Who does Trump think he is?

[BackAgain]

I would like that to be true, but based on some of the comments I've seen, I'm not so sure. I've seen people excited about acquiring Greenland, Canada, Gaza, etc. And continuing the same foreign policy we've had, regardless of who is in office. We're trillions in debt and there are so many unresolved issues here in the US, but some folks are losing sight of America first and seem to like the idea of an expanding empire. But I'm getting tired of this discussion, so that's all I'm gonna say about that for now.

Or, and I’ll continue the largely baseless speculation, here, perhaps the oft-misunderstood concept of “America First” has nothing to do with any “empire.”

Also, to place the interests of our republic over that of the interests of other nations (which is the foundation of “America First”) is perfectly consistent with contemplating the notions of seeking to acquire Greenland, Canada etc.

 

[BackAgain]

Advocating for all this drama?

Snap out of it.

 

[Missourian]

Advocating for all this drama?

What the fuck do I care about drama?

Are you a giant pussy?

If you want rabbit stew, you've got to kill a rabbit.

 

[BackAgain]

What the fuck do I care about drama?

Are you a giant pussy?

If you want rabbit stew, you've got to kill a rabbit.

True dat.

 

[YoursTruly]

What the fuck do I care about drama?

Are you a giant pussy?

If you want rabbit stew, you've got to kill a rabbit.

I want a president. Not a chancellor.

 

[YoursTruly]

Snap out of it.

There will be unintended consequences to all this. No president can act like a chancellor and get away with it for too long. This is why we have a constitution. It's why the president has limited powers under the constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

There will be unintended consequences to all this. No president can act like a chancellor and get away with it

Except that Trump has not acted like a “chancellor,” which makes your comment quite valueless.

for too long. This is why we have a constitution. It's why the president has limited powers under the constitution.

So? No worries then.

 

[Missourian]

I want a president. Not a chancellor.

You got a President, not a chancellor.

He's kickin' ass and taking names.

 

[YoursTruly]

Except that Trump has not acted like a “chancellor,” which makes your comment quite valueless.

So? No worries then.

With Trumps record, there is a need to worry. On several occasions he's overstepped his constitutional authority. Warrantless spying, 2A assault (twice). Bombing Somalia within the last two weeks. just to name a few.

 

[Billiejeens]

First off, I'm not opposed to several things Trump says he's wanting to do. DOGE has some very good points. And they seem to be finding a lot of wasteful spending that needs to be cut. I 100% support that. And getting rid of DEI in our government.

But all this talk about taking over countries and the Panama Canal....... 3 countries in less than a month taking office, that sounds like something that German guy did that started WW2.

His supporters say it's all just a ploy. Some genius plot that he's using to negotiate with. I hope they're right. I would welcome Canada, Mexico and Greenland being part of the USA, if THEY chose to do so. But ONLY if they chose to. Not because we forced them to.

No intelligent person heard "force"

 

[BackAgain]

With Trumps record, there is a need to worry.

Nope.

On several occasions he's overstepped his constitutional authority.

So you claim, without support.

Warrantless spying,

No no. That was done TO him. Not “by” him.

2A assault (twice).

None at all.

Bombing Somalia within the last two weeks.

He didn’t bomb Somalia. He authorized an attack on a violent enemy of the nation.

There is a significant difference — as you know.

just to name a few.

Except you haven’t validly cited any.

 

[Billiejeens]

With Trumps record, there is a need to worry. On several occasions he's overstepped his constitutional authority. Warrantless spying, 2A assault (twice). Bombing Somalia within the last two weeks. just to name a few.

Simply no
Followed by
Dismissed.

 

[Billiejeens]

You got a President, not a chancellor.

He's kickin' ass and taking names.

Si'

 

[YoursTruly]

Nope.

So you claim, without support.


No no. That was done TO him. Not “by” him.

Trump signs surveillance extension into law

None at all.

Two judges declared his bump stock ban as unconstitutional and an assault on our 2A.
Plus, Trump has the DoJ write the law on his bump stock ban.

Biden also tried to get the bump stock ban put back in place. where the 2nd judge deemed it unconstitutional.

He didn’t bomb Somalia. He authorized an attack on a violent enemy of the nation.

There is a significant difference — as you know.

Except you haven’t validly cited any.

The only difference is in the wording. Bombing or air strikes are an act of war. According to the constitution, unless there's imminent danger, the president needs a formal declaration from congress to commit acts of war.

Trumps air strikes weren't even retaliatory. He just decided to bomb them.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump signs surveillance extension into law

I dislike the FISA law to a large extent, too. I guess you do, also. Our dislike doesn’t make that law (or at least all of it) “unconstitutional.”

Nice try. But a big fail.

Two judges declared his bump stock ban as unconstitution and an assault on our 2A.

So? That doesn’t make them right.

Plus, Trump has the DoJ write the law on his bump stock ban.

So? Frankly, I’m not sure bump stocks are even a part of the 2A.

Biden also tried to get the bump stock ban put back in place. where the 2nd judge deemed it unconstitutional.

So what? That doesn’t mean it actually is.

The only difference is in the wording.

False.

Bombing or air strikes are an act of war.

Not always.

According to the constitution, unless there's imminent danger, the president needs a formal declaration from congress to commit acts of war.

Again, that’s not what the Constitution actually says.

Trumps air strikes weren't even retaliatory. He just decided to bomb them.

You don’t have the slightest clue whether what you wrote is true or even partially true. You just say random stuff.

 

[Billiejeens]

Trump signs surveillance extension into law

Two judges declared his bump stock ban as unconstitutional and an assault on our 2A.
Plus, Trump has the DoJ write the law on his bump stock ban.

Biden also tried to get the bump stock ban put back in place. where the 2nd judge deemed it unconstitutional.



The only difference is in the wording. Bombing or air strikes are an act of war. According to the constitution, unless there's imminent danger, the president needs a formal declaration from congress to commit acts of war.

Trumps air strikes weren't even retaliatory. He just decided to bomb them.

This is not the right country for you.

 

[YoursTruly]

I dislike the FISA law to a large extent, too. I guess you do, also. Our dislike doesn’t make that law (or at least all of it) “unconstitutional.”

Nice try. But a big fail.

The constitution says the government has to have a warrant. Trump, not Biden or Obama agrees with the constitution because they all reauthorized it with 702 in it.

So? That doesn’t make them right.

Really? That part that says "shall not be infringed" says it does make them right. Then throw in Trumps statement about he "likes taking the gun first then going through due process." <<<His exact words.

So? Frankly, I’m not sure bump stocks are even a part of the 2A.

So????????? Spoken like a true political loyalist, dude. Choosing Trump over our 2A.
You RINO's are a stain on the Republican party.

So what? That doesn’t mean it actually is.

Yes it does. Why TF do you think Trump had the DoJ write the law on it, instead of doing it the constitutional way.. Letting congress write the law. That's their job.
Trump knew the GOP wouldn't ever support banning bump stocks because it was unconstitutional.

False.

Not always.

Really? If any country did air strikes on us, it would be an act of war.
Stop cucking dude. You're sounding like a democrat.

Again, that’s not what the Constitution actually says.

Yes it does. And the NDAA, which is mostly a slush fund, is unconstitutional because it authorizes the president for preemptive strikes against an enemy. But Somolia doesn't have a thing to strike us with. So Trump air strikes weren't even preemptive. He was just flexing.

You don’t have the slightest clue whether what you wrote is true or even partially true. You just say random stuff.

I was going by what Trump said and why he issued those air strikes.

 

[YoursTruly]

This is not the right country for you.

Maybe not. I have this stupid idea that if our government is going to spy on Americans, it should obey the US constitution and get a warrant to do so.

 

[BackAgain]

The constitution says the government has to have a warrant.

In ordinary legal investigations, that’s true. In other situations, however, it’s not true.

Trump, not Biden or Obama agrees with the constitution because they all reauthorized it with 702 in it.

May be. Or, alternatively, the law simply isn’t “settled.”

Really? That part that says "shall not be infringed" says it does make them right.

You have a secured right to your gun.
Why wood a new mechanical device in a stock hold that same status?

Then throw in Trumps statement about he "likes taking the gun first then going through due process." <<<His exact words

It was a dumb thing to say. Many of us disagreed with that statement. I doubt he’d say the same nowadays.

.



So????????? Spoken like a true political loyalist, dude. Choosing Trump over our 2A.

No no, gasbag. I’m denying your false dichotomy. I support Trump AND our Constitution.

You RINO's are a stain on the Republican party.

I’m not a RINO, you dipshit.

Yes it does. Why TF do you think Trump had the DoJ write the law on it, instead of doing it the constitutional way.. Letting congress write the law. That's their job.

You fail to understand these matters. He had assistants within and outside of the DoJ assist in how to proceed. And how he runs the executive branch is his business.

Trump knew the GOP wouldn't ever support banning bump stocks because it was unconstitutional.

I don’t believe you’ve made that case. It’s, at best, a tangent to the 2A.

Really? If any country did air strikes on us, it would be an act of war.

You’re kind of tragically stupid. If some other nation tries to pull off a precision air strike on a non-military target, it might be mere criminal behavior instead of an act of war. And yes. Of course we’d object and might even consider it a literal act of war. So? Ok. We might “do something” to retaliate. Of course, WE can.

Stop cucking dude.

Never started. Your infantile ad hominems leave no marks.

You're sounding like a democrat.

You’re sounding like the last vestiges of “stupid “in the old GOP. In any event, it is actually smarter to observe your factual and logical errors, as I do. And, when I do so, for your benefit, you’re free to do with the information as you see fit.

Yes it does. And the NDAA, which is mostly a slush fund, is unconstitutional because it authorizes the president for preemptive strikes against an enemy.

Nonsense. Be specific. Ignore the talking points. Which specific part of the NDAA supposedly authorized the President to engage in a preemptive strike?

But Somolia doesn't have a thing to strike us with.

As I noted above. That’s a “them” problem.

So Trump air strikes weren't even preemptive. He was just flexing.

No no. One of our enemies was operating there. A military leader of that enemy got confirmed to be there. And we took him out. I applaud that Presidential decision.

I was going by what Trump said and why he issued those air strikes.

No. Your weren’t. But you could try. Offer the purported quote. Properly link it. Then, perhaps, we can talk.

 

[BackAgain]

Maybe not. I have this stupid idea that if our government is going to spy on Americans, it should obey the US constitution and get a warrant to do so.

Hm. Wouldn’t that depend on whether the reason for the investigation was based on something “criminal” in nature as opposed to “national security?”