[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread

-SS- said:
Nobody ever said they arent given due to process. You were given US Code that shows they are to a limited extent to expedite their case for breaking OUR laws you dipshit.

But you are trying to weasel out now instead of earlier saying everyone US soil is due Constitutional Rights.

Care to try again? :lol:
Click to expand...

Constitutional rights and being subject to laws are two different concepts. Everyone has constitutional rights including criminals. This is what you're not processing.
 
triple said:
There are 2,551 children in US custody eligible to be reunited that have not been, according to a recent court filing.
Click to expand...

dang it sounds like maybe their parents went into america to get some horchata ice cream and dora the explorer shaped pinatas and never returned to pick them up from daycare

that is def Trumps fault for sure he can't find them despite having their names on some useless paperwork some place

ankle monitors would have fixed all that LMAO
 
Dont forget your soy today boys :boogie:

Soros needs all the soy boys he can get #walkaway amd #redpill are pushing big volume

If i keep drinking mine i can get david hoggs jawline and help soros out by voting dems straight down the ballot

You go alex
 
Dh_Ms0iy_X0_AA42f.jpg


Alex says its a great time of day for a soy latte :)
 
-SS- said:
projection

:)
Click to expand...

If the US Constitution doesn't protect criminals, why are there amendments written explicitly protecting people accused of a crime?

V, VI, etc.

VI starts off, for example:

Constitutional Amendment VI – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. The prosecutor who brings a case against a criminal cannot file extension requests to just keep the criminal in prison for an extended time.

Now "the accused" has been accused of committing a crime. In the case of illegal entry, they've been accused of illegally entering the country. But the constitution says here, look, these people are protected and still have rights, regardless of the fact they're facing prosecution.
 
Captain Tele said:
good enough for triple and his real objectibe

getting 9 out of 10 into our country would be pretty PROGRESSIVE

next best thing to sanctuary cities and abolishing ICE

in regards to 2018 and 2020 even better
Click to expand...

LEMME CALCULUS SOME HARD MATH FACTS UP IN THIS SHIT

30k/30m = 0.1%

:cool:
 
SuperTrap said:
That is where the math gets fuzzy. I shoot a lot. I could argue that I am saving money, my wife could argue that I just like cool toys and I have spent more than if I had just bought ammo.

Both of us would be right but there is an entertainment factor also.. how much is that worth?
Click to expand...
I guess I'll see how much I get into it. If I learn the rifle, how to shoot properly and decide I need to hand load to make that next step then I'll do it. I'm a newb so no point in spending all that cash for something I won't even know how to properly test what I'm doing.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
triple said:
If the US Constitution doesn't protect criminals, why are there amendments written explicitly protecting people accused of a crime?

V, VI, etc.

VI starts off, for example:

Constitutional Amendment VI – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. The prosecutor who brings a case against a criminal cannot file extension requests to just keep the criminal in prison for an extended time.

Now "the accused" has been accused of committing a crime. In the case of illegal entry, they've been accused of illegally entering the country. But the constitution says here, look, these people are protected and still have rights, regardless of the fact they're facing prosecution.
Click to expand...

Hey triple if all criminals are protected by the Constitution and the Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, then how can we completely infringe the right to bear arms on a criminal with a felony?
 
calculus is p simple, really

if u add mexicans u subtract from america's greatness

if u multiply mexicans, u divide american society

:cool:
 
triple said:
If the US Constitution doesn't protect criminals, why are there amendments written explicitly protecting people accused of a crime?

V, VI, etc.

VI starts off, for example:

Constitutional Amendment VI – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. The prosecutor who brings a case against a criminal cannot file extension requests to just keep the criminal in prison for an extended time.

Now "the accused" has been accused of committing a crime. In the case of illegal entry, they've been accused of illegally entering the country. But the constitution says here, look, these people are protected and still have rights, regardless of the fact they're facing prosecution.
Click to expand...

I already addressed the shortcoming of this argument once

What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?

but just to add to that......

THE CONSTITUTION IN THE 100-MILE BORDER ZONE

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.

According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.

Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."
In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain additional authorities. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.

Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).

In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. No matter what CBP officers and Border Patrol agents think, our Constitution applies throughout the United States, including within this “100-mile border zone.”
Click to expand...

You also have this serious issue to worry about......

So our Constitution has limitations to our actual citizens within this region. I noticed this discrepancy when DIMMS were pushing the border control policy of NOBODY ENFORCING anything, or being able to even arrest anyone, within this 100 miles of border region.

I was like what gives.......now we know (well I do, you will not read this or honestly respond to any of it, because, well, you can't)

WHOOPS: CHECK THE FINE PRINT IN FEINSTEIN’S BORDER BILL

Senator Susan Collins has pointed out the bill 'would essentially prevent arrest within 100 miles of the border, even if the person has committed a serious crime or is suspected of terrorist activities.'
Click to expand...

Every Senate Democrat has now signed on to cosponsor a bill written so carelessly that it does not distinguish between migrant children at the border and U.S. citizen children already within the United States. The bill further does not distinguish between federal officers handling the border crisis and federal law enforcement pursuing the ordinary course of their duties.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

THE MS-13 FELONS AND PEOPLES PARTY DOING WHAT THEY DO BEST

Creating more lawlessness
 
Last edited:
KittyCat said:
Dont forget your soy today boys :boogie:

Soros needs all the soy boys he can get #walkaway amd #redpill are pushing big volume

If i keep drinking mine i can get david hoggs jawline and help soros out by voting dems straight down the ballot

You go alex
Click to expand...

I need more soy for sure today

Bill Kristol on Twitter:

Bill Kristol said:
The widespread playing of the national anthem before sports events began during World War II. The greatest generation, who fought so bravely in that war, grew up without benefit of this custom. Given that, and given how Trump has besmirched the practice, is it time to retire it?
Click to expand...

I mean American first? LOLOLOLO no America at all for Billy

McFeelz said:
Patriotism is the manifestation of nationalism. There's no such thing as a patriotic globalist.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top