February 15Feb 15 1 minute ago, DrPhilly said: ...and you'll have to excuse those of us that watched the circus clown raise the debt even higher in his first term AND will continue to watch him set records in this term. As for the process, when are the auditors going to get involved with the audit? Every president spends more than the last thanks to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. All started by Democrats. A president can literally do nothing and will still spend more than his predecessor. No amount of money saved by Doge could offset the exploding costs of these programs. It sure is a clever talking point of the left though to blame Republicans for the mess they have created with entitlements. Hate on the process all you want. Elon Musk is your auditor now.
February 15Feb 15 2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: @The Norseman btw - Do you care at all about the Constitution? Sure do. But we no longer have the luxury of entertaining every little nonsense injunction by an activist judge who is emotionally wounded over cuts that are being made to their favorite cause. As I said yesterday, birthright citizenship is a true constitutional question and will be decided by the Supreme Court. The rest of it is noise that will be whitewashed on appeal.
February 15Feb 15 2 minutes ago, The Norseman said: Every president spends more than the last thanks to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. All started by Democrats. A president can literally do nothing and will still spend more than his predecessor. No amount of money saved by Doge could offset the exploding costs of these programs. It sure is a clever talking point of the left though to blame Republicans for the mess they have created with entitlements. Hate on the process all you want. Elon Musk is your auditor now. Musk is not an auditor AND you can remove the SS costs and Trump still beats Biden by a mile and will do so again in this term. You always lose these types of discussions as your logic is fatally limited. I've seen it time and again in here.
February 15Feb 15 5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: @The Norseman btw - Do you care at all about the Constitution? Meh, they don’t care about "process concerns,” unless of course a never MAGA does wrong.
February 15Feb 15 2 minutes ago, The Norseman said: Sure do. But we no longer have the luxury of entertaining every little nonsense injunction by an activist judge who is emotionally wounded over cuts that are being made to their favorite cause. As I said yesterday, birthright citizenship is a true constitutional question and will be decided by the Supreme Court. The rest of it is noise that will be whitewashed on appeal. Here is a great example of how your lack of logic capacity fails you. This one is so obvious any smart high school kid can understand it.
February 15Feb 15 6 minutes ago, The Norseman said: As I said yesterday, birthright citizenship is a true constitutional question and will be decided by the Supreme Court. How is an actual amendment a true constitutional question? Do have any clue on what changing or abolishing an amendment involves? Do have a clue of the POTUS’ role in the amendment process? Do you understand the importance of separation of powers? Do you understand that when someone does something wrong, pointing out that others have done the same wrong is not a valid excuse?
February 15Feb 15 8 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: How is an actual amendment a true constitutional question? Do have any clue on what changing or abolishing an amendment involves? Do have a clue of the POTUS’ role in the amendment process? Do you understand the importance of separation of powers? Do you understand that when someone does something wrong, pointing out that others have done the same wrong is not a valid excuse? No one is talking about removing an amendment. The questions is around how you interpret the birthright citizenship clause.
February 15Feb 15 2 minutes ago, The Norseman said: No one is talking about removing an amendment. The questions is around how you interpret the birthright citizenship clause. What part of the citizenship clause do you think is suggestive? I’ll even help you so you don’t have to look it up. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
February 15Feb 15 23 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Here is a great example of how your lack of logic capacity fails you. This one is so obvious any smart high school kid can understand it. Lack of logic capacity? 😂 WTF does that even mean? I've read the injunctions and I'm crystal clear on what they are and how they'll stand up or not in court. Birthright citizenship is a valid issue and Trump's argument that the clause itself has been mis-interpreted is an interesting one. Not sure if it will stand up at SCOTUS or not, but it might. The Doge injunctions are nonsense. You can wring your hands over the separation of powers all you want, but they are simply lawfare aimed at delaying the process and protecting the bureaucracy. Yes my argument is contradictory, and no, I don't care.
February 15Feb 15 6 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: What part of the citizenship clause do you think is suggestive? I’ll even help you so you don’t have to look it up. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” He's basically arguing that tourists and illegal aliens aren't subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore their children are not covered under constitutional law. I don't know if he'll win, but that's his argument. The clause was drafted as an output of the Dred Scott case in order to make the children of slaves to have birthright citizenship. I was re-interpreted years later in the Wong case to cover foreign nationals. Not sure the question of illegal aliens has ever been fully tested. There is some gray in there, but not much.
February 15Feb 15 17 minutes ago, The Norseman said: He's basically arguing that tourists and illegal aliens aren't subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore their children are not covered under constitutional law. I don't know if he'll win, but that's his argument. The clause was drafted as an output of the Dred Scott case in order to make the children of slaves to have birthright citizenship. I was re-interpreted years later in the Wong case to cover foreign nationals. Not sure the question of illegal aliens has ever been fully tested. There is some gray in there, but not much. What part of "all persons” is a gray area? Who is excluded from all? Where is the gray area in born in the United States? The biggest gray area I see is the jurisdiction part. If the courts rule undocumented immigrants are not within US jurisdiction, how can they legally charge them with anything?
February 15Feb 15 1 hour ago, The Norseman said: Lack of logic capacity? 😂 WTF does that even mean? That right there 1 hour ago, The Norseman said: The Doge injunctions are nonsense. You can wring your hands over the separation of powers all you want, but they are simply lawfare aimed at delaying the process and protecting the bureaucracy. Yes my argument is contradictory, and no, I don't care. If you include the fact that you don't give a sheet about the Constitution then you'd make sense. You can then decide if we are witnessing a coup or a revolution. Both would be logically inline with your position.
February 15Feb 15 16 minutes ago, Paul852 said: Receipts coming over the weekend! Keep moving those goal posts. He told you he'd be wrong sometimes. Pay attention.
February 15Feb 15 2 hours ago, The Norseman said: Every president spends more than the last thanks to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. All started by Democrats. A president can literally do nothing and will still spend more than his predecessor. No amount of money saved by Doge could offset the exploding costs of these programs. It sure is a clever talking point of the left though to blame Republicans for the mess they have created with entitlements. Hate on the process all you want. Elon Musk is your auditor now. Those programs might have been started under democratic presidents, let’s not pretend that republicans didn’t have anything to do with expanding them. Social security outlays were greatly expanded thanks to Nixon.
February 15Feb 15 I'm sorry but did we get a "but her emails!" throwback in here and y'all just let it go?
February 15Feb 15 3 hours ago, The Norseman said: Every president spends more than the last 🤣 this point couldn’t be more wrong. 🤣
February 15Feb 15 9 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: I'm sorry but did we get a "but her emails!" throwback in here and y'all just let it go? Yeah, I was going to respond but I'm exhausted with these people.
February 15Feb 15 1 hour ago, DEagle7 said: I'm sorry but did we get a "but her emails!" throwback in here and y'all just let it go? 3 hours ago, Tnt4philly said: Do you understand that when someone does something wrong, pointing out that others have done the same wrong is not a valid excuse? I was referencing that post with the comment here. It’s just amazing how many times MAGA resorts to the juvenile excuse that, "Others are doing it,” as an excuse for doing something wrong. It’s a failed excuse that children have been using forever.
February 15Feb 15 https://www.military.com/daily-news/investigations-and-features/2025/02/14/over-151-million-taken-soldiers-paychecks-food-costs-spent-elsewhere-army.html A bombshell report has exposed that more than $151 million meant to feed soldiers at 11 of the Army’s largest bases was repurposed for undisclosed uses.
February 15Feb 15 1 minute ago, Tnt4philly said: It’s just amazing how many times MAGA resorts to the juvenile excuse that, "Others are doing it,” as an excuse for doing something wrong. It’s a failed excuse that children have been using forever. Irony strong enough to forge delusions of grandeur.
February 15Feb 15 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-02-14/doge-impersonators-demanded-sensitive-information-fled-after-being-turned-away 🤣
February 15Feb 15 2 hours ago, DrPhilly said: That right there If you include the fact that you don't give a sheet about the Constitution then you'd make sense. You can then decide if we are witnessing a coup or a revolution. Both would be logically inline with your position. And off the rails you go. Its official folks, the left's next hyperbolic meltdown has officially begun.
Create an account or sign in to comment