The case for impeachment

T

tinfoil

Banned
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01...ophobia-and-the-threat-to-the-constitution-2/

Trump didn't even make it a fucking week before he violated the constitution. Impeach this fucker now. As far as I'm concerned, we do not have to put up with a single minute longer when the man hired to ensure the faithful execution of the constitution can't go his first week without BLATANTLY violating the god damned thing.

People are saying the second amendment people have been talking and have found what might be a solution. Maybe they will share their ideas with us.
 
web-conspiracy-lg1.jpg
 
I got to this part in the article "As the New York Times reported on January 28th, Trump issued an executive order banning all Muslim refugees from Syria, ", and just realized the rest is bullshit.
 
We'll see, folks. There are consequences when judges start bitch slapping the president over his unlawful executive orders. I support his removal from office for violating his oath of office to uphold the laws... which included not violating the constitution.
 
tinfoil said:
We'll see, folks. There are consequences when judges start bitch slapping the president over his unlawful executive orders. I support his removal from office for violating his oath of office to uphold the laws... which included not violating the constitution.
Click to expand...

You mean like they did with Obama? Were you screaming for impeachment then? I was not on the board at those times.
 
tinfoil said:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01...ophobia-and-the-threat-to-the-constitution-2/

Trump didn't even make it a fucking week before he violated the constitution. Impeach this fucker now. As far as I'm concerned, we do not have to put up with a single minute longer when the man hired to ensure the faithful execution of the constitution can't go his first week without BLATANTLY violating the god damned thing.

People are saying the second amendment people have been talking and have found what might be a solution. Maybe they will share their ideas with us.
Click to expand...


1) it's not a muslim ban, that's why lots of other majority muslim countries were still allowed in

2) His EO references a law that was passed by congress and signed by obama

3) it is fully in a presidents power to protect our borders

4)
Trump issued an executive order banning all Muslim refugees from Syria, in addition to all immigrants from numerous countries, including Iraq, Iran, Sudan,
Click to expand...


Incorrect, he banned all people from these regions, it was not defined by religion.

This is big boy stuff tinfoil, way beyond your paygrade to understand.
 
That amendment specifically applies to people under U.S jurisdiction, which is not the case here, in fact the point of the order is to prevent that from happening. Democrats have done this before you know, look up Jimmy Carter.
 
tinfoil said:
We'll see, folks. There are consequences when judges start bitch slapping the president over his unlawful executive orders. I support his removal from office for violating his oath of office to uphold the laws... which included not violating the constitution.
Click to expand...
none of those orders will be standing 30 days from now, the protesters will have gone home, schumaker will have dried his eyes and the new vetting process will be in place.......three liberal protesters will have to undergo shock therapy.........
 
Sailor said:
I got to this part in the article "As the New York Times reported on January 28th, Trump issued an executive order banning all Muslim refugees from Syria, ", and just realized the rest is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true Trumpflake.
 
People keep saying it isn't a Muslim ban - but Giuliani is all over the airwaves saying that Trump asked him how he could ban Muslims "legally," and this is what they came up with.

Trump supporters have the biggest set of blinders on.
 
+ said:



1) it's not a muslim ban, that's why lots of other majority muslim countries were still allowed in

2) His EO references a law that was passed by congress and signed by obama

3) it is fully in a presidents power to protect our borders

4)

Incorrect, he banned all people from these regions, it was not defined by religion.

This is big boy stuff tinfoil, way beyond your paygrade to understand.
Click to expand...

The ban and it's exceptions both mention religions. Muslims and Christians...
What part of that don't you get, asshole?
This one won't split 4 to 4 on the SC...
 
tinfoil said:
We'll see, folks. There are consequences when judges start bitch slapping the president over his unlawful executive orders. I support his removal from office for violating his oath of office to uphold the laws... which included not violating the constitution.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Constitution is not an international treaty. It's for the American people.
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
The ban and it's exceptions both mention religions. Muslims and Christians...
What part of that don't you get, asshole?
This one won't split 4 to 4 on the SC...
Click to expand...

no religion is mentioned. There is one small sentence out of like a billion that says at some point to prioritize religious minorities for refugee status. It does not say to exclude a dominant religion. Islam, christianity, etc, not mentioned at all in the executive order.
 
theoretically do you even need a case? Its a political process. As long as you have the votes go for it.
 
Well, I get that you libs aren't the brightest but I know you can read, so read the whole executive order, though I am sure you won't be able to understand it.

And here it is at the liberal mouthpiece CNN, the whole EO:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/

Here is quite a notable passage:

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

As Syria is affected, only Muslims are banned (presumably, by me, to allow Christians to escape), for the other 6 ALL are banned, this is not a Muslim ban; only 13% of the worlds Muslims live in these 7 countries who were placed on this list by Obama who enacted temporary bans on these countries several times.
 
Thing1 said:
People keep saying it isn't a Muslim ban - but Giuliani is all over the airwaves saying that Trump asked him how he could ban Muslims "legally," and this is what they came up with.
.
Click to expand...

yes.....they came up with something that isn't a Muslim ban.......its a shame you have to keep making things up to criticize him......
 
Not yet, but he will get there. I called the Saturday night massacre comparisons. I had no idea he'd fulfill my prediction so quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top