Mexico 'won't pay single cent for Trump's stupid wall'

If Trump as POTUS were to freeze all Mexican assets in the US and stop all money transfers from US to Mexico, the Mexican government will do whatever he demands.

Uh-huh, and the legal precedent for what you're proposing is . . .?
Does there have to be a precedent for it to be enacted?

Of course, there is lots of precedent. Your question indicates a lack of knowledge. The US government has frozen the assets of foreign nations many times. You might look it up to get informed.

Yes. There are laws regarding the powers of the government and the assets of private individuals and sovereign nations, therefore you most certainly DO require a legal basis and precedent for what you propose.

Let me put this another way: is what you propose legal? If so, what is your proof to that effect?

No, saying "Asking that shows you're stupid, because OF COURSE I'm right, so there!" does not fulfill this requirement.

I will not be "looking it up" to support YOUR argument. You said it, YOU prove it, or by not doing so you will admit that you were talking out of your ass. Your choice. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Wtf...the government has frozen assets of foreign nations many times. So of course it is legal and there is precedent.
 
If Trump as POTUS were to freeze all Mexican assets in the US and stop all money transfers from US to Mexico, the Mexican government will do whatever he demands.

Uh-huh, and the legal precedent for what you're proposing is . . .?
Doesn't have to be a 'legal president' asshole.
Just an Act of Congress to protect the national security of the USA. Given the facts as they are regarding what Mexico is actively engaged in threatening the US national security there will be no problem with a REP controlled Congress to act to protect the USA.

First of all, Mensa Boy, it's "precedent", not "president". Second of all, the government of the United States, be it the Congress or the President, DOES have to respect and act within the laws. They do not get to just take a wild hair and run off and do whatever they please, without regard to the legal rights of others.

So I will ask you again: what is the legal precedent for simply seizing the money and assets of individual people who have not actually committed any crimes? Or for seizing the assets of a sovereign nation, for that matter?

This "bull in a china shop" attitude of Trump and his wild-eyed, frothing zealots is EXACTLY why I wouldn't vote for him. I have no desire to turn a crisis into a catastrophe - and an international incident - by voting in the political equivalent of a belligerent drunk yelling at the bar bouncers.
And what evidence do you have that supports this belief that Trump is in the habit of causing such turmoil? We've known him for decades. He wasn't ever like this character you describe ever before. Only now, once he becomes a threat to the establishment and runs for president, has he Mr Insaneo or Dr Evil. Never mind the idiots that have been screwing up everything the last 10 years.

I think your biggest fear is an outsider actually getting something done.

I have no idea which Donald Trump YOU are referring to. Perhaps a friend from your neighborhood? The Donald Trump who's running for President has always been exactly as I describe him, and has amply demonstrated it during the campaign . . . to everyone except for "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" fanboys who he himself describes as willing to accept him shooting someone.

As for your out-of-your-ass "thought" about what I do and don't fear, this is what happens when you attempt to think while hopped up on Cult of Trump Kool-Aid. Perhaps you should avoid that in future.
 
If Trump as POTUS were to freeze all Mexican assets in the US and stop all money transfers from US to Mexico, the Mexican government will do whatever he demands.

Uh-huh, and the legal precedent for what you're proposing is . . .?
Does there have to be a precedent for it to be enacted?

Of course, there is lots of precedent. Your question indicates a lack of knowledge. The US government has frozen the assets of foreign nations many times. You might look it up to get informed.

Yes. There are laws regarding the powers of the government and the assets of private individuals and sovereign nations, therefore you most certainly DO require a legal basis and precedent for what you propose.

Let me put this another way: is what you propose legal? If so, what is your proof to that effect?

No, saying "Asking that shows you're stupid, because OF COURSE I'm right, so there!" does not fulfill this requirement.

I will not be "looking it up" to support YOUR argument. You said it, YOU prove it, or by not doing so you will admit that you were talking out of your ass. Your choice. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Wtf...the government has frozen assets of foreign nations many times. So of course it is legal and there is precedent.

Then it should be child's play for you to cite the specific legal basis, it's requirements, and how your proposal meets that standard. Which makes me wonder why you don't just do so, rather than wasting my time with repeated posts of "It's okay. Everyone knows it's okay. Just accept that I'm correct."
 
If Trump as POTUS were to freeze all Mexican assets in the US and stop all money transfers from US to Mexico, the Mexican government will do whatever he demands.

Uh-huh, and the legal precedent for what you're proposing is . . .?
Does there have to be a precedent for it to be enacted?

Of course, there is lots of precedent. Your question indicates a lack of knowledge. The US government has frozen the assets of foreign nations many times. You might look it up to get informed.

Yes. There are laws regarding the powers of the government and the assets of private individuals and sovereign nations, therefore you most certainly DO require a legal basis and precedent for what you propose.

Let me put this another way: is what you propose legal? If so, what is your proof to that effect?

No, saying "Asking that shows you're stupid, because OF COURSE I'm right, so there!" does not fulfill this requirement.

I will not be "looking it up" to support YOUR argument. You said it, YOU prove it, or by not doing so you will admit that you were talking out of your ass. Your choice. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Wtf...the government has frozen assets of foreign nations many times. So of course it is legal and there is precedent.

Then it should be child's play for you to cite the specific legal basis, it's requirements, and how your proposal meets that standard. Which makes me wonder why you don't just do so, rather than wasting my time with repeated posts of "It's okay. Everyone knows it's okay. Just accept that I'm correct."
Absurd.

The US gov has frozen assets of foreign nations many times. So...thinking logically, it must be legal and it offers precedent.

Stop being stupid.
 
Thanks for the input,

Interesting how you manage to insult, but not offer comment on how much of the migrant situation was caused be the US stealing Mexican land in the first place.
So many Americans complain about Spanish being used in America, but none of those fools have a clue the area was Mexican anyway.
By all means build the wall, but at the pre American invasion borders, returning all stolen land to the Mexican government.

The immigrant problem wasn't caused by the U.S. winning wars with Mexico. It was caused by the Democrat Party refusing to do anything about illegal aliens, and the fact that Mexico is a giant shit hole.

AND, to be fair, REpublicans doing little about illegals too.

Yes, but to be fair, rank-and-file Republicans are upset about that, hence the current GOP primary race. Democrats and leftists, on the other hand, keep blithering at each other about "fair", and "compassion", and all manner of bleeding heart bullshit.
 
Uh-huh, and the legal precedent for what you're proposing is . . .?
Does there have to be a precedent for it to be enacted?

Of course, there is lots of precedent. Your question indicates a lack of knowledge. The US government has frozen the assets of foreign nations many times. You might look it up to get informed.

Yes. There are laws regarding the powers of the government and the assets of private individuals and sovereign nations, therefore you most certainly DO require a legal basis and precedent for what you propose.

Let me put this another way: is what you propose legal? If so, what is your proof to that effect?

No, saying "Asking that shows you're stupid, because OF COURSE I'm right, so there!" does not fulfill this requirement.

I will not be "looking it up" to support YOUR argument. You said it, YOU prove it, or by not doing so you will admit that you were talking out of your ass. Your choice. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Wtf...the government has frozen assets of foreign nations many times. So of course it is legal and there is precedent.

Then it should be child's play for you to cite the specific legal basis, it's requirements, and how your proposal meets that standard. Which makes me wonder why you don't just do so, rather than wasting my time with repeated posts of "It's okay. Everyone knows it's okay. Just accept that I'm correct."
Absurd.

The US gov has frozen assets of foreign nations many times. So...thinking logically, it must be legal and it offers precedent.

Stop being stupid.

"Everyone knows, and everyone just KNOWS, and so you're stupid to expect me to discuss it. I'm JUST RIGHT, DAMN IT, AND DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO HEAL THE WORLD!"

I will now assume that the last time you sucked Donald's dick, he stabbed your brain. You lost, you're done, happy boy crush, buh bye. :fu:
 
The immigrant problem wasn't caused by the U.S. winning wars with Mexico

You mean, staring wars with Mexico, then forcing a bad treaty on that nation that effectively meant you stole the land.
Now you complain about Mexicans coming to live in Mexican land with Mexican place names.

You know, I would really like to correct your skewed view of Mexican/American history but know it would be a total waste of time. So, So sad.
 
Saddam was simply a foil against the Theocracy in Iran
So how did the extreme element gain power in Iran.
Was it anything to do with a CIA sponsored coup that removed the elected government in favour of a dictator?

For your information, the loonies in Iran came to power because The Peanut Farmer publicly turned his back on the Shah who was doing his best to drag a 7th Century pig sty into the 20th Century. Jimmy Carter has already gone done in history as a miserable president but will soon be taking second place to Obumbler.

I have read a lot of weird revisionist history in my life, but never anything as bass ackwards as this! You have twisted the facst so completely, that it would be like trying to straighten out a pretzel, to correct it. It is much easier to tell you what you got right. Jimmy Carter fucked things up in a big way.
 
Does there have to be a precedent for it to be enacted?

Of course, there is lots of precedent. Your question indicates a lack of knowledge. The US government has frozen the assets of foreign nations many times. You might look it up to get informed.

Yes. There are laws regarding the powers of the government and the assets of private individuals and sovereign nations, therefore you most certainly DO require a legal basis and precedent for what you propose.

Let me put this another way: is what you propose legal? If so, what is your proof to that effect?

No, saying "Asking that shows you're stupid, because OF COURSE I'm right, so there!" does not fulfill this requirement.

I will not be "looking it up" to support YOUR argument. You said it, YOU prove it, or by not doing so you will admit that you were talking out of your ass. Your choice. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Wtf...the government has frozen assets of foreign nations many times. So of course it is legal and there is precedent.

Then it should be child's play for you to cite the specific legal basis, it's requirements, and how your proposal meets that standard. Which makes me wonder why you don't just do so, rather than wasting my time with repeated posts of "It's okay. Everyone knows it's okay. Just accept that I'm correct."
Absurd.

The US gov has frozen assets of foreign nations many times. So...thinking logically, it must be legal and it offers precedent.

Stop being stupid.

"Everyone knows, and everyone just KNOWS, and so you're stupid to expect me to discuss it. I'm JUST RIGHT, DAMN IT, AND DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO HEAL THE WORLD!"

I will now assume that the last time you sucked Donald's dick, he stabbed your brain. You lost, you're done, happy boy crush, buh bye. :fu:

I do not support Trump...though he is far better than the two whack jobs offered by the D party.

Our debate is not about Trump anyway. You made it about the legality and precedent for freezing foreign assets, which you clearly know nothing about.
 
The immigrant problem wasn't caused by the U.S. winning wars with Mexico

You mean, staring wars with Mexico, then forcing a bad treaty on that nation that effectively meant you stole the land.
Now you complain about Mexicans coming to live in Mexican land with Mexican place names.

Whether we stole the land or not, that isn't the cause of the illegal alien problem. Failing to enforce our immigration laws is the cause of the problem. Democrats get most of the credit for that. They are actively trying to flout our immigration laws.
 
If Trump as POTUS were to freeze all Mexican assets in the US and stop all money transfers from US to Mexico, the Mexican government will do whatever he demands.

Uh-huh, and the legal precedent for what you're proposing is . . .?
Does there have to be a precedent for it to be enacted?

Of course, there is lots of precedent. Your question indicates a lack of knowledge. The US government has frozen the assets of foreign nations many times. You might look it up to get informed.

Yes. There are laws regarding the powers of the government and the assets of private individuals and sovereign nations, therefore you most certainly DO require a legal basis and precedent for what you propose.

Let me put this another way: is what you propose legal? If so, what is your proof to that effect?

No, saying "Asking that shows you're stupid, because OF COURSE I'm right, so there!" does not fulfill this requirement.

I will not be "looking it up" to support YOUR argument. You said it, YOU prove it, or by not doing so you will admit that you were talking out of your ass. Your choice. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Wtf...the government has frozen assets of foreign nations many times. So of course it is legal and there is precedent.

I think they only did it if we were at war with those nations.
 
If Trump as POTUS were to freeze all Mexican assets in the US and stop all money transfers from US to Mexico, the Mexican government will do whatever he demands.

Uh-huh, and the legal precedent for what you're proposing is . . .?
Does there have to be a precedent for it to be enacted?

Of course, there is lots of precedent. Your question indicates a lack of knowledge. The US government has frozen the assets of foreign nations many times. You might look it up to get informed.

Yes. There are laws regarding the powers of the government and the assets of private individuals and sovereign nations, therefore you most certainly DO require a legal basis and precedent for what you propose.

Let me put this another way: is what you propose legal? If so, what is your proof to that effect?

No, saying "Asking that shows you're stupid, because OF COURSE I'm right, so there!" does not fulfill this requirement.

I will not be "looking it up" to support YOUR argument. You said it, YOU prove it, or by not doing so you will admit that you were talking out of your ass. Your choice. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Wtf...the government has frozen assets of foreign nations many times. So of course it is legal and there is precedent.

I think they only did it if we were at war with those nations.
No. FDR did it before he got his war with Japan.

The gov froze Iranian assets, but not warred against them.

Bush I froze Iraqi and Kuwati assets prior to the war.

Big Ears did it to Libya before he attacked. He also did this to Russian banks and businessmen.

just to name a few...
 
I'm sure your neighbors just LOVE you. Do you just walk into their houses, sit down at the dinner table, and start helping yourself to food because "neighbors should share their prosperity"?

You have neighbors confused with family, who are stuck with your sorry butt.


Exactly, neighbors dont just go to your backyard and claim the half of it, like US did to Mexico. You did "help yourself" and carved up half of their country. Nobody mentioned these "etiquettes" you are mentioning now back then...

But if you did that, take half of their country without asking them, at least you could do something nice for them, share some of the prosperity which would cost literally nothing to you, and make them think "yes, they are not that bad after all....."

But you are too selfish to realize that, arent you.
Your sorry ass likes to complain complain and complain and you know nothing better than complaining.......

I agree with you on this. Why the hell did we stop at taking half their country? We should have taken it all. It's still possible to take it and be home by Spring.


Haha, you will take all Mexico ha...
Do you even think when you are typing
or you just type whatever first comes to your mind like all those other retards up above?

If you "take" all Mexico, ALL Mexicans would be American citizens.
Unless of course, you are also planning to "ethnically cleanse" the area,
which I think you have the potential to do so...

You are all bunch of shit, different color, but same smell........... :D

Yes indeed. All Mexicans would become American citizens. That is after all, what most of them want. Make Mexico part of the United States. No longer any need for a wall. Let our military wipe out the drug cartels and clean up their corrupt police and military and bring the country into the 21st Century.

You really want to add 130 million Democrats to the United States?


No wonder why you guys losing the last 2 elections.... :lmao:
 
Exactly, neighbors dont just go to your backyard and claim the half of it, like US did to Mexico. You did "help yourself" and carved up half of their country. Nobody mentioned these "etiquettes" you are mentioning now back then...

But if you did that, take half of their country without asking them, at least you could do something nice for them, share some of the prosperity which would cost literally nothing to you, and make them think "yes, they are not that bad after all....."

But you are too selfish to realize that, arent you.
Your sorry ass likes to complain complain and complain and you know nothing better than complaining.......

I agree with you on this. Why the hell did we stop at taking half their country? We should have taken it all. It's still possible to take it and be home by Spring.


Haha, you will take all Mexico ha...
Do you even think when you are typing
or you just type whatever first comes to your mind like all those other retards up above?

If you "take" all Mexico, ALL Mexicans would be American citizens.
Unless of course, you are also planning to "ethnically cleanse" the area,
which I think you have the potential to do so...

You are all bunch of shit, different color, but same smell........... :D

Yes indeed. All Mexicans would become American citizens. That is after all, what most of them want. Make Mexico part of the United States. No longer any need for a wall. Let our military wipe out the drug cartels and clean up their corrupt police and military and bring the country into the 21st Century.

You really want to add 130 million Democrats to the United States?


No wonder why you guys losing the last 2 elections.... :lmao:

We didn't. You can't even get your snide remarks right either.
 
I agree with you on this. Why the hell did we stop at taking half their country? We should have taken it all. It's still possible to take it and be home by Spring.


Haha, you will take all Mexico ha...
Do you even think when you are typing
or you just type whatever first comes to your mind like all those other retards up above?

If you "take" all Mexico, ALL Mexicans would be American citizens.
Unless of course, you are also planning to "ethnically cleanse" the area,
which I think you have the potential to do so...

You are all bunch of shit, different color, but same smell........... :D

Yes indeed. All Mexicans would become American citizens. That is after all, what most of them want. Make Mexico part of the United States. No longer any need for a wall. Let our military wipe out the drug cartels and clean up their corrupt police and military and bring the country into the 21st Century.

You really want to add 130 million Democrats to the United States?


No wonder why you guys losing the last 2 elections.... :lmao:

We didn't. You can't even get your snide remarks right either.

snide?
Snide??

You lost against a "black" "muslim", 2 TIMES :D
 
Haha, you will take all Mexico ha...
Do you even think when you are typing
or you just type whatever first comes to your mind like all those other retards up above?

If you "take" all Mexico, ALL Mexicans would be American citizens.
Unless of course, you are also planning to "ethnically cleanse" the area,
which I think you have the potential to do so...

You are all bunch of shit, different color, but same smell........... :D

Yes indeed. All Mexicans would become American citizens. That is after all, what most of them want. Make Mexico part of the United States. No longer any need for a wall. Let our military wipe out the drug cartels and clean up their corrupt police and military and bring the country into the 21st Century.

You really want to add 130 million Democrats to the United States?


No wonder why you guys losing the last 2 elections.... :lmao:

We didn't. You can't even get your snide remarks right either.

snide?
Snide??

You lost against a "black" "muslim", 2 TIMES :D

No. I didn't vote for Mitt Romney, or John McCain. I'm not a Republican. The entire country lost, because Obama screwed us all over, with a terrible economic plan, that has left us with the worst recovery in the entire nations history.

We all lost.

I don't think Mitt or John would have done better, that's why I voted for other candidates.

But the last election? That was 2014. Quite frankly the was a land slide victory for the Republicans if I ever saw one. So your claim you won the last two elections... nope... not so much. Last two presidential elections maybe, but you actually lost there two, because you all are suffering just as much as the rest of us.

I'd be hard pressed to find anything at all, that Obama did, that was a win for the country. So honestly, none of you 'won' anything. Unless you want to consider nearly doubling the national debt, while blaming everyone but himself... a win.... or you could consider convincing the mindless peons that are too dumb to think for themselves, that "everything is Bush's fault!" a win. I suppose you could make a case there....
 
Yes. There are laws regarding the powers of the government and the assets of private individuals and sovereign nations, therefore you most certainly DO require a legal basis and precedent for what you propose.

Let me put this another way: is what you propose legal? If so, what is your proof to that effect?

No, saying "Asking that shows you're stupid, because OF COURSE I'm right, so there!" does not fulfill this requirement.

I will not be "looking it up" to support YOUR argument. You said it, YOU prove it, or by not doing so you will admit that you were talking out of your ass. Your choice. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Wtf...the government has frozen assets of foreign nations many times. So of course it is legal and there is precedent.

Then it should be child's play for you to cite the specific legal basis, it's requirements, and how your proposal meets that standard. Which makes me wonder why you don't just do so, rather than wasting my time with repeated posts of "It's okay. Everyone knows it's okay. Just accept that I'm correct."
Absurd.

The US gov has frozen assets of foreign nations many times. So...thinking logically, it must be legal and it offers precedent.

Stop being stupid.

"Everyone knows, and everyone just KNOWS, and so you're stupid to expect me to discuss it. I'm JUST RIGHT, DAMN IT, AND DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO HEAL THE WORLD!"

I will now assume that the last time you sucked Donald's dick, he stabbed your brain. You lost, you're done, happy boy crush, buh bye. :fu:

I do not support Trump...though he is far better than the two whack jobs offered by the D party.

Our debate is not about Trump anyway. You made it about the legality and precedent for freezing foreign assets, which you clearly know nothing about.

Actually, I made it about your inability to support your assertions with evidence. I never expressed an opinion on it. I asked a question . . . which you keep dodging with a lot of "You don't know anything. OF COURSE I'm right" blather.

You said it. Can you prove it? Or can you just obfuscate . . . badly?
 
The immigrant problem wasn't caused by the U.S. winning wars with Mexico

You mean, staring wars with Mexico, then forcing a bad treaty on that nation that effectively meant you stole the land.
Now you complain about Mexicans coming to live in Mexican land with Mexican place names.

Whether we stole the land or not, that isn't the cause of the illegal alien problem. Failing to enforce our immigration laws is the cause of the problem. Democrats get most of the credit for that. They are actively trying to flout our immigration laws.

Leftists are incapable, for some reason, of living in THIS century.
 
The immigrant problem wasn't caused by the U.S. winning wars with Mexico

You mean, staring wars with Mexico, then forcing a bad treaty on that nation that effectively meant you stole the land.
Now you complain about Mexicans coming to live in Mexican land with Mexican place names.

Whether we stole the land or not, that isn't the cause of the illegal alien problem. Failing to enforce our immigration laws is the cause of the problem. Democrats get most of the credit for that. They are actively trying to flout our immigration laws.

Leftists are incapable, for some reason, of living in THIS century.

They are also incapable of understanding what happened in the last century.
 
How many new voters will the Republicans gain?

Let's surmise: Anyone who lost his/her employer supported insurance plan.
Anyone who has seen his premiums and co-pays skyrocket under Obamacare.
Anyone who has seen their work hours cut because of Obamacare.
Anyone who is forced to work two part-time jobs because of Obamacare.
Anyone who has had to pay a fine for not having insurance that meets Obamacare guidelines.
Anyone who has seen his job close and move to Mexico or somewhere else because of Obama's policies.
Coal miners.
Coal fired power generating plant operators.
Policemen and other law enforcement officers.
Hunters and other gun owners.
Gun store owners.
NRA members.
Many real Christians including pastors and other clergy.
Many small business owners.

That's just a few that should serve to insure a Donald Trump victory.
 

Forum List

Back
Top