Posted on 09/24/2015 6:43:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
Not at all. Trump has been far more successful at doing SOMETHING besides getting elected than anyone in the field. Put it in the real world.
Okay sea lawyer, how would YOU go about it? You have no idea, do you? And don’t give me any BS about congress, courts, etc. Because if you do, you’re just another same-old-same-old hack who is part of the problem.
YUP
So you don't care about the Constitution. I see. You call yourself an American too I'd bet.
Okay sea lawyer, how would YOU go about it? You have no idea, do you?
The bill currently authorized only funds 700 miles of fencing. It's a start, but not nearly enough. We got that through Congress, so in this climate a bill to finish it should not be nearly so difficult. In that bill, make it clear the courts have no jurisdiction over its construction. That's step two.
Step one is what I've been talking about for years on this forum: A bounty system for their arrest and detainment under a Congressional letter of marque. It beats e-Verify in that it doesn't give FedGov control over whether or not you can work.
The same tool can be used to root out Islamic terrorists very quickly.
The President can post the names, nationalities, entry points, entry dates, last known addresses, and dates of expiry on all legal aliens on a web site. Those who overstay those limits would then be fair game under the bounty system.
That's what I would do. It's legal and doesn't abet institutional dictatorship, unlike your preferences.
yes, and that goes back to my previous pint. The things Mr. Trump has done “in the real world” hardly indicate that he will be a conservative champion.
People who have “done” something for the conservative cause both inside and out of politics would include Ted Cruz, Scott Walker,and Bobby Jindall.
As part of it, the government must institute an orderly process for assuring that the enforcers understand the law. Putting up web sites with educational materials and tests by which to qualify for the program would meet that test. Thus turning the public into law enforcement finally gets the public to confront the maze of laws, court precedents, and union contracts governing "professional" (unionized) law enforcement. They'll be much more likely to vote for representatives who will simplify those laws and rein in the courts. The exclusionary rule would be at the top of my list.
Next?
I guess we’ll wait and see. But apparently you’ve changed the argument to “electability” now, since you are quoting polls. That’s an entirely different can of worms.
I live in eastern Iowa.
Walker was not well liked. He didn’t protect his people when the “John Doe” SWATing started. Many of them fled to Iowa.
I suspect Trump will take Iowa for the GOP, and Sanders for the Dems.
It has always been about vision. Voters do not care about nuts and bolts. That is why they are hiring someone to complete their vision of what they want.
This is more important now than it ever was.
Trump's favorabilities have completely flipped, 2:1 favorable now, and he beats Hillary head-to-head in one poll, tied in another.
Sorry, incorrect again.
Perry led Romney up until the last week of September in 2011. Then Romney and Cain traded places until Veterans Day. Then Gingrich led all of the polls until 2012.
Polls at this point in a race are very fluid, have questionable sampling data, and are entirely reliant on name recognition.
I saw it myself. O'Reilly was one, and I've heard him asked more than once. Believe me or not, I don't care.
Wrong. It has been stopped by the courts. It is effectively no longer on the books, nor was what was authorized complete.
So where is your source? What lawsuit?
It's not an abuse when it is an actual national security emergency. The border invasion qualifies in my book.
Trump recognizes he needs to beat back #2 only. He isn't worried about #10. Moreover, he has money that Cain and Gingrich only dreamed of having, and has far more money than Carson and Cruz put together. Finally, the states where Carson is #2, quite often the next state up has someone else in #2 slot. So in terms of delegates, it's pretty much a done deal.
I do not expect Obama to go quietly into the night like the Bushes did while their successors wreaked havoc for eight years.
I expect Obama to behave like a Presidente in Exile, trying to still run things from the outside, using Democrats in the Senate to block changes, and the MSM to be his daily press briefing on what he thinks and wants.
The next President will have to be BIG enough, and assertive enough, to go head-to-head with a "no-rules" Obama, and not let the rules of Presidential decorum be used as a weapon against him by former President Obama as he still tries to control the agenda post-presidency.
-PJ
Totally agree. I also think that is why Obama would prefer Biden in the WH ... it would be the same as a 3rd term. Loyal Joe wouldn’t want to change anything & would be very ‘agreeable’ to an Obama influence, in my opinion, People think Obama will be gone Jan 20, 2017 .... I think we’re stuck with this guy trying to be a big cheese & political influence until he croaks.
McConnell keeps saying so, but he says a lot of things he doesn't follow through on.
-PJ
I don't. Want to know why? You don't read the thread before posting.
So where is your source? What lawsuit?
See post 37 on this thread.
It's not an abuse when it is an actual national security emergency. The border invasion qualifies in my book.
Without an actual event (and 9/11 won't count, even if it should), you won't have any luck selling that one. What's worse, is that it is totally unnecessary. There is an easier way to do this.
If 20 million people were headed to the border and about to cross over, would that be "an event"? Just because it's happened over time doesn't make it less of a threat.
There is an easier way to do this.
Your original premise was that it can't and won't be done. So now you are contradicting yourself. But feel free to enlighten us on what that way is.
I'm sure going the national security EO wouldn't be Trump's first choice, he would have a lot of other weapons to use. I'm just saying he could do it if it came down to it.
One more thing...you keep talking about “dictatorship”. For the president to follow through on a law passed by Congress is not dictatorship. For any federal judge to have the power to override it is. I’m more concerned with judicial dictatorship at this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.