Trump gleefully admits it was his "sick idea" to use immigrants as pawns in his games of political retribution
Trump gleefully admits it was his "sick idea" to use immigrants as pawns in his games of political retribution. Disgusting
0:46
23.9K views
6:44 PM - 27 Apr 2019
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
99 visitors
President Trump told a Green Bay, Wisconsin, rally Saturday that his administration is sending undocumented migrants to sanctuary cities.
The state of play: The Department of Homeland Security has yet to announce the sanctuary cities plan. Senior White House officials and immigration lawyers have told Axios U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wouldn't have enough funds for it and there'd be major liabilities if anyone got hurt during transfers.
Why is it sick? What do you have against migrants?
trmp was the one who said it was "sick"
Ask him what he has against migrants
The decision by @ realDonaldTrump to give orders that compromised the rights of specific people as a way to create a political effect is criminal on many levels: from abuse of office to illegal abduction, hate crimes & a deliberate attack on the Bill of Rights & 14th Amendment.
It is impossible for the person who admits to & celebrates these crimes to serve in high office lawfully. It is impossible for his oath of office to be lawful & legitimate. Tonight, @ realDonaldTrump confessed to conspiring to nullify the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution provides four remedies to uphold the rule of law: 1) impeachment, 2) the # 25thAmendment , 3) the next election, or 4) criminal indictment & conviction.
it was an awesome idea.
everyone gets what they want
cheers
Yeah, it certainly ranks with Scumbag's other "awesome ideas." Let's look at a few of them:
1. Building a "big, beautiful 30' [or was it 100?] concrete wall (well, really a fence now)
2. Making Mexico pay for that wall (which isn't one anyway).
3. Better and cheaper health insurance for "EVERYONE"--we just have to wait until he's re-elected, though.
4. Separating children from families and then losing track of the parents (as these children were hidden all around the country to keep them from being located)
5. Shielding the Saudi prince who had a US permanent resident and journalist murdered and hacked apart.
Is no lie or failure that Scumbag's faithful don't worship?
Like taking feral cats to the crazy cat person
Trump himself said it is sick. Maybe the "problem" is yours.
He used it to refer to - and sort of quote - the leftists, like Bill de Blasio and Alyssa Milano among others who have been calling it "sick." This is a common rhetorical device. One takes the attack word and makes it his own to show he's not shamed even a little bit. So if people have been saying, "Who's sick idea was this?" he proudly responds "it was my sick idea" but you have to understand he doesn't really think it's sick at all.
The gambit of pretending Scumbag just "joking" every time he says something disgusting (ah, but I repeat myself) just aint workin'. It never did and it never will.
Your position is devoid of logic unless you can explain why a person would pursue a policy he genuinely believed was "sick."
Because he did it to be vindictive.
Can you explain that?
And even if true, so what? That still doesn't explain why people would object to those migrants being transported to cities that claimed they would welcome them.
Oh please. Democrats have been doing it long before Trump come on the scene.
Where DO you come up with these fantasies, Jer? Oh, wait.....we know. Nevermind.
Yet you posted your false equivalency twice.
Again, my rebuttal is that your comment is a false equivalency.
If big words are the issue, dictionaries help.
I'm not surprised you're confused about the topic (or just trying to derail it) which would be a wholesale dumping of thousands (not 400) into cities selected for political punishment as a point of policy. Completely unlike Scumbag himself uttering this policy threat, the article you cite had nothing to do with picking on Phoenix and Tucson for political reasons nor was not a policy decision made by Obama but poor judgment call by the local officials on the Texas border. As far as it being "inhumanitarian" we see that parents and children were not separated which also stands in stark contrast to the actual still active crime scene of the policy (put in place by good ol' boy Sessions) to do just that and in what's now the trademark of the Scumbag administration to do it so incompetently and coldly that there's a strong likelihood that these children will never be reunited with their families. That's called kidnapping and in this case, as it was done as government policy, qualifies as a crime against humanity.
So, no. I don't really have any more questions about factually inaccurate statements but I do wonder if you plan on quitting the use of them.
No? Or do you mean you pervert language and don't consider that a game but serious business?