Regime Change - MAGA's Love It

That is not anything that is part of the War Powers Act. This is the problem, it's like folks are incapable of understanding why it wasn't against the law for Obama to bomb the crap out of places without begging for permission. It isn't a power of Congress, it is a power of the Executive, and he can do this kind of thing and report it to Congress after, all while following the constitution. This is the very reason why I tell people it is important to understand who you are electing to the Executive.
I feel Obama’s action were often illegal, so wrong argument to use with me.
 
You're out of your league even in this place.
I can't count how many times have I've seen a simpleton like you write those exact words, and I'm good at counting. It's always the dumbest asshole in the bunch that says it first. You're the first one today, lol. I've have yet to see an intelligent thought come from you. I'm wrong? Show me what one looks like.
 
It doesn't matter what you "feel"... What matters is what the documents say, the power given to the Executive on foreign relations is massive.
Well, what does the documents say, can you quote the part that allows us to attack a foreign country so we can put its leader on trial for drug trafficking? Can you show how he was an imminent threat to the United States?
 
Well, what does the documents say, can you quote the part that allows us to attack a foreign country so we can put its leader on trial for drug trafficking? Can you show how he was an imminent threat to the United States?
Since it is allowed in the War Powers Act, you can begin there. And again, there is no mention of "imminent threat" in the constitution.

I would also refer you to such activity as the arrest of Noriega... This is not "unconstitutional" or even against the law that they passed. The President has the authority to take action in another country, even to enforce law, without first begging for permission from Congress.
 
Since it is allowed in the War Powers Act, you can begin there. And again, there is no mention of "imminent threat" in the constitution.
Show me, it’s on you to show evidence for your claim, that it is in the War Powers Act and that Trump’s administration can use the military to enforce drug trafficking laws.
 
Show me, it’s on you to show evidence for your claim, that it is in the War Powers Act and that Trump’s administration can use the military to enforce drug trafficking laws.
You keep ignoring the fact that he can act and then report within 48 hours. It's like you do not understand how time works or something.
 
And?

You went from "No Kings" to "Hands off That Dictator" in just 77 days.
No Kings for the United States of America, dictators in another country are not our business.

Can you not understand that I don’t support kings, but I also don’t support the United States of America using its military to remove them?

That’s one of the most disingenuous or stupid arguments I’ve ever heard.
 
No Kings for the United States of America, dictators in another country are not our business.

Can you not understand that I don’t support kings, but I also don’t support the United States of America using its military to remove them?

That’s one of the most disingenuous or stupid arguments I’ve ever heard.
It's a meme. :rolleyes:
 
Well, what does the documents say, can you quote the part that allows us to attack a foreign country so we can put its leader on trial for drug trafficking? Can you show how he was an imminent threat to the United States?
The WPR (War Powers Resolution) does not declare unilateral actions constitutional or unconstitutional, it is a statutory framework designed to enforce transparency and give Congress tools to respond. The underlying constitutional authority for the action (Article II Commander-in-Chief power) exists independently of the WPR. Filing the report simply fulfills the law's requirement and starts the 60-day clock (plus 30-day withdrawal extension) for continued hostilities unless Congress authorizes them via declaration of war or specific statute.
 
A meme based on a lie. Or a simplistic belief that ideology must be binary.
Meme's are basically modern day bumper stickers. And my joke based on "no kings" protests notwithstanding, not a very funny meme. Some hit, some do not. This one seems to bother leftists though, so... fun.
 
The same Trumper’s who were screaming America first, and we should not get involved in for a nations were supporting regime change in Venezuela.

No ideology, just cult personality.
 
The same Trumper’s who were screaming America first, and we should not get involved in for a nations were supporting regime change in Venezuela.

No ideology, just cult personality.
Fair. I submit we are getting the leftist version of the Cult of Anti-personality... Opposition to even him taking a breath, oppose with your soul everything, sort out why later.
 
Meme's are basically modern day bumper stickers. And my joke based on "no kings" protests notwithstanding, not a very funny meme. Some hit, some do not. This one seems to bother leftists though, so... fun.
I think means are far too often used as simplistic arguments, and they trick simple minded people into supporting people like Donald Trump.
Fair. I submit we are getting the leftist version of the Cult of Anti-personality... Opposition to even him taking a breath, oppose with your soul everything, sort out why later.
example?
 
I can't count how many times have I've seen a simpleton like you write those exact words, and I'm good at counting. It's always the dumbest asshole in the bunch that says it first. You're the first one today, lol. I've have yet to see an intelligent thought come from you. I'm wrong? Show me what one looks like.
I might be willing to continue this if you seemed capable of judging "an intelligent thought". You do not seem capable but you are "good at counting", you claim, so there's that. Good luck.
 
Back
Top