Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Did you?
Nope, because it was good. Not as good as what Trump just did, however.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Did you?
Nope, because it was good. Not as good as what Trump just did, however.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Nope, because it was good. Not as good as what Trump just did, however.
So the legality of a Presidential action depends on whether it produces a desirable outcome?
Or is your actual opinion that it depends on whether he is Republican or not?
The Constitution can be ignored at will by Trump?
Somehow, the idea of "Obey the law and your oath to uphold it unless it's inconvenient" doesn't make me very confident. Any more than the police burning down an entire city block to catch a murderer would.
The end does NOT justify the means!
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
So the legality of a Presidential action depends on whether it produces a desirable outcome?
Or is your actual opinion that it depends on whether he is Republican or not?
The Constitution can be ignored at will by Trump?
Somehow, the idea of "Obey the law and your oath to uphold it unless it's inconvenient" doesn't make me very confident. Any more than the police burning down an entire city block to catch a murderer would.
The end does NOT justify the means!
What Obama did and what Trump did was legal.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
What Obama did and what Trump did was legal.
Could you please cite the section of the Constitution that grants the executive such power?
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
Could you please cite the section of the Constitution that grants the executive such power?
He can't. There is no such section or clause. Therefore, he will weasel or repeat his assertion that the end justifies the means.
He should remember that Hitler justified everything he did because it was "good" for the Reich.
Congress signed a law after 9/11 making both actions legal.
They didn't sign a law authorizing Presidential invasions of countries with whom we are not at war.
LVFree asked you to identify the relevant section of the Constitution that you tell us authorizes such actions. As I predicted, you weaseled.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Congress signed a law after 9/11 making both actions legal.
Could you cite the section of the 2001 authorization for use of military force that authorizes a 2026 operation in Venezuela?
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
Could you cite the section of the 2001 authorization for use of military force that authorizes a 2026 operation in Venezuela?
I find it curious that Liberals didn't say a peep when Omama did it but now you same folks are upset. Explain.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
I find it curious that Liberals didn't say a peep when Omama did it but now you same folks are upset. Explain.
Since "Liberals didn't say a peep" is a completely false statement (and idiotically misspelled), there's nothing to explain.
You really, really, really LUVVVV to make arguments based on false premises. Put words in other people's mouths and then argue against them. Is that all you've got? The only way you know to argue?
I'll answer your question when you answer mine: why did you strangle your dog? WHY??? ANSWER ME!!!!!!!
And if you think Obama did ANYTHING without being sharply criticized by BOTH sides, you must have been hiding under a rock the whole time.
You fucking idiot and liar!
