More Than 50 Butt-Hurt Subversive Snowflakes To Skip Inauguration

[Scorpion]

Just answer the question: Should the Dems be forced to attend?
It never ceases to amaze just how little you jerks understand what "freedom" really means. But Trump is going to give you a MUCH keener understanding of what it is to lose it once he bans the press and stops having press conferences altogether.

Is anyone threatening them with death for attending??

 

[Claudette]

So they should be forced to attend?
Don't you want to live in a country where you have the right to freedom of speech, and the 1st Amendment?
Donald doesn't either.

Nope. They are under no obligation to attend at all and everyone knows that.

 

[jc456]

They should consider the fact that the woman they had hoped would be taking the oath will be in attendance.
Probably the only thing I can respect her for.
Pussies.

Correct. She, Bill and Bush and Laura will be there.

The fact that they are so petty as to not attend the inauguration should tell everyone all they need to know about how petty they are.

good thing the media asked trump if he was big enough to accept the outcome of the election.

what a bunch of pssie losers.

there is such a loss of integrity with the libturd nation. I honestly didn't think they were that corrupt. wow was I wrong. I'm selling this message from now until i fking die. They have the moral equivalence of a squid.

 

[jc456]

So they should be forced to attend?
Don't you want to live in a country where you have the right to freedom of speech, and the 1st Amendment?
Donald doesn't either.

Nope. They are under no obligation to attend at all and everyone knows that.

yep, accept their constituents who expect them to do their jobs. 2018 is going to be fun if any of those up that year are in this 52. It really will be. I especially want them to say he was illegitimate. That basically says the elections are illegitimate.

 

[depotoo]

I heard yesterday thousands of buses rolled in with protesters. Guess who is paying their way?

 

[hazlnut]

More than 50 Democrats have announced they will skip Donald Trump’s inauguration - Hot Air

"There are now more than 50 House Democrats — 52, at last count — who have declared that they will not attend the inauguration on Capitol Hill this week"

"National Review points out that this is not the first time Rep. Lewis and members of the Congressional Black Caucus have decided to skip the inauguration of a Republican president. The same thing happened when George W. Bush was inaugurated. From a 2001 Washington"

Oh look it's another alt-right troll using their double-secret code "snowflake"…

Oink-oink piggy.

 

[bodecea]

More than 50 Democrats have announced they will skip Donald Trump’s inauguration - Hot Air

"There are now more than 50 House Democrats — 52, at last count — who have declared that they will not attend the inauguration on Capitol Hill this week"

"National Review points out that this is not the first time Rep. Lewis and members of the Congressional Black Caucus have decided to skip the inauguration of a Republican president. The same thing happened when George W. Bush was inaugurated. From a 2001 Washington"

Are they not allowed to?

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Petty? Honey, Trump wrote the book on petty.
You'd better get on your knees and kiss the ground of one of the few places in the world where a citizen or elected official can express their dislike of anything or anybody without fear.
The Constitution does more than just give you fucking assholes the right to own a gun.

The left has sunken much lower than mere pettiness. Like the way Trump supporters wearing Trump hats or shirts have been attacked and threatened for months. Some entertainers who were going to perform at Trump's inauguration backed out over death threats. And the crazies are planning to disrupt the event. And no lib is out there saying they are wrong to threaten people. Shame they don't stick to some remarks on social media instead of hitting the streets with the intent to do physical harm.

"In this video, Project Veritas investigators uncover a group known as the DC Anti-fascist Coalition plotting to disrupt President-Elect Donald Trump’s inauguration by deploying butyric acid at the National Press Club during the Deploraball event scheduled for January 19th."





Protesters Caught On Camera Plotting To Use Acid At Trump Inauguration

If this is anything like the PV videos prior to the election, Bill O'Reilly of Fox Noise actually outed them: 40 hours of recording edited down to two 20-minute videos. You do the math. One minute extracted/edited out of every single hour of video. To say they over-edit just a bit is too kind.

 

[bodecea]

"Class" is a matter of opinion, and they have a right to express theirs just like you have a right to express your desire for this country to be run by a despot, which you have.

Despot? Obama spent 8 years circumventing both the Constitution and Rule of Law, and Liberals seek to talk about 'despots' before Trump even takes office.

No, President Obama did no such thing.

With that....I understand (people are saying) that the Inaugurination committee is hiring a lot of those people who sit in seats at the Oscars, Emmys, etc. when the stars get up for a break so the theater doesn't look like there are empty seats.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

They're paying people to go there and riot. They don't want to be within a country mile because they don't want to get shot.

Who is paying whom? I think the term "low information voter" was derived from this board.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Howmany of our illustrious posters will be attending?

 

[S.J.]

I'm glad they're doing it. It's ammunition that can be used against them later.

 

[the_human_being]

Good. More decent Democrats will be disgusted by them and register as Independents or Republicans. They are aiding in the complete destruction of the Democratic Party.

 

[dblack]

More than 50 Democrats have announced they will skip Donald Trump’s inauguration - Hot Air

"There are now more than 50 House Democrats — 52, at last count — who have declared that they will not attend the inauguration on Capitol Hill this week"

"National Review points out that this is not the first time Rep. Lewis and members of the Congressional Black Caucus have decided to skip the inauguration of a Republican president. The same thing happened when George W. Bush was inaugurated. From a 2001 Washington"

Good for them. Trump is a national embarrassment, his voters a national shame.

 

[Claudette]

"Class" is a matter of opinion, and they have a right to express theirs just like you have a right to express your desire for this country to be run by a despot, which you have.

Despot? Obama spent 8 years circumventing both the Constitution and Rule of Law, and Liberals seek to talk about 'despots' before Trump even takes office.

No, President Obama did no such thing.

With that....I understand (people are saying) that the Inaugurination committee is hiring a lot of those people who sit in seats at the Oscars, Emmys, etc. when the stars get up for a break so the theater doesn't look like there are empty seats.

Of course he did.

How many times did he use his pen and his phone to circumvent Congress?? He was even on TV telling everyone he would be using his pen and his phone.

He even wrote one to save his buddy Holder after Fast and Furious.

 

[Avatar4321]

Let them. Who needs them? They want to act like children upset because they didn't get their way, they can go to their room with no dessert.

 

[Auld Phart]

IMO, if they had any balls, they would attend, but stand up en masse at 12:00, and walk out, while Trump was taking the Oath.

 

[Claudette]

Let them. Who needs them? They want to act like children upset because they didn't get their way, they can go to their room with no dessert.

I agree. No one needs their petty asses at all. Let em all stay home. Works for me.

 

[Avatar4321]

So they should be forced to attend?

No. They should voluntarily demonstrate some class by attending...but I guess you can't demonstrate what you don't have.

"Class" is a matter of opinion, and they have a right to express theirs just like you have a right to express your desire for this country to be run by a despot, which you have.

We already voted against Hillary. And we are keeping an eye on trump.
As for class, if they didn't want to come no need to show up. The lack of class comes from them making a bruhaha about not coming. It's a temper tantrum.

 

[easyt65]

Despot? Obama spent 8 years circumventing both the Constitution and Rule of Law, and Liberals seek to talk about 'despots' before Trump even takes office.

No, President Obama did no such thing.

YOU, BODECEA, ARE WRONG:

1. Refusal to Enforce DOMA
- his 1st week in office he declared he would not enforce the DOMA Law because HE disagreed with it. Shortest time ever between a President taking the oath of office - vowing to enforce the Rule of Law - and breaking his Oath of Office.

2. Un-Constitutional Treaty w/Iran
- Call it what you want, but calling it a 'Deal' as opposed to a 'Treaty' does not make it anything less than a 'treaty'. After ramming that POS through he raced it off to the UN for ratification before Congress was allowed to take a look at it.

3. 2 Un-Constitutional Wars
- Barry never went before Congress to ask for the authority to go to war / to use the military in either Libya or in Syria. He didn't do so because there is no way Congress would have given him the authority to use the military to help the terrorist group who slaughtered 3,000 Americans take over their own country. Also, he never asked for the approval to put US combat troops in Syria, where they are today!

4. Obamacare’s Bay State bailout and Commonwealth kickback
- To bail out Massachusetts’s malfunctioning health-care exchange, President Obama and Governor Deval Patrick (before he left office) arranged for more than 300,000 state residents to receive temporary Medicaid coverage without any verification of eligibility, and for the state to get the most generous taxpayer-funded premium subsidies in the entire country.

5. Further delays of Obamacare’s employer mandate.
- On February 10, 2014, the administration announced that it would again be delaying the employer mandate. This particular delay gives mid-sized employers (those with 50 to 100 full-time employees, a category that doesn’t exist in the text of the law) until 2016 to provide coverage and relaxed some of the requirements for larger employers.

6. Extending Obamacare subsidies to non-exchange plans.
- The administration found in February 2014 that some exchanges were having difficulty determining people’s eligibility. And so now, owing to this “exceptional circumstance,” exchanges can grant retroactive coverage based on the application date rather than on the date of acceptance. Also, those enrolled in plans outside the exchanges who were then determined to be eligible for coverage could receive the subsidies granted to those in an exchange plan. Read more at: President Obama’s Top Ten Constitutional Violations of 2015

7. Delay of Obamacare’s transparency requirements.
- In October 2014, the administration announced that it would not be enforcing the Obamacare’s “transparency in coverage” provisions, which require insurers to disclose data on enrollment, denied claims, and the costs to consumers for certain services.

8. Obamacare’s hidden tax on states.
- The Affordable Care Act imposed a health-insurance providers’ fee on insurance companies, for the purpose of taxing the windfall they were expected to receive from increased enrollment. In March 2015, states were notified that they too would be assessed this fee, because they use managed-care organizations to provide Medicaid services. Nothing in the ACA allows the federal government to force states to pay the fee, so the administration left it to the “private” Actuarial Standards Board to determine what makes a state’s payments to managed-care organizations “actuarially sound,” as required by law. The board then interpreted that “actuarially sound” standard to require states to pay the taxes assessed on their managed-care organizations. For Texas, that means an unanticipated annual budget hit of $120 million. This assessment raises serious coercion issues, as the states have no choice but to pay the tax or lose their federal Medicaid funds. Texas, joined by Kansas and Louisiana, sued the government in October.

9. Deferred Action for Parents of Americans.
- Speaking of Texas suing the government: After President Obama decided in November 2014 that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants, a majority of the states took him to court. The administration engineered DAPA in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the very policies the program sets forth, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s take-care clause. A district court temporarily enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed. Stay tuned for the Supreme Court’s resolution this coming June.

10. EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
- In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, on August 3, 2015, it announced a final rule. It gives states until 2018 — it “encourages” September 2016 — to develop final plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022. EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for the Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111(d) doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, as those deriving from coal-fired plants are

11. EPA’s Clean Water Rule.
- On May 27, 2015, EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States.” The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the definition of that word.

12. EPA’s cap-and-trade.
- The EPA can NOT create Law...but has. On October 23, 2015, EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. The focus is on cap-and-trade as the means to meet the limits. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or from lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this new regulation contradicts the express will of Congress.

13. Net neutrality.
- In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February and went into effect on June 12, 2015. Although the Federal Communications Commission touts the regulation as a means to ensure that the Internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of Internet-service providers, which are forbidden to prioritize any Internet traffic.

14. Political Profiling By The IRS
- After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

15. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments.
- Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law.

16. Recess appointments.
- Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional.

17. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses.
- Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

AND THIS ISN'T EVEN ALL!

President Obama’s Top Ten Constitutional Violations of 2015
President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013