Trump's Cabinet

[Day Man]

he should change to handle to 'dunning-kruger'

 

 

[Flev]

1 hour ago, Day Man said:

he should change to handle to 'dunning-kruger'

 

 

Average X user discovers great circle routes.

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, Flev said:

Average X user discovers great circle routes.

Uh, no.

[disgruntledemployee]

Introducing the first to go, former NSA, Mike Waltz.  100 Days. 

Yeah yeah, he's gonna UN.  That's almost worse, because he can get fired again.  And its the UN, something Trump doesn't care anything about.

Edited Friday at 04:02 PM by disgruntledemployee
I don't know the cabinet people

[ClearedHot]

5 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Introducing the first to go, former Sec State, Mike Waltz.  100 Days. 

Yeah yeah, he's gonna UN.  That's almost worse, because he can get fired again.  And its the UN, something Trump doesn't care anything about.

Huh?

So much blind hate you have zero clue what is going on...shocking.

I know details don't matter to you you but Marco Rubio is and remains Sec State.  Waltz was the National Security Advisor.

[disgruntledemployee]

Not blind hate, just old and typed the wrong job position.  Thanks for the correction.  If it was blind hate, I'd post daily about cosplay ice barbie shit, Hesgeth shit, Elon shit, and stupid Trump shit.  But you all can read headlines.

Here's an emoji 🍻

[bfargin]

4 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Not blind hate, just old and typed the wrong job position.  Thanks for the correction.  If it was blind hate, I'd post daily about cosplay ice barbie shit, Hesgeth shit, Elon shit, and stupid Trump shit.  But you all can read headlines.

Here's an emoji 🍻

Yeah def no “blind hate”…

Here’s a funny for you even though thankfully she isn’t on any cabinet

[disgruntledemployee]

We had a dude plant one of these in the commanders office.  Hilarious.

[Vito]

 It amazes me that there are still military folks who will defend and promote a political party that includes socialists and communists.  If Bernie Sanders ran against Trump, would they vote for Sanders? WTFO

[Lord Ratner]

13 minutes ago, Vito said:

 It amazes me that there are still military folks who will defend and promote a political party that includes socialists and communists.  

It'll work this time...

[SpeedOfHeat]

2 hours ago, Vito said:

It amazes me that there are still military folks who will defend and promote a political party that includes socialists and communists.

I agree, 100%.  

Additionally, it amazes me that there are still military folks who will defend and promote a president who doesn’t support or defend the Constitution.

When asked point blank (at 2:08), “don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as President?” Trump answered “I don’t know.”

 

[Banzai]

[disgruntledemployee]

Give the old man a break.  Its been 3 months since he did this, so he may be having a senior moment.

 

[Lord Ratner]

18 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

I agree, 100%.  

Additionally, it amazes me that there are still military folks who will defend and promote a president who doesn’t support or defend the Constitution.

When asked point blank (at 2:08), “don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as President?” Trump answered “I don’t know.”

 

At some point you are going to have to be honest with your whining. I know that day isn't today, but seriously, this is about as stupid as saying Obama thought there were more than 50 states. 

 

The question in this interview is obviously about whether the due process of the Constitution applies to the deportation of illegals. You either didn't listen to the interview, or you are too stupid to interpret a simple conversation.

 

Or you're just a bitter liar. 

[Banzai]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

At some point you are going to have to be honest with your whining. I know that day isn't today, but seriously, this is about as stupid as saying Obama thought there were more than 50 states. 

 

The question in this interview is obviously about whether the due process of the Constitution applies to the deportation of illegals. You either didn't listen to the interview, or you are too stupid to interpret a simple conversation.

 

Or you're just a bitter liar. 

He didn't say that. And if he did, he didn't mean that. And if he did, you didn't understand it. And if you did, it's not a big deal. And if it is, others have said worse!

[Lord Ratner]

59 minutes ago, Banzai said:

He didn't say that. And if he did, he didn't mean that. And if he did, you didn't understand it. And if you did, it's not a big deal. And if it is, others have said worse!

"They are obviously going to follow what the supreme Court said."

 

Keep trying, bub. You'll get it right eventually.

[SpeedOfHeat]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

At some point you are going to have to be honest with your whining. I know that day isn't today, but seriously, this is about as stupid as saying Obama thought there were more than 50 states. 

The question in this interview is obviously about whether the due process of the Constitution applies to the deportation of illegals. You either didn't listen to the interview, or you are too stupid to interpret a simple conversation.

Or you're just a bitter liar. 

I wouldn’t have posted that clip if I thought it was taken out of context.  The media is certainly guilty of that.  Remember last Nov when the leading story was that “Trump says Liz Cheney should face a firing squad?”  It was clear he was calling out hawkish politicians and their eagerness to commit troops to face enemies that they themselves would never face.  It was delivered poorly ….because Trump has the intelligence and vocabulary of a 5th grader, ….but no doubt the media tried to misrepresent his point.

The clip above isn’t like that.  He’s asked a direct, simple question.  It’s a question that only has one correct answer:  “Yes.”  After simply affirming his sworn oath, he could have then continued into his typical nonsensical “weave”.  But he didn’t say Yes.  He said “I don’t know.”  And I take him at his word.  That he views the Constitution as negotiable is obvious at this point, including in this interview.  

“the 5th amendment says they’re entitled to due process”  “well it might say that, but then we’d have to have millions of trials.  I was elected to get these people the hell out.  They’re some of the worst people on earth.” 

See, this is just how his brain works.  “The ends justify the means” is the extent of his reasoning faculties.  I honestly don’t even blame him for it anymore.  He thinks if something is logistically difficult, then we can just ignore the 5th Amendment.  He thinks that winning an election by a large margin entitles him to do whatever he wants, Constitutional or not.  He thinks if people are really “bad”….”murderers or drug dealers,” then laws and due process are unnecessary obstacles.  “I was elected to get them the hell out of here….. and the courts are holding me from doing it” he says, indignantly.  

Any uncertainty, any mincing words, any suggestion that it’s too difficult a question to sort out without the aid of attorneys is insane.  And before Trump, you would have agreed.  Had it been Obama or Hilary or Kamala, you would agree.  This is precisely why Trump supporters are viewed as cult-like.  Their absolute inability to criticize the dear leader.  All you have to say is (something like) “damn, yeah, that’s messed up.  Can’t believe he didn’t just say ‘Yes, of course.’  As a military officer, had someone asked me that, I wouldn’t have had to think for a millisecond.”  

Then you could have pivoted to whataboutism or “TDS” or a lesser-of-two-evils argument.  (….I know I’m asking too much to assume you could criticize the dear leader …to even the mildest degree… and just leave it at that.)

But instead, you criticize me.  I’m whining….I’m stupid, I’m a bitter liar.

It’s so pathetic.  What the hell happened to you guys?

[Motofalcon]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The question in this interview is obviously about whether the due process of the Constitution applies to the deportation of illegals.

No, it isn’t. She didn’t ask “Does the constitution apply in this situation?” Or “Are your current deportation rules constitutional?” She asked “don’t you need to uphold the constitution?”  It’s right in the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution”.  Hell, it’s pretty much the ONLY thing in the oath - read the text of it, it’s only 35 words and 17 of them are about the constitution.  It doesn’t matter what the situation is, it’s right in the oath that he took and that the officers on this forum took to support/defend/preserve/protect/uphold the constitution.  That is not conditional or situation-dependent.  If he had said “Yes, I have to uphold the constitution but I don’t know if it applies here” (hint, it does) it would still be terribly disappointing that he doesn’t know what the constitution says, but this is a ing travesty.  

  And yes, it has been decided in no uncertain terms that the 5th amendment and the right to due process applies to every single person in the US, legally or not. You can bitch all you want about the logistics of it, but the solution is absolutely NOT “scoff the constitution, just deport them all and let someone else sort it out.”

[Boomer6]

I 100% agree with the liberals on this. He should have said yes. The ten paragraph conservatives on here would have posted 10 paragraph responses in outrage if it was a liberal president answering this question...except that president would be defending a position conservatives don't support. 

That being said, it's worth noting that humans aren't perfect. Context matters. This administration sees any question from the MSM as an attempt to undermind etc. just as any question from foxnews would have been for the previous administration. A question that's clear and simple to a service member might not be clear and simple to a politician on the defensive.

If a politician is attempting to change the constitution (name your favorite amendment, maybe the 13th) and they're asked if they're required to support/defend the constitution, the answer might not necessarily be yes. 

By all means though, liberals continue to spit the same shit that you were bitching about conservatives saying 6-7 months ago, and conservatives continue to defend your dude for the same shit you would have abhorred during the same period. 

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

I 100% agree with the liberals on this. 

*Proceeds to disagree with the liberals on the core point*

3 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

That being said....

Well stated.

4 hours ago, Motofalcon said:

And yes, it has been decided in no uncertain terms that the 5th amendment and the right to due process applies to every single person in the US, legally or not.

Deportation is not punishment, imprisonment, or torture. If you show up to an airport without a passport, you get put back on a plane to where you came from. No trial. Being sent home requires no process, due or otherwise. 

Sending illegals to a Salvadorian jail *is* a completely different story. 

As for the posted interview, Boomer covered it. If you can't handle context, don't follow politics. They are all liars, Trump included, and every interview is a game. That doesn't mean any interpretation is valid.

6 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

the 5th amendment says they’re entitled to due process”  “well it might say that, but then we’d have to have millions of trials.  I was elected to get these people the hell out.  They’re some of the worst people on earth.” 

Of course you once again left out the key part of the response, where he talks about legal interpretation. And how it is absolutely not his job to do that. Thank you for proving my point. Context matters.

6 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

It was delivered poorly ….because Trump has the intelligence and vocabulary of a 5th grader, ….but no doubt the media tried to misrepresent his point.

His supporters, which I am around 60% of the time, have often pointed to his instincts, not his intelligence. That has some pretty huge downsides, But the reason you guys aren't getting through to anyone is because you offer no realistic alternative. No Republican or Democrat politician in my lifetime has done fuck all about illegal immigration. Every time it's been some preachy sermon about due process, or the cost of picking lettuce, or the humanity of the dreamers. Yet nothing gets done, and the problem continues to get worse. The people are able to intrinsically understand whether an issue is right or wrong, and illegal immigration is wrong.  Support something that is wrong for long enough, regardless of the justification, and eventually you will lose the people. Especially when that thing starts to directly impact their lives. 

Even now you guys are arguing for "due process" in a situation that was clearly and obviously never contemplated by the Constitution. You want to destroy the Constitution? Try to apply it to situations that it wasn't meant to handle. There are people on the left trying to do exactly that, and they are quite open about their disdain for the limitations imposed by the Constitution. The rest of you are just being taken along for the ride. 

 

Sorry Boomer6, I don't think that was 10 paragraphs but it was still pretty long. I'll try to sketch some drawings next time for the fighter pilots to follow along 😂🤣

[tac airlifter]

4 hours ago, Motofalcon said:

 If he had said “Yes, I have to uphold the constitution but I don’t know if it applies here” (hint, it does) it would still be terribly disappointing that he doesn’t know what the constitution says, but this is a ing travesty.  

  And yes, it has been decided in no uncertain terms that the 5th amendment and the right to due process applies to every single person in the US, legally or not

Please reconcile for me the discrepancy between your statements here.  Does the constitution actually say illegal criminal invaders require due process prior to deportation as you claim?  Or has “it been decided” meaning a court issued an opinion on something not explicitly covered by the constitution? 
 

[Banzai]

18 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Please reconcile for me the discrepancy between your statements here.  Does the constitution actually say illegal criminal invaders require due process prior to deportation as you claim?  Or has “it been decided” meaning a court issued an opinion on something not explicitly covered by the constitution? 

Please reconcile the discrepancy between you claiming to support the Constitution while cheering for an administration who openly questions whether they need to follow it. Does the Constitution actually say the president gets to ignore Supreme Court rulings as you seem to believe? Or has 'it been decided' over 200+ years of American jurisprudence that Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution are binding law? Basic civics - when the Supreme Court rules on constitutional matters, that ruling IS what the Constitution means - that's literally their entire purpose in our system of government.

[GKinnear]

@Banzai please reconcile your difference of opinion with Trump's statement above and Biden blatantly stating he was going to ignore the SCOTUS ruling on student loan forgiveness.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7kmMNttcQH/?hl=en

If you're a man of principle and took a stand against one POTUS defying the Constitution and checks and balances, I'm sure you had posts on the other one as well...I must have missed them, though.

[tac airlifter]

41 minutes ago, Banzai said:

Please reconcile the discrepancy between you claiming to support the Constitution while cheering for an administration who openly questions whether they need to follow it. Does the Constitution actually say the president gets to ignore Supreme Court rulings as you seem to believe? Or has 'it been decided' over 200+ years of American jurisprudence that Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution are binding law? Basic civics - when the Supreme Court rules on constitutional matters, that ruling IS what the Constitution means - that's literally their entire purpose in our system of government.

You sort of addressed the question in your last sentence which was the nuance I sought to explore (SC rulings can be reversed or clarified when new situations arise, therefore an opinion on constitutional matters is in a different category than the document itself). But why are you putting words in my mouth & asserting what I believe?  I’ll pass on engaging in discussion with you, needlessly combative.

[Banzai]

1 hour ago, GKinnear said:

@Banzai please reconcile your difference of opinion with Trump's statement above and Biden blatantly stating he was going to ignore the SCOTUS ruling on student loan forgiveness.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7kmMNttcQH/?hl=en

If you're a man of principle and took a stand against one POTUS defying the Constitution and checks and balances, I'm sure you had posts on the other one as well...I must have missed them, though.

Yeah you missed them. Pretty sad.