Presidential Election 2016

2017-02-01 05:33:47

#2826

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5623|London, England

Christ you're tedious. The law is legal, a similar executive order was filed by Obama in 2011 that ordered an even longer halt than the one Trump signed. Why didn't Holder fight that one? Because there weren't any progressives marching in the streets for him to signal to? I'm sure on some level she does believe it was illegal, but she's an opportunist first and foremost.

And again, please deal with the Calais Jungle before lecturing Americans about taking in refugees. Your country is disgusting.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2017-02-01 05:36:51

#2827

uziq: Member; +498|3717

fyi the calais jungle closed in october 2016, jay. not that it has anything to do with your little constitutionalist pedestal.

Last edited by uziq (2017-02-01 05:37:43)

2017-02-01 05:39:33

#2828

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5623|London, England

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvyxFEzXgAAf2EZ.jpg

Go protest this.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2017-02-01 05:42:02

#2829

uziq: Member; +498|3717

it's c l o s e d, jay.

and yes, all of europe has a far more pressing humanitarian crisis with refugees than america. not just the UK. the Mediterranean countries have a huge problem with boats drowning off their shores. germany and other northern european countries that are deemed 'desirable' all have huge influxes of refugee populations.

how is that the same thing as a blanket executive order banning people with green cards from 7 countries? not even the same principle or issue at stake.

but cool, rather than addressing my constitutional question, link some old photo of a refugee camp. real smarts.

2017-02-01 05:52:14

#2830

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5623|London, England

The green card ban was rescinded. I'm not even in favor of the ban, I think the whole thing is stupid and counterproductive. But it is both popular and legal. Yates didn't have a leg to stand on legally.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2017-02-01 11:00:21

#2831

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6897|949

Jay wrote:
Christ you're tedious. The law is legal, a similar executive order was filed by Obama in 2011 that ordered an even longer halt than the one Trump signed. Why didn't Holder fight that one? Because there weren't any progressives marching in the streets for him to signal to? I'm sure on some level she does believe it was illegal, but she's an opportunist first and foremost.

And again, please deal with the Calais Jungle before lecturing Americans about taking in refugees. Your country is disgusting.

Obama slowed down special immigrant visa processing for Iraqi nationals in 2011. Didn't outright ban any immigrants from 7 countries, and didn't stop current visa or greencard holders from entering the US.

Why did Obama do this? Because the ramped up screening process already in place MAY have let in 2 Iraqi nationals that weren't properly vetted.

But yeah, total apples to apples comparison. Why weren't people protesting?!!!!111

The law is legal according to you. So far 2 authorities with much more of a legal background than you (the former acting AG, and an Eastern US District Judge) have actively said the executive order is unconstitutional. I heard the Washington State AG say on NPR the other day they are preparing their own lawsuit. I think California's AG is doing the same.

How do you know what Yates' intentions are? That is complete inference on your part because you label her a "progressive". The only facts are that she said herself she is not "convinced the executive order is lawful". That seems in line with upholding her oath to serve the constitution, NOT the president.

2017-02-01 11:07:50

#2832

uziq: Member; +498|3717

jay is this forum's only true constitutionalist.

2017-02-01 11:21:55

#2833

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6371|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
And the law is legal. Unless what Obama did was illegal too?

And if the President does something she believes to be illegal its her job to defend the law - not do whatever he tells her to do, just as its the military's job to defend the constitution and follow the laws of war, not just go out and kill whoever the President wants dead.

Go protest this.

Britain is under no obligation to take in:
- People who aren't refugees
- People who have transited a safe country before reaching Britain.

This isn't what we're talking about, we're talking about a blanket ban, including people who have visas, green cards, people who are tourists or who just want to visit relatives.

I'm in favour of not allowing terrorists and economic migrants who will be a net drain on the economy into first world countries. I have no idea what Trump thinks he's doing here though.

Trump has had a year to figure out what he wants to do with the vetting process, this is just posturing to appease the slack-jawed hill-billies who make up his power-base.

Fuck Israel

2017-02-01 11:30:58

#2834

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6371|eXtreme to the maX

Dur

Fuck Israel

2017-02-01 11:56:52

#2835

pirana6: Go Cougs!; +692|6556|Washington St.

People understand we already have a wall right? You can't just walk freely between the two countries like US-Canada. I feel like for the past year+ we've been glossing over that fact.

2017-02-01 12:07:01

#2836

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6897|949

You can in some spots. GWB extended a border fence on the south a while ago too. Ask virtually anyone living in the area what they think, and it's almost unanimous that it was a bad idea.

The border wall idea is just like most of Trumps - emotive, not based on reality and devoid of logic.

2017-02-01 14:23:12

#2837

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5623|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Jay wrote:
Christ you're tedious. The law is legal, a similar executive order was filed by Obama in 2011 that ordered an even longer halt than the one Trump signed. Why didn't Holder fight that one? Because there weren't any progressives marching in the streets for him to signal to? I'm sure on some level she does believe it was illegal, but she's an opportunist first and foremost.

And again, please deal with the Calais Jungle before lecturing Americans about taking in refugees. Your country is disgusting.
Obama slowed down special immigrant visa processing for Iraqi nationals in 2011. Didn't outright ban any immigrants from 7 countries, and didn't stop current visa or greencard holders from entering the US.

Why did Obama do this? Because the ramped up screening process already in place MAY have let in 2 Iraqi nationals that weren't properly vetted.

But yeah, total apples to apples comparison. Why weren't people protesting?!!!!111

The law is legal according to you. So far 2 authorities with much more of a legal background than you (the former acting AG, and an Eastern US District Judge) have actively said the executive order is unconstitutional. I heard the Washington State AG say on NPR the other day they are preparing their own lawsuit. I think California's AG is doing the same.

How do you know what Yates' intentions are? That is complete inference on your part because you label her a "progressive". The only facts are that she said herself she is not "convinced the executive order is lawful". That seems in line with upholding her oath to serve the constitution, NOT the president.

I am indeed inferring her motives, but they clearly appear partisan, no? She could've simply resigned in protest. Instead, she actively undermined him and publicly stated that she was not going to defend her bosses actions and was washing her hands of him.

And there is nothing unconstitutional about halting immigration in order to increase scrutiny, the constitution doesn't apply to visitors anyway, only US citizens and permanent residents. Banning people with green cards was the only unconstitutional action, and it was corrected.

Again, you're all putting me in the position of defending someone I dislike. I'm not a Trump fan at all, I'm neutral. I'm just not going to bite and listen to partisan nonsense passed off as fact when it's not.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2017-02-01 14:26:29

#2838

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5623|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
You can in some spots. GWB extended a border fence on the south a while ago too. Ask virtually anyone living in the area what they think, and it's almost unanimous that it was a bad idea.

The border wall idea is just like most of Trumps - emotive, not based on reality and devoid of logic.

It's symbolic more than anything. Net migration from Mexico has been declining/reversing for a long time because their economy took off after NAFTA.

It makes the racists happy too. I can't tell you how many "The wall costs $30 billion and will save us 100 billion in annual welfare benefits saved" memes I've seen on facebook. Yeah, ok.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2017-02-01 14:34:24

#2839

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6897|949

did you read her stated reason why she resigned? She didn't want her replacement struggling with the same decision. She essentially drew a line in the sand. Sure, no one would ever admit to using the decision for professional gain, but it seems silly to base your whole argument against her on a supposition, and then to label her as a "progressive" as if it's supposed to a) be a blanket label by which to measure people and b) some type of slander. It just undermines your argument even more. It's almost as if you are ignoring the words out of her mouth in order to fit your narrative of "bad progressives ruining government." By the way, gay marriage was a progressive issue. Civil Rights was a progressive issue. Native Rights was a progressive issue. So why are you so anti gay, blacks and native Americans?

I couldn't care less whether you like or hate Trump. I'm taking you to task for the arguments you've presented. They aren't solid arguments.

You say you're neutral yet you use as an argument "but Obama kinda did the same thing and there weren't people protesting." Not only is that a factually wrong statement (Obama didn't do the same thing, as I mentioned previously), but you're framing it in a partisan way.

2017-02-01 14:41:05

#2840

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5623|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
did you read her stated reason why she resigned? She didn't want her replacement struggling with the same decision. She essentially drew a line in the sand. Sure, no one would ever admit to using the decision for professional gain, but it seems silly to base your whole argument against her on a supposition, and then to label her as a "progressive" as if it's supposed to a) be a blanket label by which to measure people and b) some type of slander just undermines your argument even more. It's almost as if you are ignoring the words out of her mouth in order to fit your narrative of "bad progressives ruining government." Gay marriage was a progressive issue. Civil Rights was a progressive issue. Native Rights was a progressive issue. So why are you so anti gay, blacks and native Americans?

I couldn't care less whether you like or hate Trump. I'm taking you to task for the arguments you've presented. They aren't solid arguments.

You say you're neutral yet you use as an argument "but Obama kinda did the same thing and there weren't people protesting." Not only is that a factually wrong statement (Obama didn't do the same thing, as I mentioned previously), but you're framing it in a partisan way.

Instead of one war-torn country he applied it to seven. I fail to see the difference. Is it because they're all Muslim majority nations you have a problem with it? I mean, aside from Iran, they're all incredibly unstable countries. If he'd added the Congo to the list, would it have placated you?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2017-02-01 15:00:52

#2841

uziq: Member; +498|3717

Jay wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Jay wrote:
Christ you're tedious. The law is legal, a similar executive order was filed by Obama in 2011 that ordered an even longer halt than the one Trump signed. Why didn't Holder fight that one? Because there weren't any progressives marching in the streets for him to signal to? I'm sure on some level she does believe it was illegal, but she's an opportunist first and foremost.

And again, please deal with the Calais Jungle before lecturing Americans about taking in refugees. Your country is disgusting.
Obama slowed down special immigrant visa processing for Iraqi nationals in 2011. Didn't outright ban any immigrants from 7 countries, and didn't stop current visa or greencard holders from entering the US.

Why did Obama do this? Because the ramped up screening process already in place MAY have let in 2 Iraqi nationals that weren't properly vetted.

But yeah, total apples to apples comparison. Why weren't people protesting?!!!!111

The law is legal according to you. So far 2 authorities with much more of a legal background than you (the former acting AG, and an Eastern US District Judge) have actively said the executive order is unconstitutional. I heard the Washington State AG say on NPR the other day they are preparing their own lawsuit. I think California's AG is doing the same.

How do you know what Yates' intentions are? That is complete inference on your part because you label her a "progressive". The only facts are that she said herself she is not "convinced the executive order is lawful". That seems in line with upholding her oath to serve the constitution, NOT the president.
I am indeed inferring her motives, but they clearly appear partisan, no? She could've simply resigned in protest. Instead, she actively undermined him and publicly stated that she was not going to defend her bosses actions and was washing her hands of him.

And there is nothing unconstitutional about halting immigration in order to increase scrutiny, the constitution doesn't apply to visitors anyway, only US citizens and permanent residents. Banning people with green cards was the only unconstitutional action, and it was corrected.

Again, you're all putting me in the position of defending someone I dislike. I'm not a Trump fan at all, I'm neutral. I'm just not going to bite and listen to partisan nonsense passed off as fact when it's not.

she could have resigned in protest?!?

DUDE. ITS HER ENTIRE FUCKING JOB TO GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS TO THE EXECUTIVE. in this case her legal counsel ruled that the executive was acting illegally. what's the point in having a legal office to protect the constitution if they RESIGN every time the constitution is violated by the president or executive? the only person here who acted in an underhand way and undermined a public office was trump and his team when they pushed through an executive order without prior consultation with the AG's office.

jesus fucking christ i cannot believe how you don't get something so simple.

what's ironic is that you're accusing her of making a grand political statement by giving her legal counsel – when that's her constitutional role. if she resigned in protest rather than serving the judiciary and constitution as she is civically entrusted to do, then THAT resignation would be a purely political gesture.

Last edited by uziq (2017-02-01 15:10:21)

2017-02-01 15:12:01

#2842

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5623|London, England

uziq wrote:
Jay wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Obama slowed down special immigrant visa processing for Iraqi nationals in 2011. Didn't outright ban any immigrants from 7 countries, and didn't stop current visa or greencard holders from entering the US.

Why did Obama do this? Because the ramped up screening process already in place MAY have let in 2 Iraqi nationals that weren't properly vetted.

But yeah, total apples to apples comparison. Why weren't people protesting?!!!!111

The law is legal according to you. So far 2 authorities with much more of a legal background than you (the former acting AG, and an Eastern US District Judge) have actively said the executive order is unconstitutional. I heard the Washington State AG say on NPR the other day they are preparing their own lawsuit. I think California's AG is doing the same.

How do you know what Yates' intentions are? That is complete inference on your part because you label her a "progressive". The only facts are that she said herself she is not "convinced the executive order is lawful". That seems in line with upholding her oath to serve the constitution, NOT the president.
I am indeed inferring her motives, but they clearly appear partisan, no? She could've simply resigned in protest. Instead, she actively undermined him and publicly stated that she was not going to defend her bosses actions and was washing her hands of him.

And there is nothing unconstitutional about halting immigration in order to increase scrutiny, the constitution doesn't apply to visitors anyway, only US citizens and permanent residents. Banning people with green cards was the only unconstitutional action, and it was corrected.

Again, you're all putting me in the position of defending someone I dislike. I'm not a Trump fan at all, I'm neutral. I'm just not going to bite and listen to partisan nonsense passed off as fact when it's not.
she could have resigned in protest?!?

DUDE. ITS HER ENTIRE FUCKING JOB TO GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS TO THE EXECUTIVE. in this case her legal counsel ruled that the executive was acting illegally. what's the point in having a legal office to protect the constitution if they RESIGN every time the constitution is violated by the president or executive? the only person here who acted in an underhand way and undermined a public office was trump and his team when they pushed through an executive order without prior consultation with the AG's office.

jesus fucking christ i cannot believe how you don't get something so simple.

what's ironic is that you're accusing her of making a grand political statement by giving her legal counsel – when that's her constitutional role. if she resigned in protest rather than serving the judiciary and constitution as she is civically entrusted to do, then THAT resignation would be a purely political gesture.

Please constrain your opinions to UK politics. You know less than Jon Snow.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2017-02-01 15:33:41

#2843

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +644|3985

I was reading the constitution of Iraq today. I am jealous of how direct and in plain language it is. It makes our system of trying to decipher meaning out of 18th century language pretty ridiculous.

2017-02-01 16:02:46

#2844

uziq: Member; +498|3717

Jay wrote:
uziq wrote:
Jay wrote:

I am indeed inferring her motives, but they clearly appear partisan, no? She could've simply resigned in protest. Instead, she actively undermined him and publicly stated that she was not going to defend her bosses actions and was washing her hands of him.

And there is nothing unconstitutional about halting immigration in order to increase scrutiny, the constitution doesn't apply to visitors anyway, only US citizens and permanent residents. Banning people with green cards was the only unconstitutional action, and it was corrected.

Again, you're all putting me in the position of defending someone I dislike. I'm not a Trump fan at all, I'm neutral. I'm just not going to bite and listen to partisan nonsense passed off as fact when it's not.
she could have resigned in protest?!?

DUDE. ITS HER ENTIRE FUCKING JOB TO GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS TO THE EXECUTIVE. in this case her legal counsel ruled that the executive was acting illegally. what's the point in having a legal office to protect the constitution if they RESIGN every time the constitution is violated by the president or executive? the only person here who acted in an underhand way and undermined a public office was trump and his team when they pushed through an executive order without prior consultation with the AG's office.

jesus fucking christ i cannot believe how you don't get something so simple.

what's ironic is that you're accusing her of making a grand political statement by giving her legal counsel – when that's her constitutional role. if she resigned in protest rather than serving the judiciary and constitution as she is civically entrusted to do, then THAT resignation would be a purely political gesture.
Please constrain your opinions to UK politics. You know less than Jon Snow.

i love how the super-intellectual with Bastiat in his signature doesn't understand the fundamental principle of the separation of powers in liberal democracy. you do understand that the judiciary isn't the lapdog of the executive, right? this isn't some highly nuanced technicality of the american process. it's fundamental. the UK has an attorney-general with the exact same role.

2017-02-01 16:16:46

#2845

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5623|London, England

uziq wrote:
Jay wrote:
uziq wrote:

she could have resigned in protest?!?

DUDE. ITS HER ENTIRE FUCKING JOB TO GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS TO THE EXECUTIVE. in this case her legal counsel ruled that the executive was acting illegally. what's the point in having a legal office to protect the constitution if they RESIGN every time the constitution is violated by the president or executive? the only person here who acted in an underhand way and undermined a public office was trump and his team when they pushed through an executive order without prior consultation with the AG's office.

jesus fucking christ i cannot believe how you don't get something so simple.

what's ironic is that you're accusing her of making a grand political statement by giving her legal counsel – when that's her constitutional role. if she resigned in protest rather than serving the judiciary and constitution as she is civically entrusted to do, then THAT resignation would be a purely political gesture.
Please constrain your opinions to UK politics. You know less than Jon Snow.
i love how the super-intellectual with Bastiat in his signature doesn't understand the fundamental principle of the separation of powers in liberal democracy. you do understand that the judiciary isn't the lapdog of the executive, right? this isn't some highly nuanced technicality of the american process. it's fundamental. the UK has an attorney-general with the exact same role.

Child, the attorney general in the US is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. The AG serves the president.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2017-02-01 16:22:48

#2846

coke: Aye up duck!; +440|6974|England. Stoke

Jay wrote:
Please constrain your opinions to UK politics. You know less than Jon Snow.

Yet in the very same thread you've posted completely inaccurate shite about the "Calais jungle" (European politics) to "backup" your other arguments that seem to be personal opinion and second guessing legal professionals when talking constitutional law...

Last edited by coke (2017-02-01 16:23:17)

2017-02-01 16:27:58

#2847

uziq: Member; +498|3717

Jay wrote:
uziq wrote:
Jay wrote:
Please constrain your opinions to UK politics. You know less than Jon Snow.
i love how the super-intellectual with Bastiat in his signature doesn't understand the fundamental principle of the separation of powers in liberal democracy. you do understand that the judiciary isn't the lapdog of the executive, right? this isn't some highly nuanced technicality of the american process. it's fundamental. the UK has an attorney-general with the exact same role.
Child, the attorney general in the US is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. The AG serves the president.

you are a fucking idiot. the attorney-general is the head lawyer and legal counsel to the president. their role is to uphold laws and the constitution against the political ambitions and partisan agendas of the president and executive. they are appointed formally by the head of state, just like a supreme court judge, but their allegiance and service is to the system of law that transcends party politics and forms the foundation of that working democracy. their whole job is to interpret the system of laws and the written constitution that serves as an authority over and check on the president's power. they are not a political tool – they are mediators between the president and the existing laws.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.

derp derp derp

Last edited by uziq (2017-02-01 16:33:39)

2017-02-01 18:57:14

#2848

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5623|London, England

uziq wrote:
Jay wrote:
uziq wrote:
i love how the super-intellectual with Bastiat in his signature doesn't understand the fundamental principle of the separation of powers in liberal democracy. you do understand that the judiciary isn't the lapdog of the executive, right? this isn't some highly nuanced technicality of the american process. it's fundamental. the UK has an attorney-general with the exact same role.
Child, the attorney general in the US is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. The AG serves the president.
you are a fucking idiot. the attorney-general is the head lawyer and legal counsel to the president. their role is to uphold laws and the constitution against the political ambitions and partisan agendas of the president and executive. they are appointed formally by the head of state, just like a supreme court judge, but their allegiance and service is to the system of law that transcends party politics and forms the foundation of that working democracy. their whole job is to interpret the system of laws and the written constitution that serves as an authority over and check on the president's power. they are not a political tool – they are mediators between the president and the existing laws.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.
derp derp derp

You seriously know jack shit. The attorney general is not independent. This is why they are appointed by the president, not congress or the supreme court. She said "I will not defend this law" i.e. she was refusing to do her job. It is the Supreme Courts job to judge constitutionality, not hers. A political appointee selected by Obama refused to work for Trump. News at 11! She got her 15 minutes, now she'll try to leverage it into a lobbyist position or a talking head position.

She was a lame duck with a few days left in the position and she managed to score points. Good for her,

Last edited by Jay (2017-02-01 19:00:16)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2017-02-01 20:30:12

#2849

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6418|what

It should have been one of the most congenial calls for the new commander in chief — a conversation with the leader of Australia, one of America’s staunchest allies, at the end of a triumphant week.
Instead, President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refugee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.

Hahahaha

At one point Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladimir Putin — and that, “This was the worst call by far.”

Hahahahaha

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … 5f934345ed

What an incredible leader the US has chosen.

2017-02-01 20:41:33

#2850

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6418|what

Oh and now he's taken to twitter still blowing up about it

Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref … r%5Eauthor

He's live twitting that he's sitting down and reading the agreement both countries signed. hahahaha

BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Board footer