Trump should delay State of the Union until impeachment trial ends

[playtime]

Absolutely. It’s clear. He has lied about it since the day it happened. There was no imminent attack. That’s a lie. Period.

Any honest person will tell you the same thing. I’m not going to waste the time with you though. You are far too dishonest.

Define “imminent”
So if he coordinates another 9/11 type attack in August he was not worth killing? You’re such a pussy, Lone Leftist.

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

So the blood of 600 Americans is not enough for you?

that isn't the point.

is shredding the constitution & totally ignoring the co equal branch's role in this ok with you?

As has been explained to you a million times,the president doesnt need the OK from congress or anyone else for limited strikes.
Go away ya mental midget....

& yet the constitution says otherwise. i'll go with the law of the land whilst you kneel & stay loyal for yer dotarded prez.

 

[playtime]

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

donny has to prove it was a justified strike. he hasn't so far & the story keeps changing, so its unlikely he'll be believed given his history of lying.

He killed a terrorist numbnut.

he has to justify it per the constitution & so far the lies aren't adding up.

No he doesnt.
Limited strikes are in his rights just like they were for barry.

he has to justify why it was carried out with proof to back it up. nothing like that has happened.

 

[playtime]

bend yerself into a pretzil s'more zog... i bet it's easy for you to grab yer ankles for donny.

Stop projecting your fantasies to me. Gross. You’re old. Yuck.

it ain't my fantasy goin' on here.... you're the trump lover.

Wrong again. I am anti Leftist and no one triggers Leftists more than Trump.

oh please.

you love love love him. you live & breathe to exhalt him on this board.

I do? So I have a lot of posts here. Find one that proves your point. Thanks.

i don't have to - your posts speak for themselves.

 

[Billiejeens]

Which qualifies him to do what?

it's self explanatory. are you really this dumb or just playing up to yer fellow basket dwellers?

Well, then tell yourself to explain it to me

you seem to be too stupid to even grasp the concept of his title or the area he worked in; so it would be a waste of time. if you can't figure it out or research it on yer own, then there's no hope for you anyway. trump loves the poorly educated long time so you just keep on truckin' little buddy.

Are there any questions that you can answer?
Right now I feel as if you should give me your name, rank, and serial number because you are a fucking casualty here.

the only casualty here is yer brain.

The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.

Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).
War Powers | Law Library of Congress

Are you responding to the right post?

 

[Papageorgio]

Did Obama get permission form Congress when he used drones to take out terrorists and innocent civilians?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Stop projecting your fantasies to me. Gross. You’re old. Yuck.

it ain't my fantasy goin' on here.... you're the trump lover.

Wrong again. I am anti Leftist and no one triggers Leftists more than Trump.

oh please.

you love love love him. you live & breathe to exhalt him on this board.

I do? So I have a lot of posts here. Find one that proves your point. Thanks.

i don't have to - your posts speak for themselves.

They do? Then surely you can point to just one that states I am a "Trump Lover".

I'll wait patiently.

 

[the other mike]

He doesn't make the schedule for what takes place on Capitol Hill. He can ask.

He doesnt?
Did you look that up?

It is a fact. He will be there as an invited guest of the Speaker and the Leader.

He had a better time in North Korea.

 

[Billiejeens]

Absolutely. It’s clear. He has lied about it since the day it happened. There was no imminent attack. That’s a lie. Period.

Any honest person will tell you the same thing. I’m not going to waste the time with you though. You are far too dishonest.

Define “imminent”
So if he coordinates another 9/11 type attack in August he was not worth killing? You’re such a pussy, Lone Leftist.

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

So the blood of 600 Americans is not enough for you?

that isn't the point.

is shredding the constitution & totally ignoring the co equal branch's role in this ok with you?

As has been explained to you a million times,the president doesnt need the OK from congress or anyone else for limited strikes.
Go away ya mental midget....

That one just seems especially ineffectual.
The more that he gets his ass handed to him - the more he thinks that he is winning.
It's weird.

 

[Billiejeens]

He doesn't make the schedule for what takes place on Capitol Hill. He can ask.

He doesnt?
Did you look that up?

It is a fact. He will be there as an invited guest of the Speaker and the Leader.

He had a better time in North Korea.

While he was very successful in NK,
His most fun times, I think is when he destroys the Democratics.
I know that those are my most enjoyable times.

 

[playtime]

it's self explanatory. are you really this dumb or just playing up to yer fellow basket dwellers?

Well, then tell yourself to explain it to me

you seem to be too stupid to even grasp the concept of his title or the area he worked in; so it would be a waste of time. if you can't figure it out or research it on yer own, then there's no hope for you anyway. trump loves the poorly educated long time so you just keep on truckin' little buddy.

Are there any questions that you can answer?
Right now I feel as if you should give me your name, rank, and serial number because you are a fucking casualty here.

the only casualty here is yer brain.

The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.

Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).
War Powers | Law Library of Congress

Are you responding to the right post?

you ask why trump had to justify his strike earlier in the thread.

 

[playtime]

Did Obama get permission form Congress when he used drones to take out terrorists and innocent civilians?

probably not - but he reported to congress with justification within the time frame he was supposta. i never heard otherwise. donny waited almost a full week & still hasn't provided any proof why.

 

[Billiejeens]

Well, then tell yourself to explain it to me

you seem to be too stupid to even grasp the concept of his title or the area he worked in; so it would be a waste of time. if you can't figure it out or research it on yer own, then there's no hope for you anyway. trump loves the poorly educated long time so you just keep on truckin' little buddy.

Are there any questions that you can answer?
Right now I feel as if you should give me your name, rank, and serial number because you are a fucking casualty here.

the only casualty here is yer brain.

The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.

Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).
War Powers | Law Library of Congress

Are you responding to the right post?

you ask why trump had to justify his strike earlier in the thread.

That doesn't answer it.
You have anything else?

 

[playtime]

it ain't my fantasy goin' on here.... you're the trump lover.

Wrong again. I am anti Leftist and no one triggers Leftists more than Trump.

oh please.

you love love love him. you live & breathe to exhalt him on this board.

I do? So I have a lot of posts here. Find one that proves your point. Thanks.

i don't have to - your posts speak for themselves.

They do? Then surely you can point to just one that states I am a "Trump Lover".

I'll wait patiently.

oh dear - you still can't decipher what is literal & what is figurative? how'z about cliches?

oh like ummmmmm

if it walks like a duck & talks like a duck, then it's a deplorable.

 

[playtime]

Define “imminent”
So if he coordinates another 9/11 type attack in August he was not worth killing? You’re such a pussy, Lone Leftist.

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

So the blood of 600 Americans is not enough for you?

that isn't the point.

is shredding the constitution & totally ignoring the co equal branch's role in this ok with you?

As has been explained to you a million times,the president doesnt need the OK from congress or anyone else for limited strikes.
Go away ya mental midget....

That one just seems especially ineffectual.
The more that he gets his ass handed to him - the more he thinks that he is winning.
It's weird.

lol... porrly educated deplorables always think they are winning. donny tells them so..

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Define “imminent”
So if he coordinates another 9/11 type attack in August he was not worth killing? You’re such a pussy, Lone Leftist.

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

So the blood of 600 Americans is not enough for you?

that isn't the point.

is shredding the constitution & totally ignoring the co equal branch's role in this ok with you?

As has been explained to you a million times,the president doesnt need the OK from congress or anyone else for limited strikes.
Go away ya mental midget....

That one just seems especially ineffectual.
The more that he gets his ass handed to him - the more he thinks that he is winning.
It's weird.

It is a she and she is a drunk, old, miserable housewife, whose life has been a failure.

 

[playtime]

you seem to be too stupid to even grasp the concept of his title or the area he worked in; so it would be a waste of time. if you can't figure it out or research it on yer own, then there's no hope for you anyway. trump loves the poorly educated long time so you just keep on truckin' little buddy.

Are there any questions that you can answer?
Right now I feel as if you should give me your name, rank, and serial number because you are a fucking casualty here.

the only casualty here is yer brain.

The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.

Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).
War Powers | Law Library of Congress

Are you responding to the right post?

you ask why trump had to justify his strike earlier in the thread.

That doesn't answer it.
You have anything else?

yep it does - - you are just too poorly educated to read.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Wrong again. I am anti Leftist and no one triggers Leftists more than Trump.

oh please.

you love love love him. you live & breathe to exhalt him on this board.

I do? So I have a lot of posts here. Find one that proves your point. Thanks.

i don't have to - your posts speak for themselves.

They do? Then surely you can point to just one that states I am a "Trump Lover".

I'll wait patiently.

oh dear - you still can't decipher what is literal & what is figurative? how'z about cliches?

oh like ummmmmm

if it walks like a duck & talks like a duck, then it's a deplorable.

Nope. Don't hide. You made the claim that I am a Trump sycophant. So show proof. I have all these posts. Surely you can find one that states as such. I'll wait patiently. Or were you lying again?

 

[playtime]

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

So the blood of 600 Americans is not enough for you?

that isn't the point.

is shredding the constitution & totally ignoring the co equal branch's role in this ok with you?

As has been explained to you a million times,the president doesnt need the OK from congress or anyone else for limited strikes.
Go away ya mental midget....

That one just seems especially ineffectual.
The more that he gets his ass handed to him - the more he thinks that he is winning.
It's weird.

It is a she and she is a drunk, old, miserable housewife, whose life has been a failure.

you go boyyyyyeeeeeeEEEeeeeeee

 

[playtime]

oh please.

you love love love him. you live & breathe to exhalt him on this board.

I do? So I have a lot of posts here. Find one that proves your point. Thanks.

i don't have to - your posts speak for themselves.

They do? Then surely you can point to just one that states I am a "Trump Lover".

I'll wait patiently.

oh dear - you still can't decipher what is literal & what is figurative? how'z about cliches?

oh like ummmmmm

if it walks like a duck & talks like a duck, then it's a deplorable.

Nope. Don't hide. You made the claim that I am a Trump sycophant. So show proof. I have all these posts. Surely you can find one that states as such. I'll wait patiently. Or were you lying again?

tell you what - you show proof i drink first.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So the blood of 600 Americans is not enough for you?

that isn't the point.

is shredding the constitution & totally ignoring the co equal branch's role in this ok with you?

As has been explained to you a million times,the president doesnt need the OK from congress or anyone else for limited strikes.
Go away ya mental midget....

That one just seems especially ineffectual.
The more that he gets his ass handed to him - the more he thinks that he is winning.
It's weird.

It is a she and she is a drunk, old, miserable housewife, whose life has been a failure.

you go boyyyyyeeeeeeEEEeeeeeee

Speaking for myself not about you but if my kid comes home to live in her 30s then I have failed as a parent, especially if it were my only job. Either of my kids that is.