goes to trial), and it was within the power of the presidency.
A judge in MA stopped the stay because he know the challenge had no chance in court.
Just like I said about Trump is not going to be impeached over the Emoluments Clause, I will go on the record stating that Trump's EO will be ruled constitutional, possibly in the 9th circuit, or if not, it will be in the Supreme Court.
You balked on going on the record saying Trump will be impeached over the Emoluments Clause, are you willing to go on the record saying that Trump's EO will be ruled unconstitutional?
Good question. Except that is not the topic-the courts have a reasonable cause for their orders. Will the Supreme court agree? 50/50. So asking em to "go on record" is kind of nonsense when I think there is a reasonable argument BOTH ways now isn't it?
Would I bet money on it? Probably. But I have seen how folks like you understand statistics from the many conversations on polls here. If I was wrong in a 50/50 bet suddenly you would be crowing about it non-stop. With no comprehension of probability. If I was right you would ignore it. See how that works?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
