• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump blames constitution for chaos of his first 100 days

poweRob said:
And here's another one doing the same thing. You guys were complaining back then about how he was subverting the constitutional process with EO's. It wasn't about content then. It was about the practice. But now... its a whole different story because ya'll love the practice now. Hypocrits.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you but I have ALWAYS asserted that the content matters far more than the amount when I criticized Obama on his EO's regarding immigration. And I would dare you to look through my posting history and prove me wrong.

Broad brush strokes don't work with me poweRob. I'd suggest not applying them to me cause you'll fail every time.
 
Winston said:
It's in the OP. Trump said in an interview, the Constitution is archaic and "bad for the country"
Click to expand...

But he didn't. His full quote has been posted several times in this thread. He was referring to "archaic rules" in the Senate.
 
hanger4 said:
But he didn't. His full quote has been posted several times in this thread. He was referring to "archaic rules" in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Which dictatorial rules do you think trump would prefer, rather than the "archaic rules" in the current Senate ?
 
calamity said:
That's our Trumpy. You really have to love his nuttiness.

I wonder how many of his supporters would ditch the Constitution if it resulted in them getting their way? 50%, 60% 80%? All of them?
Click to expand...


Many real Conservatives did not sell out just to for the SC pick, but most here have.
 
NIMBY said:
Which dictatorial rules do you think trump would prefer, rather than the "archaic rules" in the current Senate ?
Click to expand...

Not the point of the thread, which by the way is "fake news".

Try reading his full quote, you just might get a clue as to what "archaic rules" he's not impressed with.
 
hanger4 said:
Not the point of the thread, which by the way is "fake news".

Try reading his full quote, you just might get a clue as to what "archaic rules" he's not impressed with.
Click to expand...

trump hasn't got a clue as to what the "archaic rules" of the Senate are!

When will the Senate receive a House bill, so we can see their "archaic rules" in progress ?
 
NIMBY said:
trump hasn't got a clue as to what the "archaic rules" of the Senate are!

When will the Senate receive a House bill, so we can see their "archaic rules" in progress ?
Click to expand...

So you didn't or won't read Trumps full quote. Why am I not surprised ??
 
yankintx said:
So as not to imply its fake news, here is a report from the Independent who cite Fox News, have a great day.

Donald Trump slams 'archaic' US constitution that is 'really bad' for the country | The Independent

Many of the rules for the Congress come from that piece of paper.
Click to expand...

Correction: NONE of the "rules" for Congress come from the Constitution.

The powers of and limitations on Congress come from the Constitution.

The "rules" are created by the Congress itself.
 
ecofarm said:
That's gibberish.



No, he was recognizing natural rights and that the Constitution did not create rights, it enumerated them and limited government power. The "negative liberties" refers to government liberty, not individual.
Click to expand...

No, its not gibberish.

He wasnt just offering up a out of context descriptions of Constitutional limits on the Govt authority, he was arguing that the Warren court didnt break free from the essential constraints found in the Constituion as it pertians to wealth redistrubition.

Even in his book Obama states that the Constitution is a living document, and must be read in the context of a ever changing world.
Now thats gibberish
 
Winston said:
Ok then the OP is misleading.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, the OP is what's commonly called "fake news". It lied by omission.
 
Winston said:
Ok then the OP is misleading.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yup ! The Ops author has a habit of posting disengenuous clap trap
 
Winston said:
Ok then the OP is misleading.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your first clue should have been the OP and dailykos, The Independent, Salon, The Guardian et all didn't link the Fox News interview. Sadly those listed and many others and countless blogs think very little of their readership. They believe y'all be so stupid they can lie out right and by omission and get away with it.
 
"We're going to amend the Constitution on Day One."
 
What a coincidence - "liberals" blame the Constitution for allowing Trump to get elected. :lol:
 
poweRob said:
Oh no no no... Moving them goalposts again I see. It wasn't the content you guys were bitching about so much. It was just the use of EO's regardless of content that you guys were bitching about. Now you are saying its about undoing the content. tsk tsk tsk...
Click to expand...

Oh no no no. You don't get to make **** up about what we had a problem with. We ABSOLUTELY had a problem with the CONTENT of the EOs. If he was passing EOs to fund some Admin branch office nobody would have a problem. He was trying to pass Dreamer laws after the bill failed and **** like that. It was YOUR side's ultra bull**** defense of Obama that tried to make it about the number of EOs Obama passed only.

Try again.
 
jmotivator said:
Oh no no no. You don't get to make **** up about what we had a problem with. We ABSOLUTELY had a problem with the CONTENT of the EOs. If he was passing EOs to fund some Admin branch office nobody would have a problem. He was trying to pass Dreamer laws after the bill failed and **** like that. It was YOUR side's ultra bull**** defense of Obama that tried to make it about the number of EOs Obama passed only.

Try again.
Click to expand...

It's not my responsiblity for your failure to remember recent history.
 
poweRob said:
It's not my responsiblity for your failure to remember recent history.
Click to expand...

I remember it correctly. You are misrepresenting the purpose of the oppositions to Obama's EOs.

Interesting quote to start that article too. Compare what Obama said about his extra-constitutional EOs compared to Trumps comments about Senate rules that has the left calling Trump anti-constitution:

“We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.” —President Barack Obama
 
jmotivator said:
I remember it correctly. You are misrepresenting the purpose of the oppositions to Obama's EOs.

Interesting quote to start that article too. Compare what Obama said about his extra-constitutional EOs compared to Trumps comments about Senate rules that has the left calling Trump anti-constitution:

“We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.” —President Barack Obama
Click to expand...

Your own extremely right wing biased link supports me not you. Just read that headline. It says what I said. It's about the unilateral action not the content of them. Hell, you even bolded another part that agrees with me and not you.

Looks like you apparently remembered wrong and are misrepresenting what the purpose of the opposition to Obama's e/os we're about.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Your own extremely right wing biased link supports me not you. Just read that headline. It says what I said. It's about the unilateral action not the content of them. Hell, you even bolded another part that agrees with me and not you.

Looks like you apparently remembered wrong and are misrepresenting what the purpose of the opposition to Obama's e/os we're about.
Click to expand...

Hahah! No. LITERALLY you did exactly what you are accusing me of: You didn't read the article, even a little of it. Damn, you could have SCANNED the article and realized your stupid argument is easily proven false. They go in to detail of the substantive objections that they have to many of Obama's EOs.

And seriously... you try to argue what you think the right wing issues were with Obama's EOs and then you attack me for giving you a right wing source? Are you being ****ing serious?! Who would you accept as a valid source for right wing opinion, Media Matters? :lamo

Also, the PURPOSE of the EO was to avoid Congress, as I said. The CONTENT of the EOs was also objectionable. I even used the Dream act as an example of the EOs that Obama issued to bypass Congress. Using an EO to end Obama's EOs that never should have been is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
TheGoverness said:
I would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that pesky Constitution!
Click to expand...

“We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.” —President Barack Obama

Indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom