All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Cunt]

Seriously, pErvinalia, how many national emergencies will this make? 2? 3000?

[Tero]

CNN
According to federal law, Congress can rescind a presidential emergency declaration by passing a joint resolution. In the likely event that such a bill would be vetoed by the President, Congress could then override it with a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House.
The danger to congressional Republicans isn't having to overcome a presidential veto, but in having to vote on the resolution itself. Any such measure would be considered privileged -- if, for example, the House passed it then the Senate would be required by law to vote on the measure within 18 days. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would be powerless to stop a floor vote.

[Cunt]

When was the last time, in your experience, Tero, that there was not a national emergency in the US?

[Tero]

All years after 9/11/2001
Other than hurricanes.

[Cunt]

This isn't fresh, but that actually makes the point even better.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... /16851775/

In his six years in office, President Obama has declared nine emergencies, allowed one to expire and extended 22 emergencies enacted by his predecessors.

[Tero]

Yeah yeah. I don't count Congo. Shithole emergency.

Just for Cunt
Newsthump
Tuesday 14 February 2017 by Lucas Wilde

Donald Trump to spend Valentine’s Day wanking into a bin

The leader of the free world will have to sort himself out this Valentine’s day.

With his wife busy promoting America’s official clothing line, and the Donald having forgotten to send her flowers, the odds of the President getting his end away are slim.

“Even slimmer bearing in mind we’re not allowed any female staff around here,” grumped White House spokesperson, Simon Williams.

“Not just because they are less able as employees, but also because we don’t want to put temptation in the President’s way. God knows we’ve enough shit to deal with.

“So it’s just going to be Donald, and his special pedal bin, with a photo of Miss Universe glued to the underside of the lid.

“Don’t feel too sorry for him, he actually kind of likes it. He always says ‘it looks huge in my hand’, which isn’t something I want to think about too much.

“You should feel sorrier for the poor Mexican that has to scrub the bin every year. I’ve no idea what we’re paying him, but it’s definitely not enough.”

[Cunt]

More racism from Tero.

I'm underwhelmed.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah yeah. I don't count Congo. Shithole emergency.

Just for Cunt
Newsthump
Tuesday 14 February 2017 by Lucas Wilde

Donald Trump to spend Valentine’s Day wanking into a bin

[JimC]

More racism from Tero.

I'm underwhelmed.

You clearly have no idea what racism is, and no comprehension of black humour or irony.

Stick to running, weight loss and dealing with life in cold temperatures; the cobbler should stick to his last...

[Cunt]

More racism from Tero.

I'm underwhelmed.

You clearly have no idea what racism is, and no comprehension of black humour or irony.

Stick to running, weight loss and dealing with life in cold temperatures; the cobbler should stick to his last...

I get that damned near everything Tero posts has racism in the forefront. I don't find the rest noteworthy.

Maybe you could take up running, weight loss and dealing with life in cold temperatures, and sticking to your own last...

[Brian Peacock]

Please point out where I offered an opinion on the optimum level of immigration - illegal or otherwise?

I looked for it, but didn't see it.

Maybe that's why I asked you the question. You know, to find out your opinion, rather than just declaring your opinion. I know it must be confusing to be questioned specifically about your vague claims, but why not just answer? Is the question embarrassing? Or do you need a minute to check with your advisers to tell you what you think is a good answer?

Is this what you think steel-manning is? I'm going to repost my previous comment which you truncated above, just to remind people that your question is a non-sequitor response, an attempt to change the subject and ignore the very point you actually quoted.

What flood?

How many illegal immigrants is ok with you?

Here is my full post...

...
What flood? Legal and illegal entry into the US has been falling for 10 years. It's barely a trickle now. Hermit posted the US government's own figures on this already (I think twice), there was even a graph. Nobody noticed. Flood, tidal wave, tsunami, hordes, invading armies, rapists, murders, terrorists; all these are emotive terms aimed purely at providing a post hoc justification.

Please point out where I offered an opinion on the optimum level of immigration - illegal or otherwise? I mentioned that the US government's own data shows a downward trend before suggesting that facts of the matter were being deliberately misrepresented for political ends. If you don't want to engage with the views or points of others don't quote their posts.

Immigration levels continue their trend downwards in the US, so what do you think is a good level?

I don't know what the optimum level of immigration is or should be but I'm not willing to condemn all illegal immigrants as criminals either. For example, the UK has rules that those seeking asylum must apply for it in the country they are leaving. This is the law, and it's a bad one. It means that a great many people who apply for asylum status in the UK have broken a law simply by getting here and making that claim. Accepting that some people may ultimately, due to their circumstance, be granted leave to remain even though they arrived in the country illegally or without the proper documentation necessitates a pragmatic, humane system that doesn't simply tar everyone with the same brush - like calling them crimigrants, for example.

[Cunt]

Please point out where I offered an opinion on the optimum level of immigration - illegal or otherwise?

I looked for it, but didn't see it.

Maybe that's why I asked you the question. You know, to find out your opinion, rather than just declaring your opinion. I know it must be confusing to be questioned specifically about your vague claims, but why not just answer? Is the question embarrassing? Or do you need a minute to check with your advisers to tell you what you think is a good answer?

Is this what you think steel-manning is? I'm going to repost my previous comment which you truncated above, just to remind people that your question is a non-sequitor response, an attempt to change the subject and ignore the very point you actually quoted.

steelmanning is trying to learn your position so well, that I can write it out in a way that you will find satisfactory.

That's why I asked you about your thoughts on optimal illegal immigration levels?

I don't know what the optimum level of immigration is or should be but I'm not willing to condemn all illegal immigrants as criminals either.

I can't help you if you can't accept facts this plain.

It is a crime to be in the country illegally. Doing so makes one a criminal.

You don't have to condemn any kinds of criminals. If you don't have the stomach for it, your law enforcement does.

For example, the UK has rules that those seeking asylum must apply for it in the country they are leaving. This is the law, and it's a bad one. It means that a great many people who apply for asylum status in the UK have broken a law simply by getting here and making that claim. Accepting that some people may ultimately, due to their circumstance, be granted leave to remain even though they arrived in the country illegally or without the proper documentation necessitates a pragmatic, humane system that doesn't simply tar everyone with the same brush - like calling them crimigrants, for example.

I don't care what you call them, as long as you accept the fact that they are criminals.

Why are you having such a tough time with it. It doesn't mean they aren't sweet, kind and lovable. Just that they are criminals, and should be expected to behave as such.

It's really not that complex, unless you have blinders on, and cannot discern legal from illegal.

[Hermit]

What flood?

How many illegal immigrants is ok with you?

The US seems to have a bottomless demand for pool cleaners, garbage collectors, child minders, domestic cleaners, fruit pickers and so forth. Considering that 1,600,000 illegal border crossers were apprehended in 2000 and only 400,000 last year, I think the number of people who got through in 2000 were not creating problems. I can't see why a quarter of that number constitutes one now, let alone a state of fucking emergency.

This is the third time i pointed this out. To date neither Coito Two nor our member from Yellowknife has commented on that. How about it, fellas?

[rainbow]

More racism from Tero.

I'm underwhelmed.

You clearly have no idea what racism is, and no comprehension of black humour or irony.

Stick to running, weight loss and dealing with life in cold temperatures; the cobbler should stick to his last...

Yes, but it is Sexist!
Clearly it demeans the autosexuals amongst us

So I think that an apology should be sent to Cnut and his fellow wanker.

[Cunt]

What flood?

How many illegal immigrants is ok with you?

The US seems to have a bottomless demand for pool cleaners, garbage collectors, child minders, domestic cleaners, fruit pickers and so forth. Considering that 1,600,000 illegal border crossers were apprehended in 2000 and only 400,000 last year, I think the number of people who got through in 2000 were not creating problems. I can't see why a quarter of that number constitutes one now, let alone a state of fucking emergency.

This is the third time i pointed this out. To date neither Coito Two nor our member from Yellowknife has commented on that. How about it, fellas?

So you are wealthy and want cheap, foreign labour. Criminalize them, and you can get even more out of them!

I noticed you still haven't mentioned what is an acceptable amount of illegal immigration, but it's ok. I understand you need to avoid this issue in order to keep your 'domestic'.