22%? Are you sure or are you misunderstanding the link that you just found? Do some more research!  

2 minutes ago, Kz! said:

22%? Are you sure or are you misunderstanding the link that you just found? Do some more research!  

If your gonna respond, quote it.  It took like a F'ing hour to put together, bring it to the next page

8 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

  So I just started looking into it and holy sheet, I'm glad I did.  Sometimes you forget what an unbelievable failure he was across the board.

First, of course, immigration

 

But it doesn't stop there.  Dumbazz was an even bigger failure on deregulation

 

90%   And don't forget for most of that time he had at least a few competent people working for him.  Of course, those dudes are long gone now and they're the one's calling Trump retarded.

Even healthcare, which I forgot he even tried to do anything on, after lying about his upcoming bill for so long.  Turns out he tried to do some stupid sheet (of course going after contraception) that no surprise got struck down.

Basically, he just lost a sheetload of court cases because he was a sheety President who implemented sheety policies and hired sheety people and then, of course, tossed those sheety people under the bus whenever it benefited him to do so and hired even sheetier people to replace them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-overruled/

So, looks like the grand total of all the litigation brought against the administration for all their executive action was 246 challenges, with a success rate of......

22% 

https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup

 

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

If your gonna respond, quote it.  It took like a F'ing hour to put together, bring it to the next page

 

So yes or no and without additional googling, do you think only 22% of Trump's EOs weren't blocked by libtard judges?

3 minutes ago, Kz! said:

So yes or no and without additional googling, do you think only 22% of Trump's EOs weren't blocked by libtard judges?

  You're F'ing autistic dude.  You're free to post the percentage if you found it since clearly I didn't.

What I can tell you is that he lost 78% of his court cases, because he's retarded and didn't understand the law or pretty much anything else. 

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

 You're free to post the percentage if you found it since clearly I didn't.

No kidding. Like I said, 0% chance. I simply don't miss. But thanks for another hilarious interaction:

*specifically discussing executive orders*

*van makes assertion I know he can't back up*

*I ask him to find a how many EOs Trump made and had shot down and predict he can't*

*Van searches for an hour (lmao) and excitedly posts the first thing he can find that he might be able to try to construe as a rational answer*

*spoiler: it isn't about executive orders*

*one post later confirms that he couldn't find the answer*

*looks completely retarded*

Did I miss anything, windy?  

2 minutes ago, Kz! said:

No kidding. Like I said, 0% chance. I simply don't miss. But thanks for another hilarious interaction:

*specifically discussing executive orders*

*van makes assertion I know he can't back up*

*I ask him to find a how many EOs Trump made and had shot down and predict he can't*

*Van searches for an hour (lmao) and excitedly posts the first thing he can find that he might be able to try to construe as a rational answer*

*spoiler: it isn't about executive orders*

*one post later confirms that he couldn't find the answer*

*looks completely retarded*

Did I miss anything, windy?  

  What the F are you babbling about?  Did you read my post?  These were immigration EO's:

 

Quote

 

Federal funding for ‘sanctuary cities’

Days after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order that placed immigration-related conditions on federal funding to cities. The action penalized "sanctuary cities” by threatening to withhold grants from jurisdictions that the Justice Department deemed insufficiently cooperative in helping federal authorities detain undocumented immigrants. Many jurisdictions won rulings declaring the conditions were likely to be illegal because they were not authorized by law. Some ruled unconstitutional the law invoked in support of the conditions.

DACA program

The Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program provided temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. In March 2018, the Trump administration canceled DACA, claiming it was legally indefensible, rescinding deportation protection for nearly 700,000 of these immigrants known as "dreamers.” Cities, states, organizations and individuals across the country challenged the rescission. Several judges, though not all, ruled against the Trump administration.

Crackdowns on illegal immigration

In addition to the DACA rulings, courts have ruled against elements of the Trump administration’s signature crackdown on illegal immigration, including limiting entry points for asylum seekers, revoking temporary protected status for immigrants from certain countries already living legally in the United States and family separation.

 

 

From the libs have negative IQs file:

It really is insane how stupid liberals are. 

Quote

A senior Department of Homeland Security official tells CBS News the eight migrants arrested by ICE crossed the U.S. southern border without proper documents and were subsequently released into the U.S. with notices to appear in immigration court. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-arrests-8-with-suspected-isis-ties/

Allowing tens of thousands of potential terror suspects waltz into the country is treasonous, honestly. It's insane that anyone can support these dem scumbags.

2 minutes ago, Kz! said:

It really is insane how stupid liberals are. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-arrests-8-with-suspected-isis-ties/

Allowing tens of thousands of potential terror suspects waltz into the country is treasonous, honestly. It's insane that anyone can support these dem scumbags.

So we caught them and stopped a potential attack?  Oh no.  That's terrible.

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

So we caught them and stopped a potential attack?  Oh no.  That's terrible.

They were stopped at the US border and released into the country to wind up thousands of miles away in three major US cities, and they were in the country ranging from months to a little over a year. But yes, this is a great border policy/law enforcement success story, windmill! Just abject retardation.   

20 minutes ago, Kz! said:

They were stopped at the US border and released into the country to wind up thousands of miles away in three major US cities, and they were in the country ranging from months to a little over a year. But yes, this is a great border policy/law enforcement success story, windmill! Just abject retardation.   

So we caught them and stopped a potential attack?  Oh no, that's terrible.

4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

So we caught them and stopped a potential attack?  Oh no, that's terrible.

Peak windmill. I honestly can't tell if I'm dealing with literal retards in here.

1. It's good that they were caught before they started slaughtering innocent people.

2. It's insane that they were caught and released into the country and allowed to live here for over a year.

3. There are undoubtedly untold hundreds to thousands more currently in the US given Biden's open door policies.

Did that really need to be broken down for you?  

If we're not going to actually change our laws on asylum seekers, then we need to allocate resources to actually deal with this in a responsible manner. Clearly Congress is too inept and tribal to actually change the law, so we should try and at least agree on increasing funding for facilities to house asylum seekers as well as more immigration judges to get through the cases. There's nothing I see in current law that requires the release of asylum seekers into the US as they wait for a hearing; in fact, there are references to detention, but that's in a sub clause entitled "Removal without further review if no credible fear of persecution."

Here's the breakdown -- "Subject to subclause (III), if the officer determines that an alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review."

Now subclause (iii) allows for an appeal to a judge -- "The Attorney General shall provide by regulation and upon the alien’s request for prompt review by an immigration judge of a determination under subclause (I) that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution. Such review shall include an opportunity for the alien to be heard and questioned by the immigration judge, either in person or by telephonic or video connection. Review shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days after the date of the determination under subclause (I)." But we don't have enough judges to hit that timeline. 

Finally, subclause (iv) allows for detention as they await the appeal -- "Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed."

Within existing law, there seem to be 3 things we can do:

1. Instruct Asylum Officers to deny all asylum claims based solely on leaving countries with economic hardship or violence. Only approve those that can demonstrate clear evidence that they have been targeted for either prosecution or violence specifically. Basically, you can't get asylum just because your country sucks.

2. Build/expand detention facilities to hold these people (who will definitely appeal to a judge). 

3. Hire more immigration judges, and allow hearings via Zoom. If the judge denies the request, deport immediately.

20 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

If we're not going to actually change our laws on asylum seekers, then we need to allocate resources to actually deal with this in a responsible manner. Clearly Congress is too inept and tribal to actually change the law, so we should try and at least agree on increasing funding for facilities to house asylum seekers as well as more immigration judges to get through the cases. There's nothing I see in current law that requires the release of asylum seekers into the US as they wait for a hearing; in fact, there are references to detention, but that's in a sub clause entitled "Removal without further review if no credible fear of persecution."

Here's the breakdown -- "Subject to subclause (III), if the officer determines that an alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review."

Now subclause (iii) allows for an appeal to a judge -- "The Attorney General shall provide by regulation and upon the alien’s request for prompt review by an immigration judge of a determination under subclause (I) that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution. Such review shall include an opportunity for the alien to be heard and questioned by the immigration judge, either in person or by telephonic or video connection. Review shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days after the date of the determination under subclause (I)." But we don't have enough judges to hit that timeline. 

Finally, subclause (iv) allows for detention as they await the appeal -- "Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed."

Within existing law, there seem to be 3 things we can do:

1. Instruct Asylum Officers to deny all asylum claims based solely on leaving countries with economic hardship or violence. Only approve those that can demonstrate clear evidence that they have been targeted for either prosecution or violence specifically. Basically, you can't get asylum just because your country sucks.

2. Build/expand detention facilities to hold these people (who will definitely appeal to a judge). 

3. Hire more immigration judges, and allow hearings via Zoom. If the judge denies the request, deport immediately.

I'm in favor of option 1. It needs to happen. 

1 hour ago, VanHammersly said:

So we caught them and stopped a potential attack?  Oh no.  That's terrible.

Im sure they didnt miss any

55 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Peak windmill. I honestly can't tell if I'm dealing with literal retards in here.

1. It's good that they were caught before they started slaughtering innocent people.

2. It's insane that they were caught and released into the country and allowed to live here for over a year.

3. There are undoubtedly untold hundreds to thousands more currently in the US given Biden's open door policies.

Did that really need to be broken down for you?  

So we caught them and stopped a potential attack?  Oh no, that's terrible.

57 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

1. Instruct Asylum Officers to deny all asylum claims based solely on leaving countries with economic hardship or violence. Only approve those that can demonstrate clear evidence that they have been targeted for either prosecution or violence specifically. Basically, you can't get asylum just because your country sucks.

Complete non-starter for democrats.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

If we're not going to actually change our laws on asylum seekers, then we need to allocate resources to actually deal with this in a responsible manner. Clearly Congress is too inept and tribal to actually change the law, so we should try and at least agree on increasing funding for facilities to house asylum seekers as well as more immigration judges to get through the cases. There's nothing I see in current law that requires the release of asylum seekers into the US as they wait for a hearing; in fact, there are references to detention, but that's in a sub clause entitled "Removal without further review if no credible fear of persecution."

Here's the breakdown -- "Subject to subclause (III), if the officer determines that an alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review."

Now subclause (iii) allows for an appeal to a judge -- "The Attorney General shall provide by regulation and upon the alien’s request for prompt review by an immigration judge of a determination under subclause (I) that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution. Such review shall include an opportunity for the alien to be heard and questioned by the immigration judge, either in person or by telephonic or video connection. Review shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days after the date of the determination under subclause (I)." But we don't have enough judges to hit that timeline. 

Finally, subclause (iv) allows for detention as they await the appeal -- "Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed."

Within existing law, there seem to be 3 things we can do:

1. Instruct Asylum Officers to deny all asylum claims based solely on leaving countries with economic hardship or violence. Only approve those that can demonstrate clear evidence that they have been targeted for either prosecution or violence specifically. Basically, you can't get asylum just because your country sucks.

2. Build/expand detention facilities to hold these people (who will definitely appeal to a judge). 

3. Hire more immigration judges, and allow hearings via Zoom. If the judge denies the request, deport immediately.

Wasn't the immigration reform + Ukraine funding bill pretty close to this? At minimum it added capacity to process these asylum claims more quickly, which is at least a big part of any final solution.

1 hour ago, Kz! said:

Complete non-starter for democrats.

If only some orange gameshow host had won the presidency and had majorities in the senate and house and could have gotten this done after he ran on it. 

10 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Ree TDS REEEEE. 

We know, bud.

37 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Wasn't the immigration reform + Ukraine funding bill pretty close to this? At minimum it added capacity to process these asylum claims more quickly, which is at least a big part of any final solution.

No, it literally didn't have the only point that actually matters in it as you already know.

2 minutes ago, Kz! said:

We know, bud.

Alien invasion 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13519319/migrant-gang-invasion-ISIS-LA-Venezuela-sex-traffickers-Texas-Chinese-drug-Maine.html

Imagine how stupid you have to be to vote for this.

Let's check in on "our democracy™"

Yep, sounds about right.