He needs ass-lickers loyal to him...not the Constitution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...rge-charles-q-brown/

More unhinged unfactual ranting from the left.


He is simply moving on from the DEI era and installing top leadership thy aligns with his policies. Those positions are not lifetime appointments. What did your Nigerian nightmare and ole puddin do. The same thing.


I will guarentee you all these new one take their oath to the constitution very seriously.

Much more than I can say for the left.

The first sentence of The Washington Post article is pure fantasy. Biden’s installation of “woke “ leadership was nothing but political and the Post is failing because it no longer posts news but only political dogma.

The questions should be what damage was done to America’s abilities to fight wars by Biden’s rejection of meritocracy and adoption of racist EDI and CRT.

Read Hegseth’s THE WAR ON WARRIORS . With some credibility the case is made for the purge.

Even if you believe the military should be a vehicle for “social justice” understanding the opposing view can’t hurt.

Lil,mikey doesn't want to understand, he just wants to cry.....the sky is falling!!!!

Trump gets the military under his control, what's to stop him from using it domestically?

To seize or maintain power?

. . . you just described the MAGAts pipe dream.

He is already rambling about a 3rd term.

But, that hypo aside, President’s vested power.

Now, let’s say the next election a crisis is manufactured by Trump’s actions again. Trump uses the military to prevent the election from being certified for a winning Dem.

That would appear to be exempt, official act by the S. Ct.’s latest immunity decision.

I never had enough respect for the moral in Henry Penny. Reading the AR Political Forum has given me a new understanding of who Chicken Little is today.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He is already rambling about a 3rd term.

But, that hypo aside, President’s vested power.

Now, let’s say the next election a crisis is manufactured by Trump’s actions again. Trump uses the military to prevent the election from being certified for a winning Dem.

That would appear to be exempt, official act by the S. Ct.’s latest immunity decision.

He has already done it once.

And the application to the immunity decision would make such action presumptively immune as the case is clear, the courts are not to consider intent.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Trump gets the military under his control, what's to stop him from using it domestically?

To seize or maintain power?

Roland the Dickless


We are all getting tired of constantly teaching you thing you failed to learn in school.

What will stop that is the Law. Something that is not just the “list of things to be adhered to when it our godless left wing ways”. At the end of the day Trump and the Righr will follo the law.


I mean come on man I know you live up there in Idaho but do you think for one second the armed citizenary, right or left, would tolerate that?

Please tell us you are not that dense.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He is already rambling about a 3rd term.

But, that hypo aside, President’s vested power.

Now, let’s say the next election a crisis is manufactured by Trump’s actions again. Trump uses the military to prevent the election from being certified for a winning Dem.

That would appear to be exempt, official act by the S. Ct.’s latest immunity decision.

Counselor,

I normally disagree with you on most things (caliber choice excepted), but you at least present a scenario that however unlikely it could be can at least be rationally discussed.

I personally don’t see it as a viable scenario as the command leadership that is being overhauled by Hegsdeth takes their oath to the Constitution seriously.



That’s my take on it.

I hope I am right.

quote:

What will stop that is the Law. Something that is not just the “list of things to be adhered to when it our godless left wing ways”. At the end of the day Trump and the Righr will follo the law.

Bullshit. Trump has already shown he has no regard for the law. For example, see his EO on birthright citizenship, which violates the Constitution.

Now you are an American Constitutional Scholar?

Wonders will never cease.


Ok kid gets born here. Parents are illegal. Kids welcome to come back when they/they are 18.

I expect I know more about the Constitution than you do.

Your proposal is different from Trump's EO.

Just keep on believing you ur own lies.

It’s what you lefties do.

You really believed your cackling dei hire and its policies were going to win you an election.


F me that’s rich.


I can’t wait for 8 years of JD after 4 years of The Donald.

Tell ya what.

Jump off the mean scary internet for a bit. Run into town and get something to wash the sand out of your lady parts.

It’ll make you feel better.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

What will stop that is the Law. Something that is not just the “list of things to be adhered to when it our godless left wing ways”. At the end of the day Trump and the Righr will follo the law.

Bullsh!t. Trump has already shown he has no regard for the law. For example, see his EO on birthright citizenship, which violates the Constitution.

oh oh oh -- you meant like jobama's TWICE rejected by Scotus Student loan forgiveness?

seriously, dude, you have left judgement and critical thinking somewhere on the alaskan highway -- don't know if it was on your way up there, when you quit a job over a minor pay adjustment (recall, your 10% down is ONE THIRD of the impact of biden inflation to the "common man"), or when you ran away

Jeffe,

They/them can’t make rational fact based argument is it simply engages in internet fear mongering.

As you have seen most of the lefties here have gone completely off the tracks since their Baby Gravy queens got her shit pushed in by the voters.

We really need to buy some firearms lube without labels, label it Liberal Tears, and get rich.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayhawker2022:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Trump gets the military under his control, what's to stop him from using it domestically?

To seize or maintain power?

Roland the Dickless


We are all getting tired of constantly teaching you thing you failed to learn in school.

What will stop that is the Law. Something that is not just the “list of things to be adhered to when it our godless left wing ways”. At the end of the day Trump and the Righr will follo the law.


I mean come on man I know you live up there in Idaho but do you think for one second the armed citizenary, right or left, would tolerate that?

Please tell us you are not that dense.

Jayhawker the brainless. We got a new trumptard whose gonna recite the usual FOX News talking points. Up yours with your stupid "liberal tears" nonsense.

trump is removing the people that won't remind him that about 90% of what he's doing these days is unlawful and illegal. Shit, Hegseth said so just this morning. They're removing people who "will be roadblocks." The new joint chief got his job because he is a trump ass-kisser. No other reason.

Get a clue because right how you appear not to have one.

Mike.

I just love watching you chug the left wing koolaid like a frat boy at a kegger.


You really want that traitor Milley back?

The o LT thing better than watching these useless wankers being mercilessly purged is my daily dose of DOGE where I get to watch Elon and go whiz kids unmask the corruption and fleecing of America.

They are cutting off your dark money and you socialite pigs just can’t take it.


I love it.

Correction, he needs ass kickers, not ass lickers. I'm willing to bet, from what I've observed, there was enough ass licking going on in the ranks to shame Jeffery Epstein. He is purging the ranks of weak woke ideology that won't win conflicts. The military is supposed to fight and win, not plan and lose. Mike, you are either a paid operative or a certified liberal dope. Which is it? And don't answer with a question you coward

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
He needs ass-lickers loyal to him...not the Constitution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...rge-charles-q-brown/

Maybe he’s an operative on dope?

Did you consider that?

The military has one job.

Kill
People and break their shit.

Period.

We aren’t the worlds cops.

Some of these posts reveal those who have served in the armed forces and those who never did.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Some of these posts reveal those who have served in the armed forces and those who never did.

And, some of these posts illustrate how ignorant a lot of people are about the Constitution.

What does “… under the authority” mean. The Senate proponent of the Amendment said in a speech to the Senate that birthright citizenship for all was never the intent of the law. Then, does “under the authority “ mean legally here or just within the boundaries. Every state requires a period of residency for a plaintiff to have standing to bring a Divorce action. Is the mother’s illegal presence sufficient to acquire status to invoke the birthright? It ain’t a slam dunk.

I think the right exist but it all depends on how the original intent theory and definition of “under the authority” are applied, if at all.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

What will stop that is the Law. Something that is not just the “list of things to be adhered to when it our godless left wing ways”. At the end of the day Trump and the Righr will follo the law.

Bullshit. Trump has already shown he has no regard for the law. For example, see his EO on birthright citizenship, which violates the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Some of these posts reveal those who have served in the armed forces and those who never did.

And, some of these posts illustrate how ignorant a lot of people are about the Constitution.

It sure does illustrate how clueless you are.

We honestly fro tired of providing you a free education.

This military purge is a double edged sword.

While he’s assembling what he feels are sycophants, he’s simultaneously creating a large group of very capable, very smart people who now hate his guts. Polarizing and dividing a nations military is never a wise thing, I can’t image MAGAts and Libtards playing well together when expected to face a common threat.

Thats what I don’t get about this guy - leadership is always about unifying, strengthening, building. His whole deal is ‘divide and conquer’, ‘slash and burn’. He has people hating each other like nothing I’ve ever witnessed, both domestically and internationally.

This cannot end well if it’s allowed to continue.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
What does “… under the authority” mean. The Senate proponent of the Amendment said birthright citizenship was never the intent of the law. Does “under the authority “ mean legally here or just within the boundaries. It ain’t a slam dunk.

I think the right exist but it all depends on how the original intent theory and definition of “under the authority” are applied.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

What will stop that is the Law. Something that is not just the “list of things to be adhered to when it our godless left wing ways”. At the end of the day Trump and the Righr will follo the law.

Bullshit. Trump has already shown he has no regard for the law. For example, see his EO on birthright citizenship, which violates the Constitution.

Dream on, your honor. Birth-right citizenship isn't even remotely legally questionable under the current state of the law.

I would think a judge would know that....I mean, you can dream and hope that trump's appointments will vitiate it but if you read the cases, it is a slam dunk.

You’re right. Plessy v. Ferguson is well established and will never be overturned.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
What does “… under the authority” mean. The Senate proponent of the Amendment said birthright citizenship was never the intent of the law. Does “under the authority “ mean legally here or just within the boundaries. It ain’t a slam dunk.

I think the right exist but it all depends on how the original intent theory and definition of “under the authority” are applied.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

What will stop that is the Law. Something that is not just the “list of things to be adhered to when it our godless left wing ways”. At the end of the day Trump and the Righr will follo the law.

Bullshit. Trump has already shown he has no regard for the law. For example, see his EO on birthright citizenship, which violates the Constitution.

Dream on, your honor. Birth-right citizenship isn't even remotely legally questionable under the current state of the law.

I would think a judge would know that....I mean, you can dream and hope that trump's appointments will vitiate it but if you read the cases, it is a slam dunk.

Judge G

You best listen to Mikey now.

He’s a constitutional scholar dontcha know.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
You’re right. Plessy v. Ferguson is well established and will never be overturned.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
What does “… under the authority” mean. The Senate proponent of the Amendment said birthright citizenship was never the intent of the law. Does “under the authority “ mean legally here or just within the boundaries. It ain’t a slam dunk.

I think the right exist but it all depends on how the original intent theory and definition of “under the authority” are applied.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

What will stop that is the Law. Something that is not just the “list of things to be adhered to when it our godless left wing ways”. At the end of the day Trump and the Righr will follo the law.

Bullshit. Trump has already shown he has no regard for the law. For example, see his EO on birthright citizenship, which violates the Constitution.

Dream on, your honor. Birth-right citizenship isn't even remotely legally questionable under the current state of the law.

I would think a judge would know that....I mean, you can dream and hope that trump's appointments will vitiate it but if you read the cases, it is a slam dunk.

No, I get it. Roe v. Wade.

But, this one is a little bit different given the plain language of the Constitution.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

What is your argument that an infant born in the US isn't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

I'm gonna wait to see you twist yourself into a pretzel explaining it.

And, more importantly....why would you want to?

We've welcomed immigrants forever.

Why are you against this? I mean, other than the fact that your cult leader has come out against it?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
You’re right. Plessy v. Ferguson is well established and will never be overturned.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
What does “… under the authority” mean. The Senate proponent of the Amendment said birthright citizenship was never the intent of the law. Does “under the authority “ mean legally here or just within the boundaries. It ain’t a slam dunk.

I think the right exist but it all depends on how the original intent theory and definition of “under the authority” are applied.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

What will stop that is the Law. Something that is not just the “list of things to be adhered to when it our godless left wing ways”. At the end of the day Trump and the Righr will follo the law.

Bullshit. Trump has already shown he has no regard for the law. For example, see his EO on birthright citizenship, which violates the Constitution.

Dream on, your honor. Birth-right citizenship isn't even remotely legally questionable under the current state of the law.

I would think a judge would know that....I mean, you can dream and hope that trump's appointments will vitiate it but if you read the cases, it is a slam dunk.

No, I get it. Roe v. Wade.

But, this one is a little bit different given the plain language of the Constitution.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

What is your argument that an infant born in the US isn't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

I'm gonna wait to see you twist yourself into a pretzel explaining it.

oh, i think trump loses this one, as without a real law behind it, facing a full judicial review, it's a loser eo


say -- didn't it take a FULL act of congress, over 50 years after the passing of the 14th to include Indians in that birthright citizenship back in the day?

oh, this in an inconvenient fact
https://constitutioncenter.org...ited-states-citizens

Trump and the Fakse Right did not care about our constitutional norms then he lost the election, not what the courts said.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
What does “… under the authority” mean. The Senate proponent of the Amendment said in a speech to the Senate that birthright citizenship for all was never the intent of the law. Then, does “under the authority “ mean legally here or just within the boundaries. Every state requires a period of residency for a plaintiff to have standing to bring a Divorce action. Is the mother’s illegal presence sufficient to acquire status to invoke the birthright? It ain’t a slam dunk.

I think the right exist but it all depends on how the original intent theory and definition of “under the authority” are applied, if at all.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

What will stop that is the Law. Something that is not just the “list of things to be adhered to when it our godless left wing ways”. At the end of the day Trump and the Righr will follo the law.

Bullshit. Trump has already shown he has no regard for the law. For example, see his EO on birthright citizenship, which violates the Constitution.

Go read the Amendment again, "Judge", it says "jurisdiction", not "authority", meaning anyone who is here and can be prosecuted by a U.S. court, ie. does not have diplomatic or some other immunity.

He did not do it.

He whine and whinged about it, but it didn't happen. No one in any semblance of power stood up for his nonsense. SCOTUS was conservative oriented and they did not give him squat.

I get that he made the noises and is currently making some ramblings about what he would like to do.

I'd like to have the money of the Rothschilds and be married to a 20-something supermodel, but that ain't going to happen, either.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He has already done it once.

And the application to the immunity decision would make such action presumptively immune as the case is clear, the courts are not to consider intent.

You have to have the actual words of the Constitution correct before you can interpret them, your Honor.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
You have to have the actual words of the Constitution correct before you can interpret them, your Honor.

and the jokes keep writing themselves

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
What does “… under the authority” mean. The Senate proponent of the Amendment said in a speech to the Senate that birthright citizenship for all was never the intent of the law. Then, does “under the authority “ mean legally here or just within the boundaries. Every state requires a period of residency for a plaintiff to have standing to bring a Divorce action. Is the mother’s illegal presence sufficient to acquire status to invoke the birthright? It ain’t a slam dunk.

I think the right exist but it all depends on how the original intent theory and definition of “under the authority” are applied, if at all.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

What will stop that is the Law. Something that is not just the “list of things to be adhered to when it our godless left wing ways”. At the end of the day Trump and the Righr will follo the law.

Bullshit. Trump has already shown he has no regard for the law. For example, see his EO on birthright citizenship, which violates the Constitution.

Go read the Amendment again, "Judge", it says "jurisdiction", not "authority", meaning anyone who is here and can be prosecuted by a U.S. court, ie. does not have diplomatic or some other immunity.

Stick to your white hoods and robes and burning. Crossed down there in Cornhole County Klucker.


Your knowledge of the constitution and the law are worse than a 3rd graders.

A Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who was never a Service Chief.

Or a Combatant Commander as required by Title 10.

I can't find anything showing he's ever held a command position at any level.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayhawker2022:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
What does “… under the authority” mean. The Senate proponent of the Amendment said in a speech to the Senate that birthright citizenship for all was never the intent of the law. Then, does “under the authority “ mean legally here or just within the boundaries. Every state requires a period of residency for a plaintiff to have standing to bring a Divorce action. Is the mother’s illegal presence sufficient to acquire status to invoke the birthright? It ain’t a slam dunk.

I think the right exist but it all depends on how the original intent theory and definition of “under the authority” are applied, if at all.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

What will stop that is the Law. Something that is not just the “list of things to be adhered to when it our godless left wing ways”. At the end of the day Trump and the Righr will follo the law.

Bullshit. Trump has already shown he has no regard for the law. For example, see his EO on birthright citizenship, which violates the Constitution.

Go read the Amendment again, "Judge", it says "jurisdiction", not "authority", meaning anyone who is here and can be prosecuted by a U.S. court, ie. does not have diplomatic or some other immunity.

Stick to your white hoods and robes and burning. Crossed down there in Cornhole County Klucker.


Your knowledge of the constitution and the law are worse than a 3rd graders.

Yet you don't even attempt to point out what I'm wrong about.

A rare wise choice from you.

Apparently he is looking to hire DRAFT DODGERS!