|
|
Post by PatSox on Sept 10, 2017 18:37:36 GMT -5
he is on a pedestal ABOVE Jesus, even to most Christians I can see the bumper sticker now... "Jesus is my washing machine, but Martin Luther King is my dryer"  |
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Sept 12, 2017 10:10:02 GMT -5
If premier dies in this thing I have dibs on that air fryer thing. LOL. Made it. |
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Sept 12, 2017 15:50:22 GMT -5
milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/09/clinton-kill-count-climbs/Joseph Rago, a seemingly healthy Pulitzer Prize winning journalist investigating Hillary Clinton, was found dead at 34 in his apartment Sunday morning. Ricky Vaughn announced the writer’s death through twitter at 10:30 AM, and although mainstream media outlets have made cursory acknowledgements of Rago’s passing the most obvious and alarming point escapes even a mention. Joseph Rago, who by all accounts appears to have dropped dead spontaneously if the MSM is anything to go by, was investigating Hillary Clinton. Neither The Inquirer nor The Wall Street Journal mention this, though both are very quick to make vague assurances that we shouldn’t assume it’s (another) assassination. This is particularly notable since The Wall Street Journal was where Rago worked. Rob Tornoe of The Inquirer writes: “A New York Police Department spokeswoman told the New York Times that foul play is not suspected in the 34-year-old’s death. “The cause and manner of death are pending further studies following today’s examination,” a spokeswoman for the city’s medical examiner’s office said.” Meanwhile, Jennifer Levitz of The Wall Street Journal reports: “Mr. Rago was found with no obvious signs of trauma and emergency responders declared him dead at the scene, the police said. The cause of death was being determined by the medical examiner on Friday.” So they don’t know why Rago died, no idea at all, but it definitely wasn’t anything sinister. Of course not. Why would it be sinister? It’s not like there’s a precedent for this sort of thing. Young, talented, politically difficult young men die for no reason all the time. Just look at Seth Rich! But my, how convenient for Hillary Clinton.
|
|
|
|
Post by daywork on Sept 12, 2017 18:07:32 GMT -5
Well there is a good chance of another riot in Berkeley on Thursday. Ben Shapiro is suppose to give a lecture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 18:09:32 GMT -5
Gotta love the party of open-mindedness, tolerance and love welcoming all opinions to the table
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Sept 12, 2017 21:30:53 GMT -5
Would this be the first Antifa protest since they were designated a domestic terrorist organization or whatever that was that leaked out last month?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Sept 13, 2017 1:13:49 GMT -5
If you damage property, assault people, and start fires over Ben Shapiro speaking on your campus . . . hate to be "that" guy . . . but, buddy, the fascist is you. Jesus fucking Christ, man. How placating and beta are we going to get in this country?
|
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Sept 13, 2017 9:22:28 GMT -5
Cool - take my tax money and use it to assist illegal aliens. Not my kid going to college next year that lives here but the illegal aliens. sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/09/12/daca-money-california/SACRAMENTO (AP) – California Gov. Jerry Brown and top lawmakers announced Tuesday that they plan to spend $30 million helping young immigrants with legal services and college financial aid. The announcement comes in response to President Donald Trump’s decision to end a program that gives temporary protection from deportation to people brought to the country illegally as children or by parents who overstayed visas. The proposal requires legislative approval this week before lawmakers head home for the year. Twenty million would go toward legal services for participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program. Another $10 million would go toward financial aid for participants in the program, with $7 million for community college students, $2 million for California State University students and $1 million for University of California students. The Trump administration says the DACA program will be phased out over the next six months if Congress doesn’t make it permanent. More than 200,000 of the 800,000 program participants live in California. The state is one of 19 suing the Trump administration over the decision to end the program. “We will not let one man with xenophobic tendencies undercut years of progress we have made in California to integrate these young adults into our society and economy,” state Senator President pro Tempore Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, said in a statement. “California is their home and they are our future.” |
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Sept 13, 2017 9:32:35 GMT -5
And the thing is that most people, probably you included, really wouldn't mind paying more to educate Mexicans if you believed that they would actually become good citizens for the experience. But we know that this is not the case: "education" will only harden them as enemies, and then they'll be pushed to the front of the line for Cush government positions
|
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Sept 13, 2017 9:49:38 GMT -5
But I do already pay more. Highest tax state in the nation as it is and now we are diverting MORE funds to people that don't contribute. The economics don't add up. Sacramento just passed a bill to dedicate 1.5 million towards gang members to encourage them, including paying them stipends monthly, to not be fuck ups. We were the first to let boys play sports with girls, the first to pay for illegal aliens college, the first to pay gang members - look no further than California to assess what the next steps are for the USA as soon as the next liberal gets in office.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Sept 13, 2017 11:29:31 GMT -5
Why is it xenophobic to want to have organized and rational immigration systems and to a the very least identify and assimilate those living here illegally who snuck in? Do we want to look more like Sweden or Germany or England? Do we want to be over-run? It's not hyperbole. Do we? I'm not sure we have a strong answer here. Many of us do not.
If that is the standard for xenophobia, then it could be applied to nearly every country in the world. Tried sneaking into China, Saudi Arabia, Iceland, Russia, Scotland, Poland? Folks, you don't know what xenophobia is. You'll be in jail immediately and out of country in 24 hrs. But it's not a universal standard, it's not a consistent position, is it? It's only applied to the US.
It's like Diane Feinstein grilling that judicial nominee over her Catholic faith, saying it could impact her rulings. Ok, sure, that's fair IF you will also grill Muslim nominees and question their faith and their motives, which would be utterly unimaginable and, frankly, outright political suicide. We ONLY attack western culture and ideas. Everyone else gets softballs and cheerleading. It's so tilted. It's so blatant at this point it's not even worth bothering to hide it or to pretend otherwise. Don't believe me? Take a pro Trump sign down to your local university and then post an update here an hour later. Take an anti-Islam sign. Take an anti illegal immigration sign. And, for the love of god, take a helmet and some protective eye wear. You're gonna need it. Godspeed, my friend.
Better yet -- just post it on your social media today. I fucking DARE you. You know what the cost will be.
You mock Christianity, you're a critic, edgy, artistic, exercising free speech. You mock Islam you're a disgusting racist bigot islamaphobe. You sneak into Mexico you're a criminal who is abusing a poor 3rd world country. You sneak into the US you're an angle with a dream that must be protected, championed, and fully funded. We are institutionally, systemically, culturally, philosophically tilted to an alarming level with the clear mission to repress and destroy our own way of life, our history, identity, and prominence in the world, and to lift up that which will replace, destroy, and subvert us.
It's literally gotten comical, the mania with which this juvenile FUCK WHITEY has consumed the progressive movement. It's occupy wall st. It's BLM. It's antifa. It's whatever. But what it is . . . is fuck whitey. This writhing, self-loathing white guilt. This reckless teenage rebellion against daddy. This steady drum beat of vitriol and sabotage toward western culture and anglo identity is why people like Trump come out of nowhere like a satirical SNL skit and inexplicably skyrocket to the presidency without even the support of their own party. It's why people like Garth post the way they do and people don't say much. Deep down, maybe even subconsciously, you know we need people who will push back, even if they are 1/2 crazy, and you have to be 1/2 crazy to invite the kind of personal assault you're walking into. Seeing Ben Shapiro going back to Berkely this weekend . . . the man has almost indescribable courage. I mean, again, WTF do you think that bizarre Trump takeover was about, guys? There an instinctual desire to push back, to draw a line, to cling to the one guy crazy enough to be the asshole, say it out loud, and not get guilt tripped and shamed and silenced by PC culture and anti western ethos, even if there are some rough, sometimes really rough, edges. Sure, there's generalization that is inaccurate and over the top, but the context for that is an all out war on western culture and ideals that is flat out rabid, and it's rampant in media, politics, academia, and this goofy celebrity culture we've come to worship. We're in the emergency room with three bullet wounds and you're asking me to focus on a toothache. You're asking me stifle and oppose one of the few entities with the awareness and appropriate testosterone levels to push back.
How does a teenage girl piss off dadday, when daddy is Uncle Sam? You embrace everything he opposes and rub it in his face.
Islam, illegal immigration, black power, socialism, transgender weirdos in the girls bathroom . . . how do I torment my dad? Welp, apparently by burning the fucking house down. Great job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Sept 13, 2017 14:34:42 GMT -5
Hillary has been in the news a lot this week. Mostly because of her book, but she is still out there taking jabs at Trump and talking about current events. I think this bitch is angling for another run............and the liberals might be dumb enough to nominate her again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Sept 13, 2017 15:00:20 GMT -5
Hillary has been in the news a lot this week. Mostly because of her book, but she is still out there taking jabs at Trump and talking about current events. I think this bitch is angling for another run............and the liberals might be dumb enough to nominate her again. It's like everyone is supposed forget that democrats have been waging war, spying, lying, cracking down on whistleblowers, and aggressively prosecuting the drug war. It's like we still live in the 90s and the dems persona of peace and free speech and the little guy is still a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Sept 13, 2017 21:59:09 GMT -5
Hillary has been in the news a lot this week. Mostly because of her book, but she is still out there taking jabs at Trump and talking about current events. I think this bitch is angling for another run............and the liberals might be dumb enough to nominate her again. It's like everyone is supposed forget that democrats have been waging war, spying, lying, cracking down on whistleblowers, and aggressively prosecuting the drug war. It's like we still live in the 90s and the dems persona of peace and free speech and the little guy is still a thing. Clinton: It's time to abolish the Electoral College www.kctv5.com/story/36362062/clinton-its-time-to-abolish-the-electoral-college#.WbnrNpIqG9o.facebook |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 22:18:56 GMT -5
Why is it xenophobic to want to have organized and rational immigration systems and to a the very least identify and assimilate those living here illegally who snuck in? Do we want to look more like Sweden or Germany or England? Do we want to be over-run? It's not hyperbole. Do we? I'm not sure we have a strong answer here. Many of us do not. If that is the standard for xenophobia, then it could be applied to nearly every country in the world. Tried sneaking into China, Saudi Arabia, Iceland, Russia, Scotland, Poland? Folks, you don't know what xenophobia is. You'll be in jail immediately and out of country in 24 hrs. But it's not a universal standard, it's not a consistent position, is it? It's only applied to the US. It's like Diane Feinstein grilling that judicial nominee over her Catholic faith, saying it could impact her rulings. Ok, sure, that's fair IF you will also grill Muslim nominees and question their faith and their motives, which would be utterly unimaginable and, frankly, outright political suicide. We ONLY attack western culture and ideas. Everyone else gets softballs and cheerleading. It's so tilted. It's so blatant at this point it's not even worth bothering to hide it or to pretend otherwise. Don't believe me? Take a pro Trump sign down to your local university and then post an update here an hour later. Take an anti-Islam sign. Take an anti illegal immigration sign. And, for the love of god, take a helmet and some protective eye wear. You're gonna need it. Godspeed, my friend. Better yet -- just post it on your social media today. I fucking DARE you. You know what the cost will be. You mock Christianity, you're a critic, edgy, artistic, exercising free speech. You mock Islam you're a disgusting racist bigot islamaphobe. You sneak into Mexico you're a criminal who is abusing a poor 3rd world country. You sneak into the US you're an angle with a dream that must be protected, championed, and fully funded. We are institutionally, systemically, culturally, philosophically tilted to an alarming level with the clear mission to repress and destroy our own way of life, our history, identity, and prominence in the world, and to lift up that which will replace, destroy, and subvert us. It's literally gotten comical, the mania with which this juvenile FUCK WHITEY has consumed the progressive movement. It's occupy wall st. It's BLM. It's antifa. It's whatever. But what it is . . . is fuck whitey. This writhing, self-loathing white guilt. This reckless teenage rebellion against daddy. This steady drum beat of vitriol and sabotage toward western culture and anglo identity is why people like Trump come out of nowhere like a satirical SNL skit and inexplicably skyrocket to the presidency without even the support of their own party. It's why people like Garth post the way they do and people don't say much. Deep down, maybe even subconsciously, you know we need people who will push back, even if they are 1/2 crazy, and you have to be 1/2 crazy to invite the kind of personal assault you're walking into. Seeing Ben Shapiro going back to Berkely this weekend . . . the man has almost indescribable courage. I mean, again, WTF do you think that bizarre Trump takeover was about, guys? There an instinctual desire to push back, to draw a line, to cling to the one guy crazy enough to be the asshole, say it out loud, and not get guilt tripped and shamed and silenced by PC culture and anti western ethos, even if there are some rough, sometimes really rough, edges. Sure, there's generalization that is inaccurate and over the top, but the context for that is an all out war on western culture and ideals that is flat out rabid, and it's rampant in media, politics, academia, and this goofy celebrity culture we've come to worship. We're in the emergency room with three bullet wounds and you're asking me to focus on a toothache. You're asking me stifle and oppose one of the few entities with the awareness and appropriate testosterone levels to push back. How does a teenage girl piss off dadday, when daddy is Uncle Sam? You embrace everything he opposes and rub it in his face. Islam, illegal immigration, black power, socialism, transgender weirdos in the girls bathroom . . . how do I torment my dad? Welp, apparently by burning the fucking house down. Great job. Just referring to the first couple sentences... Go try sneaking into mexico without bribing and see how much empathy and love you are met with lol. Shot on fucking sight if I'm not mistaken. |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Sept 13, 2017 22:25:05 GMT -5
Which means what, in reality? That 8-10 massive, coastal, super-cities will decide how the entire continent is governed. City Mouse will be telling Country Mouse what kind of cheese to eat. And a conservative or libertarian, anyone interested in decentralizing power, lowering spending, making more of your own decisions locally, will never win a national elections again, ever. It'll be democrats if not outright socialists like Sanders and Warren for the next 40 years. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 13, 2017 23:02:46 GMT -5
Hillary has been in the news a lot this week. Mostly because of her book, but she is still out there taking jabs at Trump and talking about current events.  |
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Sept 13, 2017 23:13:27 GMT -5
Which means what, in reality? That 8-10 massive, coastal, super-cities will decide how the entire continent is governed. City Mouse will be telling Country Mouse what kind of cheese to eat. And a conservative or libertarian, anyone interested in decentralizing power, lowering spending, making more of your own decisions locally, will never win a national elections again, ever. It'll be democrats if not outright socialists like Sanders and Warren for the next 40 years. Other than the fact that you don't like the most popular candidate, what exactly is preferable about having a candidate who lost the popular by nearly 3 million votes run the country? If you're going to have two diametrically opposed groups vying for power, why should the less popular one run the show? |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Sept 13, 2017 23:18:42 GMT -5
Which means what, in reality? That 8-10 massive, coastal, super-cities will decide how the entire continent is governed. City Mouse will be telling Country Mouse what kind of cheese to eat. And a conservative or libertarian, anyone interested in decentralizing power, lowering spending, making more of your own decisions locally, will never win a national elections again, ever. It'll be democrats if not outright socialists like Sanders and Warren for the next 40 years. Other than the fact that you don't like the most popular candidate, what exactly is preferable about having a candidate who lost the popular by nearly 3 million votes run the country? If you're going to have two diametrically opposed groups vying for power, why should the less popular one run the show? This is the issue right here. 1. That there are two groups, which goes against what the founding fathers wanted for this country. Boiling down to two groups is harmful to everyone. We've gone so far to make regulations recognize the two groups, rather than leave it to the person regardless of identified, if any, party. 2. It would be better if the two groups were in fact diametrically opposed, as opposed to what they are now which is ostensibly opposed. 3. And for the sake of the why should the less popular one run the show? Actually forget popularity if you want stability, the vote should be weighted to the areas that produce the resources, not the areas that consume the resources. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 13, 2017 23:24:46 GMT -5
Which means what, in reality? That 8-10 massive, coastal, super-cities will decide how the entire continent is governed. City Mouse will be telling Country Mouse what kind of cheese to eat. And a conservative or libertarian, anyone interested in decentralizing power, lowering spending, making more of your own decisions locally, will never win a national elections again, ever. It'll be democrats if not outright socialists like Sanders and Warren for the next 40 years. Other than the fact that you don't like the most popular candidate, what exactly is preferable about having a candidate who lost the popular by nearly 3 million votes run the country? If you're going to have two diametrically opposed groups vying for power, why should the less popular one run the show? Because it's the United States of America, and trump won 30 states and Hilary only won 20 states. The most popular candidate won the election. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 0:19:44 GMT -5
If it was decided by popular vote, you would have a lot more votes cast and the majority of those would be republican leaning. There are millions of people in California, New York and New England that don't vote because they don't have a chance if it counting towards anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Sept 14, 2017 6:39:25 GMT -5
Which means what, in reality? That 8-10 massive, coastal, super-cities will decide how the entire continent is governed. City Mouse will be telling Country Mouse what kind of cheese to eat. And a conservative or libertarian, anyone interested in decentralizing power, lowering spending, making more of your own decisions locally, will never win a national elections again, ever. It'll be democrats if not outright socialists like Sanders and Warren for the next 40 years. Other than the fact that you don't like the most popular candidate, what exactly is preferable about having a candidate who lost the popular by nearly 3 million votes run the country? If you're going to have two diametrically opposed groups vying for power, why should the less popular one run the show? Well HILLARY is the less popular candidate in 90% of counties in the United States. It would take several pages to attempt to educate you on the constitution, but suffice it to say that it's part of the genius of the founding fathers and the federalist system that has so far not been usurped. It mitigates the effects of voter fraud for one thing. Everyone knows, even Trevor Noah, Seth Meyer, and you, that hillarys popular vote "win" was comprised entirely of illegal aliens and voter fraud. A zero sum vote in a federalist system is as stupid as giving someone who weighs 300 pounds more vote than someone who weighs 200 pounds (that's litrally how dumb you are) It would be like eliminating the end zone in football and simply awarding the win to whatever football team gains the most yards |
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Sept 14, 2017 6:40:32 GMT -5
If it was decided by popular vote, you would have a lot more votes cast and the majority of those would be republican leaning. There are millions of people in California, New York and New England that don't vote because they don't have a chance if it counting towards anything. That still wouldn't be enough to outweigh the fraud in Democrat districts |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 6:47:54 GMT -5
Both Amazon and Walmart cut the price of Hillary's book by 40% before it was even released. Sales were not what where they expected them to be.
Probably because most of the people who voted for Hillary cannot afford to pay $30 for a hardcover book. And those who could afford that would never spend $30 on a book in the first place. Reading? Got no time for that when the white supremacists are around every corner and Nazis are hiding under every Rock.
|
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Sept 14, 2017 7:29:53 GMT -5
The Hillary voters I know all make high-five to six figures in some sort of government sector job. I include education as government sector. They can afford hillarys book but only ever read pablum like Harry Potter or twilight. They go to bookstores to peruse the internet and drink syrupy dessert coffee.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 7:42:16 GMT -5
I used to know people like that. But I don't know them anymore.
Sounds like you know what would be the minority of Hillary voters.
All the Hillary voters I knew, hate rich people.
And they don't need to read the book explaining what happened. They already know what happened. Because the mainstream media told them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Sept 14, 2017 8:03:29 GMT -5
ocmmafan - thoughts on Trump's tweets this morning on DACA, where he says:
"Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!........They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security"
Ann Coulter responded with: At this point, who DOESN'T want Trump impeached?
Interested to hear your thoughts on this development.
Edit: In light of Tony's post, where he noted that he thought I was trying to be funny... I just threw the Ann Coulter thing in because to me it was a slightly surprising take on this from her. I don't think Ann speaks for any of you. And, oc, I wasn't asking you to weigh in on her comments as well. I was just curious what you thought about Trump's latest tweets.
I should have put the "interested to hear your thoughts on this development" immediately under Trump's words, not Ann's. I can see how it came across as me being flip now that I reread it. I need more coffee.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 8:23:06 GMT -5
ocmmafan - thoughts on Trump's tweets this morning on DACA, where he says: "Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!........They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security" Ann Coulter responded with: At this point, who DOESN'T want Trump impeached? Interested to hear your thoughts on this development. I can't speak for OC. But did YOU - an attorney (who understands the concept of legal legitimacy and the problem with massively sweeping executive orders) actually think that Trump was overturning DACA because he wanted to throw out the people he is referring to in his tweet? Or is it that legally Congress needs to be the body that enacts a change such as DACA, and then the president is supposed to approve it or veto it? Is it dangerous to allow one individual, especially when that individual is the president of the United States, to circumvent checks and balances? Has the mainstream media addressed the problem with how DACA came into existence in the first place? Have they tried to make it look like Trump hates foreign children who were brought here by their parents illegally? Has the last president come up out of his hole to declare that this is a moral issue and not a legal issue? Illegal immigration is not a legal issue? You answering these questions would be far more interesting than anything OC has to say regarding your kind of funny inquiry. No offense OC. |
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on Sept 14, 2017 8:30:35 GMT -5
Both Amazon and Walmart cut the price of Hillary's book by 40% before it was even released. Sales were not what where they expected them to be. Probably because most of the people who voted for Hillary cannot afford to pay $30 for a hardcover book. And those who could afford that would never spend $30 on a book in the first place. Reading? Got no time for that when the white supremacists are around every corner and Nazis are hiding under every Rock. You forgot the Russians, they're all busy looking for the Russians. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Sept 14, 2017 8:55:34 GMT -5
ocmmafan - thoughts on Trump's tweets this morning on DACA, where he says: "Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!........They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security" Ann Coulter responded with: At this point, who DOESN'T want Trump impeached? Interested to hear your thoughts on this development. I can't speak for OC. But did YOU - an attorney (who understands the concept of legal legitimacy and the problem with massively sweeping executive orders) actually think that Trump was overturning DACA because he wanted to throw out the people he is referring to in his tweet? Or is it that legally Congress needs to be the body that enacts a change such as DACA, and then the president is supposed to approve it or veto it? Is it dangerous to allow one individual, especially when that individual is the president of the United States, to circumvent checks and balances? Has the mainstream media addressed the problem with how DACA came into existence in the first place? Have they tried to make it look like Trump hates foreign children who were brought here by their parents illegally? Has the last president come up out of his hole to declare that this is a moral issue and not a legal issue? Illegal immigration is not a legal issue? You answering these questions would be far more interesting than anything OC has to say regarding your kind of funny inquiry. No offense OC. I wasn't trying to be funny. I legit think OC is the most informed person on this board when it comes to immigration, probably by a fairly wide margin. That's my strong impression after reading his posts for what, ten years now? So I was genuinely interested in getting his take. He and I may disagree about a fair amount of political ideas, but that doesn't mean I can't learn something from someone who knows a lot more about the topic than I do, regardless of their political leanings. I have said this before (maybe on the old board?) but I don't have very strong opinions on most hot-button immigration issues involving people coming in from Mexico. And the reason i don't have very strong opinions? Because I'm not very well informed. (Weird, I know. The strength of many people's opinions these days seems to be inversely proportional to their level of knowledge of the issue at hand). So, I'm not all that capable of responding to your questions. I've never looked into the legal authority for DACA. So I don't know whether or not that actually fell within the power of the executive branch. In answer to your first question, though... Trump previously talked about throwing out illegals and then maybe coming up with a system to expedite the return into this country of the "good ones." I assumed that included "dreamers" as they would fall within the category of illegals, no? Perhaps I misunderstood. As regards his motivations for this decision? I don't know. I suspect it has something to do with wanting to fulfill his campaign promise but that's just a guess. |
|
