Trump's adminitration is a clusterf*ck

[Jitss617]

I live in a black area no lines ,, multiple places to vote..

Did you report that to Repub leaders ? They'd fix that problem

You think white rural areas have more places to vote? Lol hahaha

Did I say that ? You're not known for truth telling

So stfu you idiot

I will I'll leave this place of trump apologists who support the worst garbage in our history

Tell dean we said hello

 

[edward37]

So upon listening to Trump speak with all the lies spouting out of his crooked mouth it's my ears deceiving me ?? How many more times will he lie about Obama and his Presidency? Just because his lies about his citizenship brought him the presidency with all you obama haters joining in, he continues to bash a man 10x his better?

Just say orange man bad,, it sounds a lot better lol

No the liar is far worse than that Our President should be a moral leader too ,one the young could be proud of You republicans love him because he IS a scumbag In my "twisted"" mind that's bad

JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Trump.......When did the president need to be moral? Trump?

Evidently you have no problem with this racist pervert with 3 wives, cheating on them all, paying off porn stars to not give him up ?? Which of those you mentioned was as great a slime as Trump?

Are you gay?

Not really but I do get a laugh from you and your idiot trump supporters Hows that tax break working out LOL LOL

 

[Jitss617]

Just say orange man bad,, it sounds a lot better lol

No the liar is far worse than that Our President should be a moral leader too ,one the young could be proud of You republicans love him because he IS a scumbag In my "twisted"" mind that's bad

JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Trump.......When did the president need to be moral? Trump?

Evidently you have no problem with this racist pervert with 3 wives, cheating on them all, paying off porn stars to not give him up ?? Which of those you mentioned was as great a slime as Trump?

Are you gay?

Not really but I do get a laugh from you and your idiot trump supporters Hows that tax break working out LOL LOL

It’s great I make more money

 

[edward37]

Did you report that to Repub leaders ? They'd fix that problem

You think white rural areas have more places to vote? Lol hahaha

Did I say that ? You're not known for truth telling

So stfu you idiot

I will I'll leave this place of trump apologists who support the worst garbage in our history

Tell dean we said hello

Just when I thought I was out you pulled me back in ,,,WTF is Dean?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Trump is scum going against everything America stands for I'd fight him on everything he wants F him and hope he's gone soon

Can't STAND it when someone dares to uphold THE LAW can you? Freedom and Patriotism annoys you huh?
edward37 and those like him = Sick, Civilization threatening savages

Just a little heads up EVERYTHING IN OUR CONSTITUTION IS ONLY FOR CITIZENS lol
You dumb retard lol

It's called the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION for a reason.
The United States has absolutely NO OBLIGATION to care for everyone on the planet....nor CAN IT.
What part of 25 TRILLION IN DEBT ALREADY do you Commies NOT GET ??
We can't pay for ourselves, how are we gonna pay to care for the World???

Where did all these Communists COME FROM ?!?!

 

[edward37]

No the liar is far worse than that Our President should be a moral leader too ,one the young could be proud of You republicans love him because he IS a scumbag In my "twisted"" mind that's bad

JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Trump.......When did the president need to be moral? Trump?

Evidently you have no problem with this racist pervert with 3 wives, cheating on them all, paying off porn stars to not give him up ?? Which of those you mentioned was as great a slime as Trump?

Are you gay?

Not really but I do get a laugh from you and your idiot trump supporters Hows that tax break working out LOL LOL

It’s great I make more money

They won't raise the minimum wage How can you be making more And did you know the tax cut was going to pay for itself ?? LOL

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump is scum going against everything America stands for I'd fight him on everything he wants F him and hope he's gone soon

Can't STAND it when someone dares to uphold THE LAW can you? Freedom and Patriotism annoys you huh?
edward37 and those like him = Sick, Civilization threatening savages

Just a little heads up EVERYTHING IN OUR CONSTITUTION IS ONLY FOR CITIZENS lol
You dumb retard lol

It's called the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION for a reason.
The United States has absolutely NO OBLIGATION to care for everyone on the planet....nor CAN IT.
What part of 25 TRILLION IN DEBT ALREADY do you Commies NOT GET ??
We can't pay for ourselves, how are we gonna pay to care for the World???

Where did all these Communists COME FROM ?!?!

The Constitution covers people on our soil, citizens or not. The police cannot just go up to a legal immigrant and arrest them for no reason, they cannot search them without plausible cause and they cannot deny them a trial.

Here, try this. Go find a legal immigrant and shoot them and see if they are covered.

 

[edward37]

Trump is scum going against everything America stands for I'd fight him on everything he wants F him and hope he's gone soon

Can't STAND it when someone dares to uphold THE LAW can you? Freedom and Patriotism annoys you huh?
edward37 and those like him = Sick, Civilization threatening savages

Just a little heads up EVERYTHING IN OUR CONSTITUTION IS ONLY FOR CITIZENS lol
You dumb retard lol

It's called the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION for a reason.
The United States has absolutely NO OBLIGATION to care for everyone on the planet....nor CAN IT.
What part of 25 TRILLION IN DEBT ALREADY do you Commies NOT GET ??
We can't pay for ourselves, how are we gonna pay to care for the World???

Where did all these Communists COME FROM ?!?!

Forbidding those people from answering subpoenas is what?? IMO a scumbag trying to avoid losing even the schmuks who voted for him Supporting a Putin loving POS is what? Patriotism ?

 

[joaquinmiller]

Trump says he is 'absolutely moving forward' with census citizenship question, contradicting his own administration

No......Trump is contradicting fake news from the media.

And disobeying the Supreme Court. But what the hell nothing is going to happen to teflon don even is he has to have his family work day and night putting that question on the form.

the SCOTUS refused to hear the case. Trump is not disobeying them. Geez, do you ever tell the truth about anything?

Department of Commerce v. New York - SCOTUSblog

Of course they heard the case, and issued a 5-4 decision. Your ignorance led you to wrongly accuse someone of lying.

That's why Trump loves the uneducated.

Did you even bother to read what you posted?

", but the district court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary’s explanation for his decision."

exactly what do you think that means?

I think it means you're confused. You maintained the USSC refused to hear the case. They heard it, and they issued a 5-4 decision. From my link:

Jun 27 2019 Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; and with respect to Part V, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J.,

filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED means they heard the case. If they had refused to hear it, they would not have issued a Writ of Certiorari. The oral arguments at the time they heard the case were in all the papers. I'm surprised you missed it.

 

[RealDave]

Why would you fight him in that question?? So anti American.. why you keep losing elections

Trump is scum going against everything America stands for I'd fight him on everything he wants F him and hope he's gone soon

Lol you make no sense.. if we don’t ask that question you idiots could get more representatives in the house.. why do you need to cheat to win?

you nailed it. thats the only reason the dems don't want that question, because they see illegals as their way to more seats in the house, and some redistricting. They know they cannot win without cheating, thats why they keep doing it.

With your gerrymandering bullshit you call us cheaters?? With all repub efforts to suppress our votes you call us cheaters??

A democrat education is the only thing that suppresses the black vote

Spoken like a true racist.

 

[RealDave]

So upon listening to Trump speak with all the lies spouting out of his crooked mouth it's my ears deceiving me ?? How many more times will he lie about Obama and his Presidency? Just because his lies about his citizenship brought him the presidency with all you obama haters joining in, he continues to bash a man 10x his better?

Just say orange man bad,, it sounds a lot better lol

No the liar is far worse than that Our President should be a moral leader too ,one the young could be proud of You republicans love him because he IS a scumbag In my "twisted"" mind that's bad

JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Trump.......When did the president need to be moral? Trump?

Evidently you have no problem with this racist pervert with 3 wives, cheating on them all, paying off porn stars to not give him up ?? Which of those you mentioned was as great a slime as Trump?

Are you gay?

So, you are saying being a straight male means you get to assault women, cheat on your wives? Wait, you can't help yourselves?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Aside from sales tax, they pay very little.
They certainly don't pay enough to cover the costs they impose on our
federal, state and local governments.

I thought you hated how they take our jobs. Now you claim they don't work.

The truth is that they use fake IDs & work & have income taxes deducted.

Are you always this uninformed?

You know, how they did it at Trump's businesses.

I thought you hated how they take our jobs. Now you claim they don't work.

They work, they don't pay taxes.

The truth is that they use fake IDs & work & have income taxes deducted.

If they claim 16 exemptions, how much would they pay?

16 exemptions? So now you just make up shit. Oh wait, that is all you ever do.

16 exemptions?

Yes. How much would they pay?

How did they get 16 exemptions?

You know you don't actually have to prove you qualify to claim them, right?

E Child tax credit. See Pub. 972, Child Tax Credit, for more information. • If your total income will be less than $71,201 ($103,351 if married filing jointly), enter “4” for each eligible child. • If your total income will be from $71,201 to $179,050 ($103,351 to $345,850 if married filing jointly), enter “2” for each eligible child. • If your total income will be from $179,051 to $200,000 ($345,851 to $400,000 if married filing jointly), enter “1” for each eligible child.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf (page 3)

 

[mudwhistle]

No......Trump is contradicting fake news from the media.

And disobeying the Supreme Court. But what the hell nothing is going to happen to teflon don even is he has to have his family work day and night putting that question on the form.

the SCOTUS refused to hear the case. Trump is not disobeying them. Geez, do you ever tell the truth about anything?

Department of Commerce v. New York - SCOTUSblog

Of course they heard the case, and issued a 5-4 decision. Your ignorance led you to wrongly accuse someone of lying.

That's why Trump loves the uneducated.

Did you even bother to read what you posted?

", but the district court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary’s explanation for his decision."

exactly what do you think that means?

I think it means you're confused. You maintained the USSC refused to hear the case. They heard it, and they issued a 5-4 decision. From my link:

Jun 27 2019 Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; and with respect to Part V, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J.,

filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED means they heard the case. If they had refused to hear it, they would not have issued a Writ of Certiorari. The oral arguments at the time they heard the case were in all the papers. I'm surprised you missed it.

The SCOTUS agreed that states had a basis to claim damages, but that saying that illegals or 3rd parties won't respond is a valid reason to remove the citizenship question isn't a valid reason. Pg 10 paragraph 2:

The Government contends, however, that any harm to respondents is not fairly traceable to the Secretary’s deci-sion, because such harm depends on the independent action of third parties choosing to violate their legal duty to respond to the census. The chain of causation is made even more tenuous, the Government argues, by the fact that such intervening, unlawful third-party action would be motivated by unfounded fears that the Federal Gov-ernment will itself break the law by using noncitizens’ answers against them for law enforcement purposes. The Government invokes our steady refusal to “endorse stand-ing theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors,” Clapperv. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414 (2013), particularly speculation aboutfuture unlawful conduct, Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 105 (1983).

But we are satisfied that, in these circumstances, re-spondents have met their burden of showing that third parties will likely react in predictable ways to the citizen-ship question, even if they do so unlawfully and despite the requirement that the Government keep individual answers confidential. The evidence at trial established that noncitizen households have historically responded to the census at lower rates than other groups, and the Dis-trict Court did not clearly err in crediting the Census Bureau’s theory that the discrepancy is likely attributable at least in part to noncitizens’ reluctance to answer a citizenship question. Respondents’ theory of standing Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 11 Opinion of the Courtthus does not rest on mere speculation about the decisions of third parties; it relies instead on the predictable effect of Government action on the decisions of third parties. Cf.Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 169–170 (1997); Davis, 554 U. S., at 734–735. Because Article III “requires no more than de facto causality,” Block v. Meese, 793 F. 2d 1303, 1309 (CADC 1986) (Scalia, J.), traceability is satis-fied here. We may therefore consider the merits of re-spondents’ claims, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
​

This is double-speak. It says that independent action by illegals who will refuse to respond to the census is not a valid reason to demand that the citizenship question stay off the census. Then it goes back on this by saying it is highly predictable that illegals won't fill out a census....so that's a good enough reason not to put the question on the form. Total horseshit. This is their opinion....still they sent this back to the Commerce Dept to decide what they're going to do.

 

[joaquinmiller]

And disobeying the Supreme Court. But what the hell nothing is going to happen to teflon don even is he has to have his family work day and night putting that question on the form.

the SCOTUS refused to hear the case. Trump is not disobeying them. Geez, do you ever tell the truth about anything?

Department of Commerce v. New York - SCOTUSblog

Of course they heard the case, and issued a 5-4 decision. Your ignorance led you to wrongly accuse someone of lying.

That's why Trump loves the uneducated.

Did you even bother to read what you posted?

", but the district court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary’s explanation for his decision."

exactly what do you think that means?

I think it means you're confused. You maintained the USSC refused to hear the case. They heard it, and they issued a 5-4 decision. From my link:

Jun 27 2019 Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; and with respect to Part V, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J.,

filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED means they heard the case. If they had refused to hear it, they would not have issued a Writ of Certiorari. The oral arguments at the time they heard the case were in all the papers. I'm surprised you missed it.

The SCOTUS agreed that states had a basis to claim damages, but that saying that illegals or 3rd parties won't respond is a valid reason to remove the citizenship question isn't a valid reason. Pg 10 paragraph 2:

The Government contends, however, that any harm to respondents is not fairly traceable to the Secretary’s deci-sion, because such harm depends on the independent action of third parties choosing to violate their legal duty to respond to the census. The chain of causation is made even more tenuous, the Government argues, by the fact that such intervening, unlawful third-party action would be motivated by unfounded fears that the Federal Gov-ernment will itself break the law by using noncitizens’ answers against them for law enforcement purposes. The Government invokes our steady refusal to “endorse stand-ing theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors,” Clapperv. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414 (2013), particularly speculation aboutfuture unlawful conduct, Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 105 (1983).

But we are satisfied that, in these circumstances, re-spondents have met their burden of showing that third parties will likely react in predictable ways to the citizen-ship question, even if they do so unlawfully and despite the requirement that the Government keep individual answers confidential. The evidence at trial established that noncitizen households have historically responded to the census at lower rates than other groups, and the Dis-trict Court did not clearly err in crediting the Census Bureau’s theory that the discrepancy is likely attributable at least in part to noncitizens’ reluctance to answer a citizenship question. Respondents’ theory of standing Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 11 Opinion of the Courtthus does not rest on mere speculation about the decisions of third parties; it relies instead on the predictable effect of Government action on the decisions of third parties. Cf.Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 169–170 (1997); Davis, 554 U. S., at 734–735. Because Article III “requires no more than de facto causality,” Block v. Meese, 793 F. 2d 1303, 1309 (CADC 1986) (Scalia, J.), traceability is satis-fied here. We may therefore consider the merits of re-spondents’ claims, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
​

This is double-speak. It says that independent action by illegals who will refuse to respond to the census is not a valid reason to demand that the citizenship question stay off the census. Then it goes back on this by saying it is highly predictable that illegals won't fill out a census....so that's a good enough reason not to put the question on the form. Total horseshit. This is their opinion....still they sent this back to the Commerce Dept to decide what they're going to do.

You may not have noticed, but redfish wasn't arguing the merits or details of the decision, he was maintaining the USSC refused to hear the case. Your quotes may end his confusion.

 

[mudwhistle]

the SCOTUS refused to hear the case. Trump is not disobeying them. Geez, do you ever tell the truth about anything?

Department of Commerce v. New York - SCOTUSblog

Of course they heard the case, and issued a 5-4 decision. Your ignorance led you to wrongly accuse someone of lying.

That's why Trump loves the uneducated.

Did you even bother to read what you posted?

", but the district court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary’s explanation for his decision."

exactly what do you think that means?

I think it means you're confused. You maintained the USSC refused to hear the case. They heard it, and they issued a 5-4 decision. From my link:

Jun 27 2019 Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; and with respect to Part V, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J.,

filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED means they heard the case. If they had refused to hear it, they would not have issued a Writ of Certiorari. The oral arguments at the time they heard the case were in all the papers. I'm surprised you missed it.

The SCOTUS agreed that states had a basis to claim damages, but that saying that illegals or 3rd parties won't respond is a valid reason to remove the citizenship question isn't a valid reason. Pg 10 paragraph 2:

The Government contends, however, that any harm to respondents is not fairly traceable to the Secretary’s deci-sion, because such harm depends on the independent action of third parties choosing to violate their legal duty to respond to the census. The chain of causation is made even more tenuous, the Government argues, by the fact that such intervening, unlawful third-party action would be motivated by unfounded fears that the Federal Gov-ernment will itself break the law by using noncitizens’ answers against them for law enforcement purposes. The Government invokes our steady refusal to “endorse stand-ing theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors,” Clapperv. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414 (2013), particularly speculation aboutfuture unlawful conduct, Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 105 (1983).

But we are satisfied that, in these circumstances, re-spondents have met their burden of showing that third parties will likely react in predictable ways to the citizen-ship question, even if they do so unlawfully and despite the requirement that the Government keep individual answers confidential. The evidence at trial established that noncitizen households have historically responded to the census at lower rates than other groups, and the Dis-trict Court did not clearly err in crediting the Census Bureau’s theory that the discrepancy is likely attributable at least in part to noncitizens’ reluctance to answer a citizenship question. Respondents’ theory of standing Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 11 Opinion of the Courtthus does not rest on mere speculation about the decisions of third parties; it relies instead on the predictable effect of Government action on the decisions of third parties. Cf.Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 169–170 (1997); Davis, 554 U. S., at 734–735. Because Article III “requires no more than de facto causality,” Block v. Meese, 793 F. 2d 1303, 1309 (CADC 1986) (Scalia, J.), traceability is satis-fied here. We may therefore consider the merits of re-spondents’ claims, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
​

This is double-speak. It says that independent action by illegals who will refuse to respond to the census is not a valid reason to demand that the citizenship question stay off the census. Then it goes back on this by saying it is highly predictable that illegals won't fill out a census....so that's a good enough reason not to put the question on the form. Total horseshit. This is their opinion....still they sent this back to the Commerce Dept to decide what they're going to do.

You may not have noticed, but redfish wasn't arguing the merits or details of the decision, he was maintaining the USSC refused to hear the case. Your quotes may end his confusion.

Maybe his confusion...but Justice Roberts kept this confusion going by siding with the left once again.
I don't think that it's a valid point to say that illegals will avoid filling out the forms and using that as a reason not to have the question on the form.
The same could be said if you claimed that illegals would simply lie on the form.
So Justice Roberts is trying to make a claim that has no logic.

At any rate.....this is a delay tactic by sending it back to be hashed over at a lower court.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The Constitution covers people on our soil, citizens or not. The police cannot just go up to a legal immigrant and arrest them for no reason, they cannot search them without plausible cause and they cannot deny them a trial.
Here, try this. Go find a legal immigrant and shoot them and see if they are covered.

BECAUSE..........

They "might" be a US citizen. A Police officer cannot just assume they are not. Once it is ESTABLISHED that they are here ILLEGALLY, they CAN BE DETAINED.
Again, the Constitution is protecting AMERICANS. That means they cannot just arbitrarily arrest people on suspicion.

You are terribly confused or willfully agreeable with the invasion apparently.

As always, arguing with Communists and America haters is pointless at the end of the day.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Maybe his confusion...but Justice Roberts kept this confusion going by siding with the left once again.
I don't think that it's a valid point to say that illegals will avoid filling out the forms and using that as a reason not to have the question on the form.
The same could be said if you claimed that illegals would simply lie on the form.
So Justice Roberts is trying to make a claim that has no logic.
At any rate.....this is a delay tactic by sending it back to be hashed over at a lower court.

It's just an opinion....but I think Roberts presence on the Supreme Court is a travesty and the traitor is among the worst to ever be there.

 

[Jitss617]

Trump is scum going against everything America stands for I'd fight him on everything he wants F him and hope he's gone soon

Lol you make no sense.. if we don’t ask that question you idiots could get more representatives in the house.. why do you need to cheat to win?

you nailed it. thats the only reason the dems don't want that question, because they see illegals as their way to more seats in the house, and some redistricting. They know they cannot win without cheating, thats why they keep doing it.

With your gerrymandering bullshit you call us cheaters?? With all repub efforts to suppress our votes you call us cheaters??

A democrat education is the only thing that suppresses the black vote

Spoken like a true racist.

Calling out racism
Is racist? Interesting lol

 

[RealDave]

I thought you hated how they take our jobs. Now you claim they don't work.

The truth is that they use fake IDs & work & have income taxes deducted.

Are you always this uninformed?

You know, how they did it at Trump's businesses.

I thought you hated how they take our jobs. Now you claim they don't work.

They work, they don't pay taxes.

The truth is that they use fake IDs & work & have income taxes deducted.

If they claim 16 exemptions, how much would they pay?

16 exemptions? So now you just make up shit. Oh wait, that is all you ever do.

16 exemptions?

Yes. How much would they pay?

How did they get 16 exemptions?

You know you don't actually have to prove you qualify to claim them, right?

E Child tax credit. See Pub. 972, Child Tax Credit, for more information. • If your total income will be less than $71,201 ($103,351 if married filing jointly), enter “4” for each eligible child. • If your total income will be from $71,201 to $179,050 ($103,351 to $345,850 if married filing jointly), enter “2” for each eligible child. • If your total income will be from $179,051 to $200,000 ($345,851 to $400,000 if married filing jointly), enter “1” for each eligible child.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf (page 3)

So, you have nothing to show that working illegals claim 16 dependents.

 

[RealDave]

Lol you make no sense.. if we don’t ask that question you idiots could get more representatives in the house.. why do you need to cheat to win?

you nailed it. thats the only reason the dems don't want that question, because they see illegals as their way to more seats in the house, and some redistricting. They know they cannot win without cheating, thats why they keep doing it.

With your gerrymandering bullshit you call us cheaters?? With all repub efforts to suppress our votes you call us cheaters??

A democrat education is the only thing that suppresses the black vote

Spoken like a true racist.

Calling out racism
Is racist? Interesting lol

Your post claimed black people were uneducated & stupid. If you assfucks are going to make racist posts, man the fuck up & stand behind it. Quit squealing like little girls when you get caught.