US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[Spud]

So you can be entertained

Can you go back to the bombing brown people era again? Everything was just simpler back then

 

[dustbuster]

Can you go back to the bombing brown people era again? Everything was just simpler back then

Bomb your own brown people.
The GOP base is tired of paying for it, and reaping the blowback from it, for no gain.

 

[mandatorylurk]

This is 2015 but this is what Nimrod really thinks:

Trump meeting with Teamster's president. The SEIU will never abandon the democrats and I expect a last minute dump of cash to the Teamsters to make them endorse Joepedo but just putting the pressure on, and their rank and file realizing they really did have it better under Trump, will be worth them wasting resources.





Tucker had Vivek on yesterday and they shit talk Nimrod:

Vivek pulling a Trump on a Washington Post journalist about white supremacy. Notice what Vivek has been doing, he's been placing a big "TRUTH" banner behind him in the past weeks, but due to its size you usually only get three letters due to camera angles. it's to get your eyes accustomed to recognizing "TRUMP = VIVEK." It's very clever.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

In case you didn't notice, The current supreme court has been "overturning" a lot of shitty democrat decisions in the past few years.


See above.
Any court that's willing to tell the democrats to stuff it by overturning 100 years of gun control precedent and 50 years of abortion precedent is NOT the same court you're citing.

Why is it that any time you have anything to say it's consistently some variation of "trust the plan" shit? The Constitution as written, and in caselaw, does not give the States the power to declare invasions, such power being in the hands of the Congress, and to some limited authority delegated to the President.

There is not, as far as I am aware, any Supreme Court decision, command of the Founders, or law that would insinuate that right. Not even drafts of the Constitution included such a provision to allow a single state to declare an invasion or war. There was consideration to make that available with the approval of all states, but that was rejected.

 

[Spud]

Bomb your own brown people.
The GOP base is tired of paying for it, and reaping the blowback from it, for no gain.

Sir, I'm a Lockheed martin and Raytheon shareholder. I am the GOP base.

 

[dustbuster]

Why is it that any time you have anything to say it's consistently some variation of "trust the plan" shit?

Why is it every time you have something to say it's an appeal to (corrupt) authority fallacy and the hopeless assertion corruption will continue in some doomer refrain?

The Constitution as written, and in caselaw, does not give the States the power to declare invasions

10th amendment.
Yes, it does.
Congress has the power to declare war, not invasion on behalf of states, no matter how corrupt the robed, self-appointed kings were when they thought they were being cute in ancient history.
Under your twisted viewpoint, Mexico could march an army into texas and annex it while the feds in dc say "invasion? what invasion?"

There is not, as far as I am aware, any Supreme Court decision, command of the Founders, or law that would insinuate that right.

Hi again, 10th amendment here, don't make me whip out the clue bat.

Oh, and from your own citation:

XVIII [XVII]​

The United States shall guaranty to each State a Republican form of Government; and shall protect each State against foreign invasions, and, on the application of its Legislature, against domestic violence.

They are abrogating this section. (the invasion portion of which made it through to the final ratified draft)
Welcome to Texas dropping the fucking mic and walking away with the win.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

I think the main point is that the fed refuses to enforce immigration law, so Texas is doing it. Simple as.

The only argument that they have against this is the Obama era 2012 "nuh uh you are supposed to let us take care of it even if we aren't doing shit" and that is a retarded position because it means that states are supposed to ignore the feds shrinking their duty and allow it. It's a obvious flawed decision built on nothing but flimsy cope that ask people to literally ignore the issue.

Abbott should just order the National Guard of Texas to enforce the border and keep the crossings closed, and if feds show up to cut the wire and wave people in:? Shoot them.

 

[dustbuster]

I think the main point is that the fed refuses to enforce immigration law, so Texas is doing it. Simple as.

The only argument that they have against this is the Obama era 2012 "nuh uh you are supposed to let us take care of it even if we aren't doing shit" and that is a retarded position because it means that states are supposed to ignore the feds shrinking their duty and allow it. It's a obvious flawed decision built on nothing but flimsy cope that ask people to literally ignore the issue.

Abbott should just order the National Guard of Texas to enforce the border and keep the crossings closed, and if feds show up to cut the wire and wave people in:? Shoot them.

My thoughts on this:
Invoke the right of states to a federal guarantee to protection from invasion, cite the numbers, cite the willful refusal and aiding and abetting of the invasion.
Acknowledge the 2012 decision and challenge the court:
"Either compel the federal government to do its damn job or overturn the 2012 decision and let us do it, but this is untenable"

Very democrat cities are groaning under the imminent failure of local services over this since red states began "sharing" this problem with them.
I suspect you would find some very interesting bedfellows in the amicus briefs.

 

[The Ugly One]

Maybe they are banking on the fact that the Fed has become so bad they can't even present a unified front? D.C. has been flip flopping between "there is no crisis" "there is a crisis and we need to help" "the Republicans made this crisis" and "actually we care a lot and are doing everything to stop it" which are all incompatible arguments.

What matters is what the Supreme Court wants, and what we've seen over and over on immigration is that the Cool People have all agreed that anyone who wants to restrict immigration is a troglodyte unworthy of DC cocktail parties. The Supreme Court's go-to for when something is politically radioactive is standing. Much like they ruled that effectively nobody has standing to challenge election fraud, they are finding it increasingly convenient to say that nobody has standing to challenge the Executive Branch's refusal to enforce immigration law, which has lately escalated to actively helping criminals break the law.

The illusion is that arguments matter. They really don't. What matters is what does the majority of the Roberts court want, and what they want is to be on the Right Side of History when it comes to the "free movement of peoples."

 

[Celebrate Nite]

Worse, and this is where the shit should start scaring you -- in 10, 20, 30 years, the Zoomers will be the ones teaching the next generations. And they're fucking lazy retarded assholes

My point exactly. Dunno why everyone is up an arms about what i said.

 

[The Nothingness]

This is 2015 but this is what Nimrod really thinks:
View attachment 5611340


View attachment 5611341

I am sick of this narrative that the people come across the border are poor families wanting to live the American Dream. This sugarcoating of the issue because the facts can get uncomfortable is why this current mess exists.

 

[Barry McKockner]

I am 100% sure that the states have no right to declare invasions. Supreme Court held that this power is inherently Congress', the power the Congress delegated to the President

Just like the states have no right to declare insurrection? I guess we shall see. But if I were Abbott, I would be watching the Trump Colorado case closely.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

10th amendment.
Yes, it does

The 10th deals with "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution". Both Article 1 Section 8 and Article 4 Section 4 specifically delegate that power to the United States. Power regarding illegal immigration is also delegated to Congress by Article 1 Section 1, Section 8, Section 9, Article 4, Section 3.

In all cases the Constitution talks about "Invasion" it talks about waging war. Article 1, Section 9, Section 10, Article 4, Section 4. That Section speficially was understood to mean Invasion by a Foreign Hostile Country.

It may remain possible that Texas CAN do what it did, but it is certainly not via Magic Words and the 10th Amendment.

"When the federal government is committing open treason, what recourse do states have under the 10th amendment?"

It is solely the power of Congress to declare what happens when Feds commit treason (Article 3, Section 3)

You are literally just yapping about stuff you didn't bother looking up, and blaming everyone else for not agreeing with you

Just like the states have no right to declare insurrection?

Interestingly SCOTUS had declared that you cannot constitutionally secede, but you can constitutionally rebel, or with consent of the States, dissolve the Union. This happened after the Civil War is over though, so a tad late.

They are abrogating this section. (the invasion portion of which made it through to the final ratified draft)
Welcome to Texas dropping the fucking mic and walking away with the win.

This is a duty to the Federal Government, not an ability of the State. Not to mention that the invasion here (as it is EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION) means waging war, not dealing with migrations.

 

[mandatorylurk]

Glowie (probably) pooner activated, in a very convenient state:

 

[Anasûrimbor Kellhus]

Alejandro Mayorkas, the DHS secretary, throws Greg Abbott under the bus for the border issue.

The chutzpah of this reptilian slimy jew. You just have to hear him speak and look at those lizard eyes to know that his soul was sold long ago.

 

[dustbuster]

Both Article 1 Section 8 and Article 4 Section 4 specifically delegate that power to the United States

False

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/

I see nothing to do with "invasion" there.
I see "common defense", but there's nothing "common" when one state is being invaded and others are not.
I also see no power granted to the federal government to determine when a state is under threat.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-4/section-4/

This states it is the federal government's DUTY to protect states from invasion. it does not grant them the power to determine what constitutes one.
If Texas declared a mexican ice cream truck crossing the border was an "invasion" it would be the duty of the federal government to see it doesn't happen anymore.

It is solely the power of Congress to declare what happens when Feds commit treason (Article 3, Section 3)

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-3/

The constitution itself defines treason, and according to black and white text, Biden's admin is committing it by giving aid and comfort to millions of invaders.
Congress defining the punishment only matters if the constitution is still in effect.

Which brings me to....

This is a duty to the Federal Government, not an ability of the State.

Thanks for acknowledging that.
What happens when one party in a contract refuses to perform the contractually obligated duties again?
It is arguable that if the federal government cannot be compelled via court order to do its duty, Texas not only has the right to defend itself, it has every right to secede if the feds continue to interfere, as the constitution has been rendered Null and Void.

 

[BubbleButt]

"Iowans want secure borders."

Iowans are also complaining about the cost of groceries. Wait til the supply of Mexican labor for farms, slaughterhouses, and meatpacking plants dries up. Iowans won't be happy about meat prices doubling, nor will they be lining up to do assembly line meatpacking jobs for poor wages.

Are you sincerely defending slave labor for cheap food? Good God.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

What happens when one party in a contract refuses to perform the contractually obligated duties again?

There is no duty violated, because Texas is not in a state of war.

False

Being under Invasion is being under War. This Section provides that Congress is responsible for providing the defense of USA.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-4/section-4/ This states it is the federal government's DUTY to protect states from invasion. it does not grant them the power to determine what constitutes one.
If Texas declared a mexican ice cream truck crossing the border was an "invasion" it would be the duty of the federal government to see it doesn't happen anymore.

Invasion, as it relates to literally at all the points in the Constitution and its History, relates to a state of war. It is also how the Founders understood that term when they made the section you are jerking over.

False

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-3/
The constitution itself defines treason, and according to black and white text, Biden's admin is committing it by giving aid and comfort to millions of invaders.

You fucking mongoloid illiterate Nigger, I said "the power of Congress to declare what happens", i.e. the Punishment, not to define Treason. By the way, Nigger, by this section Biden admin has not committed treason. Interesting,

I'm done here. Kill yourself or get better.

 

[dustbuster]

Being under Invasion is being under War.

No.
Being under invasion is being under invasion.
One could choose NOT to fight the invasion, if, for instance, your commander in chief is a traitor compromised by the invaders.
Thus, no war declared.
Under invasion but not under war is possible.

This seems to be the root of your argument, which is logically unsound.

I said "the power of Congress to declare what happens", i.e. the Punishment, not to define Treason.

This only matters if the constitution is still in effect.
If the feds are abrogating their duty, and no corrective action happens, guess what happens to the constitution.

You fucking mongoloid illiterate Nigger

Says someone who cites corrupt authority, does not understand how a contract works, and does not understand the difference between invasion and war.

By the way, Nigger, by this section Biden admin has not committed treason.

Section 3 Treason​

• Clause 1 Meaning

Treason against the United States, shall consist ... in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Who is illiterate again?

Biden's administration has been coordinating and guiding invaders to points in the border where they then aid the invaders in crossing, after which they are aided in going further inland, fed and made comfortable with taxpayer dollars.
Need I get into any more specifics?

 

[Ancient Pioneer]

Invasion, as it relates to literally at all the points in the Constitution and its History, relates to a state of war. It is also how the Founders understood that term when they made the section you are jerking over.

Stop nitpicking over the Constitution, the thing doesn't matter any longer and anyone wise will tell you that it never did, they will always circumvent, distort or ignore its provisions.