And here you go..... The difference between a first strike and a second strike is really no difference at all.

[PeterPilot]

I deal in reality, not ivory tower theory and "big picture" bullshit.

Thanks for making my point Marty.

 

[g5000]

Um double retard.... go back and read the top post. Rand Paul says it's all illegal so I don't see the difference between making a fuss over a second strike or a first strike. It's all going to hinge on whether or not the president has a right to call them enemy combatants and of course he does. Scotus is not going to take that power away from the president. Has nothing to do with trump it has to do with the office of the presidency.

It's totally inconsistent to make a stink about a double tap when you're claiming that the first tap is also illegal. You're not going to be able to separate the two events.

Um...retard?

Show me the congressional authorization of the use of military force. The president cannot unilaterally declare war, dipshit.

 

[Mac-7]

Um double retard.... go back and read the top post. Rand Paul says it's all illegal so I don't see the difference between making a fuss over a second strike or a first strike. It's all going to hinge on whether or not the president has a right to call them enemy combatants and of course he does. Scotus is not going to take that power away from the president. Has nothing to do with trump it has to do with the office of the presidency.

It's totally inconsistent to make a stink about a double tap when you're claiming that the first tap is also illegal. You're not going to be able to separate the two events.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the 3 libs, Roberts, and a player to be named later

There are at least two more within the other 5 who are unreliable

But sometimes, even most of the time, they manage to stumble onto the right thing

So there is hope

 

[PeterPilot]

Um...retard?

Show me the congressional authorization of the use of military force. The president cannot unilaterally declare war, dipshit.

As FDR pointed out almost a century ago, under Article II of the founding document POTUS can wage war but he cannot declare war. AUMF was a legal sophistry, but it served its vile purpose for Greater Israel.

 

[martybegan]

So did the Sacklers who created the fentanyl crisis.

I don't see Trump bombing their house. He just gave them a fine, like he always got when he broke the law.

Billionaires look out for each other.


Nope.

Show me the congressional authorization for military force. Show me the named organizations in that authorization.

A house in the US is not a drug boat in international waters.

That information has been only given to congress. Anything else posted is assumption.

 

[g5000]

A house in the US is not a drug boat in international waters.

A house in the US is a far greater domestic threat.

Duh.

 

[martybegan]

Thanks for making my point Marty.

Nope. But believe it if it makes you have the warm and fuzzies.

Those drugs aren't getting in the US, those smugglers can't smuggle again, and the cash for those drugs isn't going to the cartels.

 

[dblack]

Um double retard.... go back and read the top post. Rand Paul says it's all illegal so I don't see the difference between making a fuss over a second strike or a first strike. It's all going to hinge on whether or not the president has a right to call them enemy combatants and of course he does. Scotus is not going to take that power away from the president. Has nothing to do with trump it has to do with the office of the presidency.

It's totally inconsistent to make a stink about a double tap when you're claiming that the first tap is also illegal. You're not going to be able to separate the two events.

Yup. The question is whether we want the President ordering targeted killings (aka murders) with no due process. I sure don't.

 

[martybegan]

A house in the US is a far greater domestic threat.

Duh.

A house in the US occupied by US citizens is covered under the Constitution and both federal and State criminal and civil law.

 

[g5000]

Nope. But believe it if it makes you have the warm and fuzzies.

Those drugs aren't getting in the US, those smugglers can't smuggle again, and the cash for those drugs isn't going to the cartels.

The cartels have an endless supply of sacrificial drug mules, genius. And an endless variety of vectors for getting those drugs to meet our tremendous demand for them.

As for the drugs, don't worry. The cartel bosses will make more. They are a lot smarter than you or Trump.

Trump is putting on theater for you rubes. This will have ZERO impact on the drug trade.

ZERO.

 

[g5000]

A house in the US occupied by US citizens is covered under the Constitution and both federal and State criminal and civil law.

Murdering survivors in the water is also covered by US law.

Hope this helps.

 

[Mac-7]

I tend to agree. Our system requires that we prove they are smuggling drugs before we kill them though. I guess you’re not a big fan of the constitution.

thats insane

Do you really think the Bill of Rights applies to foreign nationals smuggling drugs in international waters?

 

[dblack]

The cartels have an endless supply of sacrificial drug mules, genius. And an endless number of vectors for getting those drugs to meet our tremendous demand for them.

As for the drugs, don't worry. The cartel bosses will make more.

Trump is putting on theater for you rubes. This will have ZERO impact on the drug trade.

Yup. But it ensures his name will be repeated ad nauseam by the media. This is all he's ever been about.

 

[martybegan]

The cartels have an endless supply of sacrificial drug mules, genius. And an endless number of vectors for getting those drugs to meet our tremendous demand for them.

As for the drugs, don't worry. The cartel bosses will make more.

Trump is putting on theater for you rubes. This will have ZERO impact on the drug trade.

ZERO.

This is only the most obvious method the administration is using. You really think we see everything they are doing?

It is having an impact, and for once someone is backing up their words with actions.

 

[martybegan]

Murdering survivors in the water is also covered by US law.

Hope this helps.

So far all we have on this story is one unconfirmed source, and the more it is dug into the more it is found to be bullshit.

 

[g5000]

This is only the most obvious method the administration is using. You really think we see everything they are doing?

Now you are just masturbating. Embarrassing yourself.

It is having an impact

Link?

 

[Mac-7]

Murdering survivors in the water is also covered by US law.

Hope this helps.

Under US law you have to prove that happened exactly as you claim

Which libs have yet to do

 

[martybegan]

Now you are just masturbating. Embarrassing yourself.



Link?

Why do I need to "link" anything?

Those drugs are at the bottom of the ocean.

Are you saying we should just give up on drug illegality and legalize everything?

 

[g5000]

It is having an impact, and for once someone is backing up their words with actions.

.
After decades of US government failure, Dear Leader has finally cracked the War on Drugs!!!

 

[Rawley]

Quote the “mentioning” or legal force please.

I suppose for a guy like you it’s jut more fun if you get to murder people along the way...

Odd that you were all for it when your guy Obama was doing the "murdering"