₦airaland Forum

They are paying twice the rate to hotels to house illegals

armyofone:
Keeping fingers crossed that crooks will not do pass themselves as "dem" slow things down.

At least with daddy-pa1, no side businesses to make gain from or supporting policies for personal purse. It is well.

Now share some of doughs you make jo and stop ya dongo turenchi de dongo magana.
I can't buy prime beef, wild salmon and organic eggs with dongo magana.

Repeat after me

I-N-T-E-R-M-I-T-T-E-N-T

F-A-S-T-I-N-G

Make America Healthy Again

armyofone:
I hope nobody brings this great country to her knees, no matter what. At the end of each four years, they pack and go. America will continue to stand the test of time.
May America continues to soar above the storm.

God bless our Troops!
Nwa nnem, hang in there

Amen.

We can only hope with this bull in a china shop president

Democrats are not using stupid judges so they can say there is a constitutional crisis.

How can a judge deside what the federal government puts on their website, what they can remove and cannot remove?

raumdeuter:
Nobody can bring the country to its knees. If we survived with Biden who was not even healthy enough to be making decisions we can survive anything

Biden was not healthy enough to be making decisions yet every decision he made lifted us one rung higher out of the mess that your orange clown made during his COVID administration . It’s hasnt even been a month and he’s on track to be the absolute worst thing that’s ever happened in the history of America.
I’ll rather a president who’s not healthy enough to make decisions but makes sounds decisions anyway.

With this clown, all you get is a circus.
Look at you hoping we survive. A term that shouldn’t be used in the same sentence as a president.

cococandy:
Biden was not healthy enough to be making decisions yet every decision he made lifted us one rung higher out of the mess that your orange clown made during his COVID administration . It’s hasnt even been a month and he’s on track to be the absolute worst thing that’s ever happened in the history of America.
I’ll rather a president who’s not healthy enough to make decisions but makes sounds decisions anyway.

With this clown, all you get is a circus.
Look at you hoping we survive. A term that shouldn’t be used in the same sentence as a president.

How is he making sound decisions when he isn't even healthy? Those sound decisions were what voters saw an voted him and his Vice out. Those sound decisions made him lose all battleground states

We survived Biden, we will survive anything

IjeBos:
When you're buying eggs this week, just a reminder.

Except for Raum who has whatever his reasons may be for continuing to support Trump, none of these other Trump minions on here even have a personal experience with the inflation he’s causing right now.

cococandy:
Except for Raum who has whatever his reasons may be for continuing to support Trump, none of these other Trump minions on here even have a personal experience with the inflation he’s causing right now.

Right!
Forgot for a sec, but puts in perspective their arguments.

IjeBos:
Right!
Forgot for a sec, but puts in perspective their arguments.

They think this is secondary debate club but make it online 🥲

Just listening to the congress hearing on Musk

Do you guys know this man receives 8 million dollars a day for his contracts with the federal government? No waste there at all. How would we know though? As he’s the one investigating the sources of waste.

But It’s senior citizens $65 dollars a day that is “wasteful”.

cococandy:
Just listening to the congress hearing on Musk

Do you guys know this man receives 8 million dollars a day for his contracts with the federal government? No waste there at all. How would we know though. Agent he’s the one investigating the sources waste.

But It’s senior citizens $65 dollars a day that is “wasteful”.

Which senior citizen did Elon say was wasteful? The 150yr old collecting Social security?

If you play with fire you get burned:
BREAKING: U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi just dropped the hammer.

The DOJ has filed charges against NY, Gov. Kathy Hochul, AG Letitia James, and DMV Commissioner Mark Schroeder.

“New York chose illegal aliens over American citizens. It stops—it stops TODAY."

The Biden-era free pass is OFFICIALLY OVER.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOWFE1rqHNA

bemeruca:
If you play with fire you get burned:
BREAKING: U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi just dropped the hammer.

The DOJ has filed charges against NY, Gov. Kathy Hochul, AG Letitia James, and DMV Commissioner Mark Schroeder.

“New York chose illegal aliens over American citizens. It stops—it stops TODAY."

The Biden-era free pass is OFFICIALLY OVER.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOWFE1rqHNA

Well done, the press conference seemed to have served its purpose... Fool the Rubes.
This is a civil lawsuit not a criminal action.
There are no charges.

But she knows that. She also knows that idiot Trump supporters won't know the difference.
You should ask yourself why you support people who not only deliberately fool you but do so because they think you're stupid.
Well, she was right in this instance.

bemeruca:
Democrats are not using stupid judges so they can say there is a constitutional crisis.

How can a judge deside what the federal government puts on their website, what they can remove and cannot remove?

They know it's flimsy but they needed a narrative for "constitutional crisis" that bozos just repeat like coached parrots on here.

Android17:
They know it's flimsy but they needed a narrative for "constitutional crisis" that bozos just repeat like coached parrots on here.

Serious question, have you ever read the US Constitution?
Honestly, most of your posts sound like you really don't understand the US system of government.

IjeBos:
Serious question, have you ever read the US Constitution?
Honestly, most of your posts sound like you really don't understand the US system of government.

When you're ready, you'd go back to the questions I asked you. Until you respond to those, meaningfully, I won't be wasting my precious time on you.

If you were wondering, I've been an American since 199■. Make of that what you will.

Good primer on the Impoundment Control Act
Android17, you should read it.

FAQs on Impoundment: Presidential Actions Are Constrained by Long-Standing Constitutional Restrictions

The incoming Trump Administration is reportedly exploring whether it can impound — that is, not spend — funds that Congress has provided in legislation.[1] Supporters of this position argue that the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) restricts the President’s ability to impound funds, and they recommend that it be repealed.

This notion that the ICA is what restricts presidential authority to impound funds enacted by law is contrary to legal precedent — and to the Constitution. The Constitution gave Congress the power of the purse, and that power precludes the President from unilaterally deciding not to spend money that Congress has provided. Courts — including the Supreme Court — protected this congressional power and repeatedly rejected presidential attempts to spend less than Congress had provided, overturning President Nixon’s impoundments, all of which predated the ICA.
...
Was impoundment legal before the Impoundment Control Act? No. “The president doesn’t have any constitutional authority to withhold, doesn’t have any inherent authority to withhold,”[4] explained the general counsel of the GAO, the office given authority to enforce the ICA. Despite its name, the Impoundment Control Act did not make impoundment illegal; it already was.

Attempted impoundments were rare until President Nixon took office. Unlike his predecessors, he ordered funding withheld in many different programs, by large amounts, and claimed a right to do so. The intended recipients of the funding — often state or local governments — regularly sued for release of the withheld funds.

And they regularly won. The cases seldom made it past lower courts, which invariably concluded that the specific authorization and appropriations law in question had not provided any such authority to the President.[5] (Some courts did not rule on the merits, finding the cases before them non-justiciable, that is, not capable of being decided by a court.) In general, the Nixon Administration released the impounded funds after losing, but it appealed one case to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled 9-0 against President Nixon.[6]

In some of the lower court cases, all of which occurred before enactment of the ICA, the judges also made clear that the President does not have any inherent impoundment authority. For instance, one judge stated that it is “not within the discretion of the Executive to refuse to execute laws passed by Congress but with which the Executive presently disagrees.”[7] Similarly, another judge stated that “Money has been appropriated by the Congress to achieve the purposes of both programs [that Nixon had impounded] and the Executive has no residual power to refuse to spend those appropriations.”[8]

Also, the Supreme Court’s 1998 decision overturning the Line-Item Veto Act reinforced the conclusion that presidents have no inherent constitutional authority to impound funds. See Question 6, below.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/faqs-on-impoundment-presidential-actions-are-constrained-by-long-standing

basilico:
Trump secured the release of 6 Americans held in Venezuela a few days ago .
Yesterday he secured the release of Mark Fogel jailed 14 years since 2021 in Russia for possession of medical marijuana.

Everything Truml does makes Joe Biden look like an incompetent nincompoop. If not a traitor

Biden will die and go to hell, this year.

2025 won't escape him. I'm surprised he is still alive.

An evil and wicked man.

I already know your talking points from Abby Philip.

Which means, I know the counter narrative.

Stop watching CNN.

Android17:
If you were wondering, I've been an American since 199■. Make of that what you will.

This is what's called a non-sequitur.
You could have been a US citizen for 50 years and still not have read the constitution.
You're posts here are indicative you haven't.
You often seem confused on basic things, like the separation of power.[/quote]

Android17:
When you're ready, you'd go back to the questions I asked you. Until you respond to those, meaningfully, I won't be wasting my precious time on you.

Fyi, I see that same nonsense repetitive posts from Raumdeuter all the time.
The way you both respond when you get caught Gaslighting or pretending you know something is similar.
Repeat and Gaslight.
Rinse Repeat.

It's like the government [SCOTUS] preventing me [FG] from building a house with toothpicks, and I then decide to build it with bricks which is the Government [SCOTUS]preferred method.
And you say, woah he pushed through on building his house with bricks even though he was told he couldn't build it with toothpicks.
So, he disobeyed the government!!
And then you tell me that it will now be precedence that people will build their houses with bricks after being told they couldn't build them with toothpicks.
That is how asinine what you are trying to say is but you don't know enough to know it.

I'm sorry but for someone who kept poking me on the constitution, this is rather abject and reductive.

In your analogy, building with toothpicks was a MODIFICATION of an existing law (which required people to build only with bricks).

Biden claimed, emergencies gave him rights to waive or modify student loans plans. SCOTUS negated his argument by pointing out that the waiver or modification, had to be minor or modest, not a dramatic change to the existing plan or basically creating a new one.

If Biden went back to the drawing board, and re-implemented the subsisting student loans plan in a better, more efficient manner such that somehow he could forgive more loans, will he make this comment below?

Again, it says:

- SCOTUS tried to BLOCK him [from relieving student debt] instead of saying they told him to FOLLOW the law without changing it in the guise of modifying it.
- SCOTUS did not STOP him [which means he went on to do what he wanted to do].

I don't know how to respond to hypocrites who in one breath want to pretend words matter for Trump, but when I put Biden's words back at them, I start reading all sorts of brainless excuses.

If you say, it was fair for Biden to be told he couldn't make those modifications, but he went on to do it, you should better be ready to accept it, if Trump does same.

If it is good for a Goose. It should be good for Uganda🇺🇬 .

IjeBos:
This is what's called a non-sequitur.
You could have been a US citizen for 50 years and still not have read the constitution.

You're posts here are indicative you haven't.
You often seem confused on basic things, like the separation of power.


When you're ready, you'd go back to the questions I asked you. Until you respond to those, meaningfully, I won't be wasting my precious time on you.

Fyi, I see that same nonsense repetitive posts from Raumdeuter all the time.
The way you both respond when you get caught Gaslighting or pretending you know something is similar.
Repeat and Gaslight.
Rinse Repeat.

You like to claim so and so does not live in the US or has no business with US news, so I wanted to disclose that part upfront.

Android17:
When you're ready, you'd go back to the questions I asked you. Until you respond to those, meaningfully, I won't be wasting my precious time on you.

If you were wondering, I've been an American since 199■. Make of that what you will.

You need to be born there to understand America. Implies Ijebos.

basilico:
You need to be born there to understand America. Implies Ijebos.

Exactly. Now I'm reading non-sequitur bla bla. When I was seeing another spambot post hogwash about Biden's presidency, minions and what not.

I just dey laugh. I avoided this thread during Biden's presidency because I knew 2025 was loading. I straight up predicted it.

Android17:
I'm sorry but for someone who kept poking me on the constitution, this is rather abject and reductive.

In your analogy, building with toothpicks was a MODIFICATION of an existing law (which required people to build only with bricks).

Biden claimed, emergencies gave him rights to waive or modify student loans plans. SCOTUS negated his argument by pointing out that the waiver or modification, had to be minor or modest, not a dramatic change to the existing plan or basically creating a new one.

If Biden went back to the drawing board, and re-implemented the subsisting student loans plan in a better, more efficient manner such that somehow he could forgive more loans, will he make this comment below?

Again, it says:

- SCOTUS tried to BLOCK him [from relieving student debt] instead of saying they told him to FOLLOW the law without changing it in the guise of modifying it.
- SCOTUS did not STOP him [which means he went on to do what he wanted to do].

I don't know how to respond to hypocrites who in one breath want to pretend words matter for Trump, but when I put Biden's words back at them, I start reading all sorts of brainless excuses.

If you say, it was fair for Biden to be told he cannot make those modifications but he went on to do it. You should better be ready to accept it, if Trump does same.

If it is good for a Goose. It should be good for Uganda🇺🇬 .

Imma start calling you the sesquipedalian MAGA.

You're getting close but your question still belies a lack of understanding as to what the Supreme Court said.
They Supreme Court was arguing with Biden's mechanism for the Student Loan relief, not student loan relief.
He then chose another mechanism that didn't allow him to target as many people, but offered some relief to some people, that was legal.

And Biden decided he wanted to be seen "fighting" the Supreme Court. At that point they had lurched to the right with some of their decisions (Roe, etc), creating law instead of interpreting it. The posts were worded that way to show that he was fighting the Supreme Court. Do I agree with his choice to word it that way. Not sure. Does the wording mean he was disobeying the Supreme Court ruling, absolutely not. It was a well lawyered tweet.

But you seem to be solely focussed on a 160 character(think that's the size) tweet that reads as purposefully vague, that is discounted by everything else on the record, rather than taking the time to understand what really happened.
It seems a wholly intellectually dishonest way to argue anything. innit?

cococandy:
Just listening to the congress hearing on Musk

Do you guys know this man receives 8 million dollars a day for his contracts with the federal government? No waste there at all. How would we know though. Agent he’s the one investigating the sources waste.

But It’s senior citizens $65 dollars a day that is “wasteful”.

My birthday is on Sunday and I know that yours is the week after mine.
Incase I am not online in this platform. I just thought to wish my fellow February born a Happy birthday to you and I.

cococandy:
Yea JD Vance is an ex service member too. Who is embarrassingly a lawyer as well. Yet he was online few days ago insinuating that Trump should commit an arrest-able offense by ignoring judges.

Pete hegeseth the drunken fool was also once a service member. If we’re to judge the level of patriotism by history of military service, these buffoons you guys support would not be here trying to cut veterans benefits.

You are enemies of America. You know the things you want for this country will bring her to her knees. You know that for a fact and that’s actually why you support it. On the other hand, Trump, musk and Vance weakening American institutions and playing with the idea of leaving NATO. If that’s not number one enemy I don’t know what is.

As usual it’s a game to you online trolls

They want a constitutional crisis so that they can declare martial law. I am in my birthday mood now time for American negativity until afterwards. 🎉🎉🥳

This Sunday I am shutting down my location.
Cc. Folake4u, it's my birthday on Sunday. 🎊🎊

IjeBos:
Imma start calling you the sesquipedalian MAGA.

You're getting close but your question still belies a lack of understanding as to what the Supreme Court said.
They Supreme Court was arguing with Biden's mechanism for the Student Loan relief, not student loan relief.
He then chose another mechanism that didn't allow him to target as many people, but offered some relief to some people, that was legal.

And Biden decided he wanted to be seen "fighting" the Supreme Court. At that point they had lurched to the right with some of their decisions (Roe, etc), creating law instead of interpreting it. The posts were worded that way to show that he was fighting the Supreme Court. Do I agree with his choice to word it that way. Not sure. Does the wording mean he was disobeying the Supreme Court ruling, absolutely not. It was a well lawyered tweet.

But you seem to be solely focussed on a 160 character(think that's the size) tweet that reads as purposefully vague, that is discounted by everything else on the record, rather than taking the time to understand what really happened.
It seems a wholly intellectually dishonest way to argue anything. innit?

Post the SCOTUS' ruling here.

The emboldened is rich coming from you. Did I not see you pining over Trump's Canada comment? Don't change the rules of the game in-between.

AmazonTopaz:
They want a constitutional crisis so that they can declare martial law. I am in my birthday mood now time for American negativity until afterwards. 🎉🎉🥳

This Sunday I am shutting down my location.
Cc. Folake4u, it's my birthday on Sunday. 🎊🎊

Yes oh. Shut down any negative BS cos it's your modafuckin' birthday.

Happy Birthday in advance, baby girl Topaz.
It's amazing you're born in the Black History Month in America, and coincidentally you're a fighter and upholder of the true American values and whatnot.

May this be your best year yet.💜

Ps: Come do giveaway as you dey shut down.

Android17:
Post the SCOTUS' ruling here.

What kind of nonsense is this?
You can google the ruling.

Android17:
The emboldened is rich coming from you. Did I not see you pining over Trump's Canada comment? Don't change the rules of the game in-between.

Stop the gaslighting. It seems to be the depth of your arguments here.
You can say something is rich coming from me regarding this when I spend 5+ days arguing something based on some muddied language in a tweet that is inconsistent with any other language and the record.
So show me where I based any argument on a single tweet. Don't worry you won't be able to. I don't do the intellectual dishonesty dance you and Raumdeuter are fond of.
You have literally based your whole argument here on Biden's Loan Forgiveness on a vague tweet. Nothing else to back up anything you have said.
But Trump has made the same consistent comment about wanting Canada to be the 51st state repeatedly.
We don't need a tweet, you can play his own words on multiple occasions.
Or do you want to spend 5 more posts arguing against the definition of ANNEX so you can say making Canada the 51st state wouldn't be annexing it like Raumdeuter did?

This is the problem with getting your information from right wing Media. You're constantly lied to and have to consistently lie and gaslight to make your argument once and when inevitably that information is shown to you to be a lie.

AmazonTopaz:
My birthday is on Sunday and I know that yours is the week after mine.
Incase I am not online in this platform. I just thought to wish my fellow February born a Happy birthday to you and I.

Aww that’s so kind of you to remember. Happy birthday darling. I wish you all the best your heart desires. Is yours a big number? I’m a big old 3.5.

Seeing as 77 is the average life span, I’m almost officially middle aged. These teenagers and adolescents won’t get it.

Also can’t believe I’ve been on this forum for 13 years. God have mercy