"When they go low, we go high..."
yeah, that worked well in 2016.
you'll be hollering "but her emails" next lol
of course I am being flippant.
Presidential immunity isn't a thing either, but it's nice to raise it whenever a Trumper talks about him going after Biden.
And how will hat work if as Trump claims presidents should have absolute immunity?
Persecuting someone for actual crimes committed is a really horrific thing to do, isn't it. Imagine the DoJ actually trying to make Trump pay for his crimes. The absolute cheek of it all.
I suppose Trump would just retcon the election results and claim Biden was never president.
https://www.wola.org/2023/09/weekly-u-s-mexico-border-update-migration-rises-darien-gap-data-house-republicans-budget/#:~:text=A%20March%202022%20Department%20of,at%20the%20U.S.%2DMexico%20border.
6k not 600k as you stated
You don't need to prove to me that it wasn't 600,000 daily like your post said, I already could tell that that figure could only be nonsense. The entire population of Cork is not flooding across the US border every day.
Like he did with Hilary?
If I put 600 , 000 , that was a typo . 6 k is what I meant to put
...
IF??? :D
0.5/10 for effort.
maybe less cheese before bedtime to avoid those funny dreams about Trump
A morally and intellectually bankrupt post, showing utter contempt for facts, democracy, and the rule of law.
I like that sentence.
So do I. It's very funny. I let out a chortle.
And also - that 6k is "interactions" - Not "Streaming across the border to commit untold heinous crimes" as the GOP mouthpieces would have you believe.
Those are people that the border staff "interact" with.
Some will be turned back there and then , some will be detained and then sent back following investigation and others will be sent onward for processing for potential asylum claims etc.
So of the 6k the vast majority of those do not end up coming into the US.
The total number of "un-authorised immigrants in the country has been fairly static around the 10M/11M mark for over a decade , there was a bit of a dip during Covid but prior to that the largest decrease in numbers occurred during the Obama administration.
It's all hyperbolic nonsense from the GOP designed to keep their base terrified of the "boogeyman" because if they let them catch a breath they'd maybe begin to see how utterly appalling the GOP actually make their lives.
And they can't be taking that risk.
If Trump could win the presidency and get the law of the land to his (and his strategists') liking, then Biden probably WOULD go to jail for election fraud, and the Democratic party would get dissolved under concerns of it being a hub of Chinese spy activity and so on.
We can be as sure as sure can be that if Trump won and became dictator for a day, he would say to his supporters at the end of that first day that, by god, the deep state are fighting him all the way, and ask his people do they want him to be a dictator for as long as it takes to root out the snakes and make America great again. What would his people say? Some of them couldn't speak in that moment, because they'd be cumming in their pants, but the rest of them would be going, "Ohhhh, hell yeah!!!!"
He will be elected to deliver on his promises, not to settle personal scores.
Speaking of democracy, as another poster raised the point, in recent years, following unfavourable outcomes, members of the Democratic Party have proposed: 1) Abolishing the Electoral College, 2) Expanding the Supreme Court to stack it in their favour, 3) Eliminating the filibuster, 4) Making Puerto Rico a state to gain another two senators. Will we hear the same after the 2024 elections?
Abolishing the Electoral College
Sounds like a great idea, it's a fundamentally broken system whose democratic deficient is pronounced. any system that (admittedly in theory) could allow for a president elected on < 25% of the popular vote, isn't democracy.
That's all his promises are though.
The electoral college is an undemocratic abomination. It's existence is a damming indictment of American society.
The only promises I have heard from him are revenge? What promises are you referring to? All the nonsense about shooting immigrants in the legs and putting an iron roof over the country?
Expanding the supreme court to stack it in Democrats' favour? So you don't approve of the fact that Trump stacked it for Republicans? I suppose its a start that there is one thing you don't approve of.
"He will be elected to deliver on his promises, not to settle personal scores."
Like building a wall and having Mexico pay for it?
Like cutting the deficit?
Like delivering on a replacement to Obamacare?
Like pushing forward with Infrastructure Week?
Etc etc etc
And honestly based on that polling of the GOP, the primary desire is to "own the libs" so they basically want a meme as president.
Disagree. Trump carried 30 states plus Maine's 2nd congressional district in 2016 against Clinton's 20 + DC. The electoral college ensures candidates have a broad range of support across different states.
Trump lost the popular vote. An amount mostly accumulated in the state of California.
Homeless Town has to be the best one..
Republicans didn't propose expanding the court to stack it in their favour. They replaced a retiring/deceased judge with a Presidential and Senate-approved candidate.
It's either ok to stack the court in one's favour or it isn't. I've no issue with expanding it since it's a another anti-democratic American nonsense anyway.
They replaced one only a few weeks before the Election despite having held up the previous one for months on end because an Election was coming.
So what you have is various Democrat flacks "discussing" various possibilities and the GOP ACTUALLY deliberately blocking Merrick Garland for months on end "Because the new President should make the choice" and then fast tracking Amy Coney-Barrett to prevent the New President making the choices.
That's actually stacking the court vs. spit-balling theories.
The situation in 2020 differed from 2016, as the same party controlled both the presidency and the Senate, following historical precedent on the appointment of Supreme Court judges in election years.
