[–] TheAmerican 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

Lets see some action, no more talk.

[–] SpeshulSnowflaek 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

He's A/B testing. He truly, honestly cannot do anything serious until and unless he has a history at least 6 months long of him threatening & warning. If he just leapt in and started hacking and slashing, lots of people (me included) would worry that maybe he really had become despotic, and the (((media)) would just inflame that to the max.

This way though, he can point back to a history of tweets and rallies and say "I warned and warned you, and yet you did nothing to fix the problem, so now I'm going to fix it for you".

[–] TheAmerican 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Hope you're correct.

[–] midnightblue1335 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

So, swift and decisive action is considered "despotic"? Bullshit.

6 fucking months of tip-toeing around and blowing hot air is 6 months of people being MURDERED and evidence being destroyed.

Inaction is not a virtue. Why should there be an arbitrary 6 months of threats required to take action? Sounds like something a jew would say. Bet they wished Hitler pussyfooted around for 6 months before doing his thing.

[–] Oh_Well_ian 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Hmmm... maybe the courts and most of the FBI are totally corrupt and rushing the PLAN to placate short sighted DOPES, is the perfect way to let thousands of criminals and traitors off the hook...

EVER THINK OF THAT?

[–] MadBro 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Nah. He needs them to do their thing so that he can campaign on it. I'm hoping he'll end it in November

[–] CuckleberryFinn 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

This is pre-election talk. He should be involved already.

[–] Oh_Well_ian 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

he is...

reading between the lines is not your strong suit

[–] Buzzzard 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Hey guyz I got some free ham sandwiches here. Help yourselves.

[–] 1Iron_Curtain 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Most people don't know what goes on in the F.B.I. The C.I.A. has a far worse reputation. I think everything gets it that the DOJ is very corrupt, especially under Eric Holder. Trump should say that people should be angry, because they should know how much the F.B.I. has the power to check the powers of the executive office and how it is using as the grounds to pick up the police state against them.

The F.B.I. and DOJ won't do their jobs. They are part of the bloated Washington bureaucracy and if their elites can't get their crap together why do you expect the page/clerk is going to get things straight.

[–] Cooking_with_Alf 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The only police in the constitution are the sheriffs and the US Marshals.

[–] thebearfromstartrack 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Hell hath no fury guy forgot about what ACTUALLY happens when white dudes get ABSOLUTELY pissed off with evil. HEAVEN'S fury.

[–] basedmangod2015 6 points 0 points (+6|-6) ago 

lol he wont. no balls.

[–] BlueDanube 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

YAAAAAAAS KWEEEN SLAYYYYY! You're a faggot, Trumps balls would crush your head, bitch.

[–] lazyusername 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I think he's giving them enough rope to hang themselves so when he steps in people will not listen to the MSM going "OMG THE NEXT STALIN IS HERE". With the new tweets about this stuff being more frequently I think it might happen sooner than later. Hope my hunch is right!

[–] basedmangod2015 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

okay let me know when he does something, anything about the FBI or DOJ "not doing their jobs", hes a gutless pussy 12 year screaming at people on xbox live

[–] Triple_Agent 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago 

Trump is a false prophet if all he does is ** talk ** of draining swamp or building wall. Republican landslide will give him carte blanche for years. Going to look into it, is he?

Does Treaty Law supersede the Constitution? While this notion that Treaty Law supersedes the constitution seems counter-intuitive to the layman, many legal scholars seem to agree that treaties are the supreme law of the land; and therefore, it follows that treaties supersede the constitution. Let’s take a closer look at the wording and intent of the authors of the “Supremacy Clause”. Does it logically follow that supremacy implies non-constraint?

[–] Norseman 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

many legal scholars seem to agree that treaties are the supreme law of the land

This is why you have to watch the UN bullshit very carefully. If we sign into something non-constitutional the Supreme Court could rule in favor and simply ignore that section of the constitution for as long as we are in the agreement.

[–] Triple_Agent 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That looks like the plan: sign treaty with UN banning guns/free speech or both. Take it to loaded Supreme Court for rubber stamp.

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)