US Government Shutdown- It's Over!... For Now

[Thermodolia]

If Trump can declare a national emergency over this, other presidents can do the same over issues like gun ownership, climate change et cetera. Even FOXnews acknowledges this and states they hope Trump will be stopped by the courts.

Not really. All Trump is doing is shifting around money in the executive branch. There's not a lot you could do on those topics with a national emergency.

Unless however a national emergency in of itself isn’t constitutional

[Greater La Habana Cuba and Miami Shores]

President Trump has just declared a national emergency, due to the Democrats in congress shameful intransigence on the legal and illegal immigration issue, if it were not for President Trump the Democrats would have welcomed all of the Honduran Caravan with open arms even if they don't qualify for any kind of asylum, as most don't qualify. So will the Democrats in congress with their majority in the House and minority in the Senate try to impeach President Trump out of office, making those predictions we have been reading about in the Press come true? If they do they will not like President Pence either, and his Vice Presidential Pick, which I hope would be Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who would be the first Cuban American Hispanic Vice President and even a Jew ban.

In about 5 minutes into the video.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartandhp

Posted Friday Feb 15 2019

Repeating the same lies over and over won't magically make them true.

Lies, I see no Lies lol.

[Knockturn Alley]

This national emergency will come to bite yall in the ass. Wait till a democrat wins 2020 and declares an emergency on gun control, or when AoC wins in 2024 and declares an emergency to fund GND.

[Vassenor]

Repeating the same lies over and over won't magically make them true.

Lies, I see no Lies lol.

Of course not. You're living in a blatant fantasy world.

[Greater La Habana Cuba and Miami Shores]

Lies, I see no Lies lol.

Of course not. You're living in a blatant fantasy world.

lol Vassenor, at least I respect your different economic, political and social views on any issue, I never tell you I am 100 % right and your are 100 % wrong, I just strongly disagree.

[Tobleste]

Coulter: Only national emergency is that our president is an idiot

Great, Trump has made me agree with Ann Coulter.

This timeline is strange. It's like when some spin off of a comic book has the Joker as a good guy.

[Ifreann]

Of course not. You're living in a blatant fantasy world.

lol Vassenor, at least I respect your different economic, political and social views on any issue, I never tell you I am 100 % right and your are 100 % wrong, I just strongly disagree.

You're saying that Democrats are being intransigent when they've just passed a bill with increased funding for Trump's precious wall.

---

Great, Trump has made me agree with Ann Coulter.

This timeline is strange. It's like when some spin off of a comic book has the Joker as a good guy.

[Tobleste]

lol Vassenor, at least I respect your different economic, political and social views on any issue, I never tell you I am 100 % right and your are 100 % wrong, I just strongly disagree.

You're saying that Democrats are being intransigent when they've just passed a bill with increased funding for Trump's precious wall.

---

This timeline is strange. It's like when some spin off of a comic book has the Joker as a good guy.

Good point. The Joker would be too moral to support Trump.

[Vassenor]

Of course not. You're living in a blatant fantasy world.

lol Vassenor, at least I respect your different economic, political and social views on any issue, I never tell you I am 100 % right and your are 100 % wrong, I just strongly disagree.

So how do you rationalise the Democrats funding border security measures with your claims that the Democrats want a totally open border with no security that anyone can just waltz over?

[Greater La Habana Cuba and Miami Shores]

lol Vassenor, at least I respect your different economic, political and social views on any issue, I never tell you I am 100 % right and your are 100 % wrong, I just strongly disagree.

So how do you rationalise the Democrats funding border security measures with your claims that the Democrats want a totally open border with no security that anyone can just waltz over?

Their support for the Honduran Caravan, most do not qualify for any kind of Asylum and they want to make it easier for them to qualify, if not they would not have objected when Trump tried to make the Asylum laws harder as they should be. Asylum should only be granted if it is the actual nation government doing the abuse.

[Vassenor]

So how do you rationalise the Democrats funding border security measures with your claims that the Democrats want a totally open border with no security that anyone can just waltz over?

Their support for the Honduran Caravan, most do not qualify for any kind of Asylum and they want to make it easier for them to qualify, if not they would not have objected when Trump tried to make the Asylum laws harder as they should be.

So basically anyone who doesn't want exactly the same measures you want wants a completely open border. So yes, you're living in a fantasy world where you can just make up what their positions are to fit what you want.

[Greater La Habana Cuba and Miami Shores]

Their support for the Honduran Caravan, most do not qualify for any kind of Asylum and they want to make it easier for them to qualify, if not they would not have objected when Trump tried to make the Asylum laws harder as they should be.

So basically anyone who doesn't want exactly the same measures you want wants a completely open border. So yes, you're living in a fantasy world where you can just make up what their positions are to fit what you want.

No lol again and my last back and forth on this, if they want to make the asylum laws easier and they do, they enable illegal immigration and call it legal immigration, a nice excuse.

[The Grims]

So basically anyone who doesn't want exactly the same measures you want wants a completely open border. So yes, you're living in a fantasy world where you can just make up what their positions are to fit what you want.

No lol again and my last back and forth on this, if they want to make the asylum laws easier and they do, they enable illegal immigration and call it legal immigration, a nice excuse.

Following your logic, Trump wants more drug smuggling, since he reduced the budget of the coastguard?

[Kowani]

So basically anyone who doesn't want exactly the same measures you want wants a completely open border. So yes, you're living in a fantasy world where you can just make up what their positions are to fit what you want.

No lol again and my last back and forth on this, if they want to make the asylum laws easier and they do, they enable illegal immigration and call it legal immigration, a nice excuse.

Reminder that under current US Law, no asylum seekers can just be rejected because you don’t like them. You have to actually investigate their case. The Hondurans come seeking asylum, so their cases must be investigated.

[Vassenor]

So basically anyone who doesn't want exactly the same measures you want wants a completely open border. So yes, you're living in a fantasy world where you can just make up what their positions are to fit what you want.

No lol again and my last back and forth on this, if they want to make the asylum laws easier and they do, they enable illegal immigration and call it legal immigration, a nice excuse.

So prove that they do. With them actually saying they do, not just with "they did this thing which I have decided means they do".

[Des-Bal]

So prove that they do. With them actually saying they do, not just with "they did this thing which I have decided means they do".

I have no idea why you think that the only acceptable means of identifying someone's motives is for them to spell them out. It's ridiculous, you do it constantly, and even though you're probably on the correct side of this its' just shitty debating.

[Vassenor]

So prove that they do. With them actually saying they do, not just with "they did this thing which I have decided means they do".

I have no idea why you think that the only acceptable means of identifying someone's motives is for them to spell them out. It's ridiculous, you do it constantly, and even though you're probably on the correct side of this its' just shitty debating.

So what is the evidence that the Dems want what has been claimed?

[Bahktar]

So prove that they do. With them actually saying they do, not just with "they did this thing which I have decided means they do".

I have no idea why you think that the only acceptable means of identifying someone's motives is for them to spell them out. It's ridiculous, you do it constantly, and even though you're probably on the correct side of this its' just shitty debating.

If the Democratic Party wants open borders, I wonder how come more people were deported under Obama than any other President or how Obama or any other Democratic President didn't just open & flood gate the border.

[Kowani]

I have no idea why you think that the only acceptable means of identifying someone's motives is for them to spell them out. It's ridiculous, you do it constantly, and even though you're probably on the correct side of this its' just shitty debating.

If the Democratic Party wants open borders, I wonder how come more people were deported under Obama than any other President or how Obama or any other Democratic President didn't just open & flood gate the border.

Obviously, it was all planned by the Deep State to disguise their true agenda.

[Des-Bal]

So what is the evidence that the Dems want what has been claimed?

I don't believe the claim is true but broadly you can identify a person's motives by the most probable results of their actions and behavior inconsistent with their stated motives. Your insistence on some kind of comprehensive press release of a person's every objective denies that ulterior motives can exist on even theoretical level or that someone would want and attempt to do something without announcing it. It's ridiculous and it's only purpose is to score the shallowest kind of points when someone is forced to admit that the subject didn't write a thesis on what their actual goals were. I'd love to see it used in court "when did he ever SAY he premeditated the murder?" It's absurd.

[Tobleste]

So what is the evidence that the Dems want what has been claimed?

I don't believe the claim is true but broadly you can identify a person's motives by the most probable results of their actions and behavior inconsistent with their stated motives. Your insistence on some kind of comprehensive press release of a person's every objective denies that ulterior motives can exist on even theoretical level or that someone would want and attempt to do something without announcing it. It's ridiculous and it's only purpose is to score the shallowest kind of points when someone is forced to admit that the subject didn't write a thesis on what their actual goals were. I'd love to see it used in court "when did he ever SAY he premeditated the murder?" It's absurd.

Dems have backed border security plenty of times. They just object to Trumps symbolic (e.g. wall) and cruel (e.g. family seperations) approach.

[Galloism]

So what is the evidence that the Dems want what has been claimed?

I don't believe the claim is true but broadly you can identify a person's motives by the most probable results of their actions and behavior inconsistent with their stated motives. Your insistence on some kind of comprehensive press release of a person's every objective denies that ulterior motives can exist on even theoretical level or that someone would want and attempt to do something without announcing it. It's ridiculous and it's only purpose is to score the shallowest kind of points when someone is forced to admit that the subject didn't write a thesis on what their actual goals were. I'd love to see it used in court "when did he ever SAY he premeditated the murder?" It's absurd.

To sum up Des Bal’s point here:

You can be right while doing a shitty job of arguing.

[Des-Bal]

Dems have backed border security plenty of times. They just object to Trumps symbolic (e.g. wall) and cruel (e.g. family seperations) approach.

I've said it like three times, including in the post you just quoted but my point isn't that democrats want open borders it's that Vassenor's challenge was ridiculous.

[South World]

Dems have backed border security plenty of times. They just object to Trumps symbolic (e.g. wall) and cruel (e.g. family seperations) approach.

Sorry I just can’t let this fly. The family separation started under Clinton and continued under Bush AND Obama. So don’t try to blame it on Trump

[Vassenor]

Dems have backed border security plenty of times. They just object to Trumps symbolic (e.g. wall) and cruel (e.g. family seperations) approach.

Sorry I just can’t let this fly. The family separation started under Clinton and continued under Bush AND Obama. So don’t try to blame it on Trump

So today in "repeating lies in the hopes it makes them true"...