DEMOCRATS BTFO BY TRUMP

Shills, what's your response?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Ok user I guess the racists on here want DACA now?

Lmao I don't want DACA but it's hilarious that Trump points out the hypocrisy coming from the Democrats.

What race is taxation? I'm against taxation and the initiation of force in general.

Why did we even allow nonwhites to immigrant into America. Ever since we did, and ended segregation, our society has really started to decay. Last week, I saw a girl joke about sucking dicks. She was only 12 years old. I was like “Woah, that’s pretty inappropriate, you shouldn’t say that”, and she just said no. That’s pretty shitty man, it’s cause rap music and these fucking niggers. They’re dragging us down with them, and they’re ruining our culture. We never should’ve considered them as equals. It’s a slight to whites and a compliment to niggers. Anyway, DACA sucks

>Dems had all three branches of government back in 2008-2011
Trump Lie #2465
Of course, none of you care.

Ok user I guess that means Trump shilling for DACA for brown people is ok for the Nazis on here!

I thought the democrats didn’t have the house/senate during Obama’s reign?

>DRUMPFTD LIE# -9018
>SEE LOOK HE'S UNFIT TO BE PRESDIDENT IMBEACH!
every hour a new bottle of fresh salty tears

>I thought the democrats didn’t have the house/senate during Obama’s reign?
From 2009-2011 they had the House, the Senate and the Presidency.

Does removing it count as fixing it? Because it fixes the problem.

>Lmao I don't want DACA but it's hilarious that Trump points out the hypocrisy coming from the Democrats.
What hypocrisy? Republicans filibustered it.

>I thought the democrats didn’t have the house/senate during Obama’s reign?

They didn't have the SCOTUS, a branch of government.

See

Basically the first lie (that Dems had all 3 branches) is to distract you from the 2nd lie (that Dems decided not to do anything).

Trump is brilliant

How could they not get it done in 2 years ? Are they just retarded?

His voters are too stupid to look that up anyway so it's basically true for them.

They needed 60 votes in the Senate because Republicans filibustered it. They only had 55 votes.

...

He's right, you know.

True he is lying.
He should have instead discussed the veto proof super majority Obama squandered.

If you count Sanders and Lieberman and until Ted Kennedy died, they actually had a supermajority in the Senate.

Please link the DACA bill republicans filibustered.
Thanks in advance!

>Republicans filibustered it.

Sauce?

>Supreme court upholds Obamacare, giving US government, for the first time in history, the authority to punish you for inaction.
>Dems didn't have the supreme court

Old school conservatives like Scalia are not the same as Bush-era "conservatives" like Chief justice Roberts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act
Legislative history 2010 and 2011

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act
>Legislative history 2010 and 2011

Hahaha libtards BTFO!
BASED Trump is MAGA!
Eat shit shills.

I see what you did there.

I want DACA

Deport
All
Coloreds
Ammediately

Retarded Dems still don't get it.
He makes statements that are true in effect, but nominally, which confuses the literal idiots on the left that divorce their ideas from reality by default (see:communism).

The fact that you continually fall for it, yet call him stupid, stands on its own.

>true in effect
aka Alternative Facts

alternative facts are still facts libshit

>They didn't have the SCOTUS, a branch of government.
Maybe technically correct, but irrelevant.

The Supreme Court isn't required to pass a law. They can invalidate a law if it is legally challenged, but there almost certainly would have been no grounds to overturn DACA if it had been passed through the normal legislative process vs. being implemented by an executive order.

B-B-BUT TAX RETURNS!!

>They needed 60 votes in the Senate because Republicans filibustered it. They only had 55 votes.
And what did they do to try to get Republicans to support their efforts?

>Repeating current hate term of the day
>I win the argument
Like I said, Platonic dipshits that are unable to relate your ideas to reality.

That's the charitable explanation. The other is that you're too much of a coward to actually consider what I said.

None of your politicans are fir to be president, all are needed to be purged, with the exeption of Pauls, probably

>Flag
Any of yours that are worthy?