Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
dumbass libturdz.
()
Date: August 19, 2015 09:52PM
Trump totally owns those libturdz. Fucking hilarious. He's all in. Can't wait for the debate against Biden.
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
Jbone
()
Date: August 20, 2015 12:31AM
Trump Is kicking ass,N taking names..
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
Who watches that shit?
()
Date: August 20, 2015 07:43AM
I saw Trump in and had to watch. I love how Trump went on CNN and owned those anti American assholes. It was fantastic. CNN is a fucking disaster. Who watches that shit?
Trump is the kind of person our Constitution intended to be president. Not these career politicians who have never done anything ever in their lives except lie and milk the system. If you don't like Trump, you hate America.
Trump is the kind of person our Constitution intended to be president. Not these career politicians who have never done anything ever in their lives except lie and milk the system. If you don't like Trump, you hate America.
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
dumbass redneck republicans
()
Date: August 20, 2015 07:55AM
Who watches that shit? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trump is the kind of person our Constitution
> intended to be president.
A natural born citizen over the age of 35 who has lived in the US for the past 14 years?
That applies to literally more than 100 million people, dumbass.
I love the way you teabagger rednecks completely misinterpret or don't understand the constitution.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trump is the kind of person our Constitution
> intended to be president.
A natural born citizen over the age of 35 who has lived in the US for the past 14 years?
That applies to literally more than 100 million people, dumbass.
I love the way you teabagger rednecks completely misinterpret or don't understand the constitution.
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
dumbass libturdz.
()
Date: August 20, 2015 08:11AM
dumbass redneck republicans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who watches that shit? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Trump is the kind of person our Constitution
> > intended to be president.
>
> A natural born citizen over the age of 35 who has
> lived in the US for the past 14 years?
>
> That applies to literally more than 100 million
> people, dumbass.
>
> I love the way you teabagger rednecks completely
> misinterpret or don't understand the constitution.
History and the founding Fathers called and said fuck you dumbass! Our government was not intended to have career politicians like we have today. It was intended that any working person could become an elected member of government, serve their time, then return to their job.
This has nothing to do with which political party you support. You are obviously a supporter of the communist party so you clearly can't get your head out of your ass!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who watches that shit? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Trump is the kind of person our Constitution
> > intended to be president.
>
> A natural born citizen over the age of 35 who has
> lived in the US for the past 14 years?
>
> That applies to literally more than 100 million
> people, dumbass.
>
> I love the way you teabagger rednecks completely
> misinterpret or don't understand the constitution.
History and the founding Fathers called and said fuck you dumbass! Our government was not intended to have career politicians like we have today. It was intended that any working person could become an elected member of government, serve their time, then return to their job.
This has nothing to do with which political party you support. You are obviously a supporter of the communist party so you clearly can't get your head out of your ass!
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
Literal interpretation
()
Date: August 20, 2015 08:19AM
dumbass libturdz. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our government was not intended to have career politicians like we have today.
It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution. They could've easily written term limits into it, but they didn't.
I'm not saying career politicians are a good thing, but saying that "the founding fathers and the constitution" didn't intend to have career politicians is just fucking dumb. Neither the letter nor spirit of the document implies that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our government was not intended to have career politicians like we have today.
It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution. They could've easily written term limits into it, but they didn't.
I'm not saying career politicians are a good thing, but saying that "the founding fathers and the constitution" didn't intend to have career politicians is just fucking dumb. Neither the letter nor spirit of the document implies that.
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
TcFFb
()
Date: August 20, 2015 08:45AM
Well I like what Trump is saying. He is saying everything that REAL AMERICANS want to hear and have happen. He is saying everything that LOST POLITICIANS don't want to say or hear.
BUT SERIOUSLY LETS LOOK AT REALITY PEOPLE............
If Trump does get elected do you think he'll really be able to do all the things that he is saying. NO. Here is why..........
1. If Congress doesn't work with him then nothing will get done and who is in Congress???? LIFE LONG LOST POLITICIANS!
2. Reverse the 14th Amendment. Do you know how difficult it is to reverse a Constitutional Amendment? You would have to create another Amendment. I don't think there has been an Amendment added to the Constitution in 40 years. They did it with prohibition but in order to do that it took a lot of the American public to force that change. Do you really think the American public will make such a stand on this? Also, look at all the legal ramifications that the bleeding hearts and liberals will do to keep this wrapped up in the legal system.
I'm for Trump but I also look at reality. It will take another revolution to affect change in this Country.
BUT SERIOUSLY LETS LOOK AT REALITY PEOPLE............
If Trump does get elected do you think he'll really be able to do all the things that he is saying. NO. Here is why..........
1. If Congress doesn't work with him then nothing will get done and who is in Congress???? LIFE LONG LOST POLITICIANS!
2. Reverse the 14th Amendment. Do you know how difficult it is to reverse a Constitutional Amendment? You would have to create another Amendment. I don't think there has been an Amendment added to the Constitution in 40 years. They did it with prohibition but in order to do that it took a lot of the American public to force that change. Do you really think the American public will make such a stand on this? Also, look at all the legal ramifications that the bleeding hearts and liberals will do to keep this wrapped up in the legal system.
I'm for Trump but I also look at reality. It will take another revolution to affect change in this Country.
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
amendment
()
Date: August 20, 2015 08:56AM
The last amendment was during the Clinton administration, the one that puts limits on Congress pay raises. It literally took almost 200 years for it to finally pass. Literally.
Trump acts like its an easy deal. LOL yeah right.
Trump is a salesman, that's all he is. Saying what people want to hear.
Trump acts like its an easy deal. LOL yeah right.
Trump is a salesman, that's all he is. Saying what people want to hear.
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
4VMEW
()
Date: August 20, 2015 09:03AM
He should be able to get the wall built at least.
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
nlm
()
Date: August 20, 2015 10:26AM
I love how he doesn't cater to that "nigger lives matter" bullshit and grovel like those white sissies O Malley and Sanders. What a fucking embarrassment!
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
Thomas Jefferson
()
Date: August 20, 2015 10:56AM
Literal interpretation Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dumbass libturdz. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Our government was not intended to have career
> politicians like we have today.
>
> It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution.
> They could've easily written term limits into it,
> but they didn't.
>
> I'm not saying career politicians are a good
> thing, but saying that "the founding fathers and
> the constitution" didn't intend to have career
> politicians is just fucking dumb. Neither the
> letter nor spirit of the document implies that.
"I proposed the representatives (and not the people) should choose the [State] Senate... To make them independent I had proposed that they should hold their places for nine years and then go out (one third every three years) and be incapable forever of being re-elected to that house. My idea was that if they might be re-elected, they would be casting their eye forward to the period of election (however distant) and be currying favor with the electors and consequently dependent on them. My reason for fixing them in office for a term of years rather than for life was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governor, which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget."
-------------------------------------------------------
> dumbass libturdz. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Our government was not intended to have career
> politicians like we have today.
>
> It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution.
> They could've easily written term limits into it,
> but they didn't.
>
> I'm not saying career politicians are a good
> thing, but saying that "the founding fathers and
> the constitution" didn't intend to have career
> politicians is just fucking dumb. Neither the
> letter nor spirit of the document implies that.
"I proposed the representatives (and not the people) should choose the [State] Senate... To make them independent I had proposed that they should hold their places for nine years and then go out (one third every three years) and be incapable forever of being re-elected to that house. My idea was that if they might be re-elected, they would be casting their eye forward to the period of election (however distant) and be currying favor with the electors and consequently dependent on them. My reason for fixing them in office for a term of years rather than for life was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governor, which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget."
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
best quality
()
Date: August 20, 2015 11:01AM
I'm not really a fan of Trump, but the fact that he pisses of Libturdz to no end is hilarious.
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
fact check 4 u
()
Date: August 20, 2015 11:16AM
Thomas Jefferson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Literal interpretation Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > dumbass libturdz. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Our government was not intended to have
> career
> > politicians like we have today.
> >
> > It doesn't say that anywhere in the
> constitution.
> > They could've easily written term limits into
> it,
> > but they didn't.
> >
> > I'm not saying career politicians are a good
> > thing, but saying that "the founding fathers
> and
> > the constitution" didn't intend to have career
> > politicians is just fucking dumb. Neither the
> > letter nor spirit of the document implies that.
>
>
> "I proposed the representatives (and not the
> people) should choose the [State] Senate... To
> make them independent I had proposed that they
> should hold their places for nine years and then
> go out (one third every three years) and be
> incapable forever of being re-elected to that
> house. My idea was that if they might be
> re-elected, they would be casting their eye
> forward to the period of election (however
> distant) and be currying favor with the electors
> and consequently dependent on them. My reason for
> fixing them in office for a term of years rather
> than for life was that they might have an idea
> that they were at a certain period to return into
> the mass of the people and become the governed
> instead of the governor, which might still keep
> alive that regard to the public good that
> otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their
> independence to forget."
The founding fathers disagreed with Jefferson so much that they didn't put those limits into the Constitution. It's obviously not what they wanted. That means the OP is wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Literal interpretation Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > dumbass libturdz. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Our government was not intended to have
> career
> > politicians like we have today.
> >
> > It doesn't say that anywhere in the
> constitution.
> > They could've easily written term limits into
> it,
> > but they didn't.
> >
> > I'm not saying career politicians are a good
> > thing, but saying that "the founding fathers
> and
> > the constitution" didn't intend to have career
> > politicians is just fucking dumb. Neither the
> > letter nor spirit of the document implies that.
>
>
> "I proposed the representatives (and not the
> people) should choose the [State] Senate... To
> make them independent I had proposed that they
> should hold their places for nine years and then
> go out (one third every three years) and be
> incapable forever of being re-elected to that
> house. My idea was that if they might be
> re-elected, they would be casting their eye
> forward to the period of election (however
> distant) and be currying favor with the electors
> and consequently dependent on them. My reason for
> fixing them in office for a term of years rather
> than for life was that they might have an idea
> that they were at a certain period to return into
> the mass of the people and become the governed
> instead of the governor, which might still keep
> alive that regard to the public good that
> otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their
> independence to forget."
The founding fathers disagreed with Jefferson so much that they didn't put those limits into the Constitution. It's obviously not what they wanted. That means the OP is wrong.
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
libtardbot3000
()
Date: August 20, 2015 11:24AM
amendment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The last amendment was during the Clinton
> administration, the one that puts limits on
> Congress pay raises. It literally took almost 200
> years for it to finally pass. Literally.
>
> Trump acts like its an easy deal. LOL yeah
> right.
>
> Trump is a salesman, that's all he is. Saying
> what people want to hear.
YEAH kind of like obama...right?
-------------------------------------------------------
> The last amendment was during the Clinton
> administration, the one that puts limits on
> Congress pay raises. It literally took almost 200
> years for it to finally pass. Literally.
>
> Trump acts like its an easy deal. LOL yeah
> right.
>
> Trump is a salesman, that's all he is. Saying
> what people want to hear.
YEAH kind of like obama...right?
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
That means you can't read
()
Date: August 20, 2015 11:57AM
fact check 4 u Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas Jefferson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Literal interpretation Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > dumbass libturdz. Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Our government was not intended to have
> > career
> > > politicians like we have today.
> > >
> > > It doesn't say that anywhere in the
> > constitution.
> > > They could've easily written term limits into
> > it,
> > > but they didn't.
> > >
> > > I'm not saying career politicians are a good
> > > thing, but saying that "the founding fathers
> > and
> > > the constitution" didn't intend to have
> career
> > > politicians is just fucking dumb. Neither
> the
> > > letter nor spirit of the document implies
> that.
> >
> >
> > "I proposed the representatives (and not the
> > people) should choose the [State] Senate... To
> > make them independent I had proposed that they
> > should hold their places for nine years and
> then
> > go out (one third every three years) and be
> > incapable forever of being re-elected to that
> > house. My idea was that if they might be
> > re-elected, they would be casting their eye
> > forward to the period of election (however
> > distant) and be currying favor with the
> electors
> > and consequently dependent on them. My reason
> for
> > fixing them in office for a term of years
> rather
> > than for life was that they might have an idea
> > that they were at a certain period to return
> into
> > the mass of the people and become the governed
> > instead of the governor, which might still keep
> > alive that regard to the public good that
> > otherwise they might perhaps be induced by
> their
> > independence to forget."
>
> The founding fathers disagreed with Jefferson so
> much that they didn't put those limits into the
> Constitution. It's obviously not what they
> wanted. That means the OP is wrong.
The OP didn't say anything about term limits. The first poster who did mention anything along those lines got it right. They did not intend to have a permanent elite political class. The subject has been beat to death over the years, most recently in a serious way in the mid-90s. The end result being the Supreme Court decision in U.S. Term Limits v Thornton which was decided on the basis of Federal preemption primarily vs intent and was a 5-4 decision. So not nearly as clear as you try to make it out to be.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas Jefferson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Literal interpretation Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > dumbass libturdz. Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Our government was not intended to have
> > career
> > > politicians like we have today.
> > >
> > > It doesn't say that anywhere in the
> > constitution.
> > > They could've easily written term limits into
> > it,
> > > but they didn't.
> > >
> > > I'm not saying career politicians are a good
> > > thing, but saying that "the founding fathers
> > and
> > > the constitution" didn't intend to have
> career
> > > politicians is just fucking dumb. Neither
> the
> > > letter nor spirit of the document implies
> that.
> >
> >
> > "I proposed the representatives (and not the
> > people) should choose the [State] Senate... To
> > make them independent I had proposed that they
> > should hold their places for nine years and
> then
> > go out (one third every three years) and be
> > incapable forever of being re-elected to that
> > house. My idea was that if they might be
> > re-elected, they would be casting their eye
> > forward to the period of election (however
> > distant) and be currying favor with the
> electors
> > and consequently dependent on them. My reason
> for
> > fixing them in office for a term of years
> rather
> > than for life was that they might have an idea
> > that they were at a certain period to return
> into
> > the mass of the people and become the governed
> > instead of the governor, which might still keep
> > alive that regard to the public good that
> > otherwise they might perhaps be induced by
> their
> > independence to forget."
>
> The founding fathers disagreed with Jefferson so
> much that they didn't put those limits into the
> Constitution. It's obviously not what they
> wanted. That means the OP is wrong.
The OP didn't say anything about term limits. The first poster who did mention anything along those lines got it right. They did not intend to have a permanent elite political class. The subject has been beat to death over the years, most recently in a serious way in the mid-90s. The end result being the Supreme Court decision in U.S. Term Limits v Thornton which was decided on the basis of Federal preemption primarily vs intent and was a 5-4 decision. So not nearly as clear as you try to make it out to be.
Re: CNN Trump interview
Posted by:
pomegranate
()
Date: August 20, 2015 12:03PM
> They did not intend to have a permanent elite political class.
Citizens United pretty much ensures that.
Citizens United pretty much ensures that.