Birth Citizenship, and Trump smokes crack

[jimnyc]

Look, first off, I hate this amendment and I don't think people should get citizenship for simply being born here. And then 3,492 of their relatives end up here along with them.

But Trump seems to think he's going to deport them, and that the 14th doesn't say what it says. I think he's off the wall on this one. I think it's a good issue to discuss, but not by going to such lengths. Then again, some may like him just for his stance on this one, however wrong it may be.

----

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly repeatedly challenged a key portion of Donald Trump's immigration agenda during an interview Tuesday night.

The real-estate magnate and Republican presidential candidate recently unveiled his multipart plan to clamp down on illegal immigration.

Among other things, Trump called for ending birthright citizenship, or the right of anyone born in the US to American citizenship.

As O'Reilly pointed out, however, the Constitution's 14th Amendment enshrines birthright citizenship into US law.

"That's not going to happen because the 14th Amendment says if you're born here, you're an American," O'Reilly said. "And you can't kick Americans out. The courts would block you at every turn. You must know all that."

Trump insisted that the Constitution did not grant citizenship to "anchor babies," a pejorative term used to describe the children of people who enter the country illegally with the purpose of having a son or daughter who would then be granted US citizenship.

"Bill, I think you're wrong about the 14th Amendment," Trump said. "And frankly, the whole thing with 'anchor babies' and the concept of 'anchor babies' — I don't think you're right about that."

O'Reilly was incredulous.

"I can quote it!" O'Reilly exclaimed. "You want me to quote you the amendment? If you're born here, you're an American — period! Period!"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-oreilly-confronts-donald-trump-130408796.html

[Gunny]

Look, first off, I hate this amendment and I don't think people should get citizenship for simply being born here. And then 3,492 of their relatives end up here along with them.

But Trump seems to think he's going to deport them, and that the 14th doesn't say what it says. I think he's off the wall on this one. I think it's a good issue to discuss, but not by going to such lengths. Then again, some may like him just for his stance on this one, however wrong it may be.

----

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly repeatedly challenged a key portion of Donald Trump's immigration agenda during an interview Tuesday night.

The real-estate magnate and Republican presidential candidate recently unveiled his multipart plan to clamp down on illegal immigration.

Among other things, Trump called for ending birthright citizenship, or the right of anyone born in the US to American citizenship.

As O'Reilly pointed out, however, the Constitution's 14th Amendment enshrines birthright citizenship into US law.

"That's not going to happen because the 14th Amendment says if you're born here, you're an American," O'Reilly said. "And you can't kick Americans out. The courts would block you at every turn. You must know all that."

Trump insisted that the Constitution did not grant citizenship to "anchor babies," a pejorative term used to describe the children of people who enter the country illegally with the purpose of having a son or daughter who would then be granted US citizenship.

"Bill, I think you're wrong about the 14th Amendment," Trump said. "And frankly, the whole thing with 'anchor babies' and the concept of 'anchor babies' — I don't think you're right about that."

O'Reilly was incredulous.

"I can quote it!" O'Reilly exclaimed. "You want me to quote you the amendment? If you're born here, you're an American — period! Period!"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-oreilly-confronts-donald-trump-130408796.html

You sure took your time saying anchor baby crap is bulls*t.:laugh:

[jimnyc]

You sure took your time saying anchor baby crap is bulls*t.:laugh:

It pisses me off because there is little to be done about it, regardless of Trump's fake plan of action. And I'm now told that the term "anchor baby" is offensive too? WTF? Would it be better if I referred to them as little freeloaders that suck off of our society? They drop their steel lines and hold on tight, don't let go of the freebies you can get from the USA!!

[Gunny]

It pisses me off because there is little to be done about it, regardless of Trump's fake plan of action. And I'm now told that the term "anchor baby" is offensive too? WTF? Would it be better if I referred to them as little freeloaders that suck off of our society? They drop their steel lines and hold on tight, don't let go of the freebies you can get from the USA!!

The 14th Amendment is not all-encompassing, as none of them are. They were designed for interpretation by people with a lick of common sense. Not a bunch of lefty lawyers looking for loopholes.

Seems to me the left spends an inordinate amount of time subverting the Constitution rather than supporting it. My opinion is we should keep the Constitution and ditch the left. But they couldn't survive where their ideology exists -- the Middle East. Those wimps would be whining the first time the sun comes on a summer day.

[fj1200]

Look, first off, I hate this amendment and I don't think people should get citizenship for simply being born here. And then 3,492 of their relatives end up here along with them.

But Trump seems to think he's going to deport them, and that the 14th doesn't say what it says. I think he's off the wall on this one. I think it's a good issue to discuss, but not by going to such lengths. Then again, some may like him just for his stance on this one, however wrong it may be.

----

O'Reilly was incredulous.

"I can quote it!" O'Reilly exclaimed. "You want me to quote you the amendment? If you're born here, you're an American — period! Period!"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-oreilly-confronts-donald-trump-130408796.html

It's a pretty well settled decision so not sure where he's getting his info. It may not be the amendments original intent but it is what it is and would take an amendment to change it.

[Gunny]

It's a pretty well settled decision so not sure where he's getting his info. It may not be the amendments original intent but it is what it is and would take an amendment to change it.

I disagree. Not to mention I love it when you're wrong.:laugh:

All it would take is a Supreme Court ruling that makes sense. One of the worst things we inherited from the Brits is case law.

(still like it when you're wrong) :)

[fj1200]

I disagree. Not to mention I love it when you're wrong.:laugh:

All it would take is a Supreme Court ruling that makes sense. One of the worst things we inherited from the Brits is case law.

(still like it when you're wrong) :)

:martian: I'm not wrong, SCOTUS won't go against precedent IMO. FWIW I don't think citizenship starts until 18... but I could be wrong about that.

Besides, you admitted I was right by claiming SCOTUS would have to "make sense." :poke:

[Gunny]

:martian: I'm not wrong, SCOTUS won't go against precedent IMO. FWIW I don't think citizenship starts until 18... but I could be wrong about that.

Besides, you admitted I was right by claiming SCOTUS would have to "make sense." :poke:

Note I didn't say what they would do. Hell, getting them off vacation is an act of God. I merely stated what it would take, not anything happening in reality.

You DO bring up a good point though. We can't vote or drive until we're 18. We can't buy guns, booze or smokes until we're 21. Yet if you are a criminal, illegal alien it's all free. Just more of the leftwing dumbass attitude of making us suffer while trying to wrangle a voting bloc. SO when did being a US citizen make us second class citizens in our own damned country?

[revelarts]

Trump's getting his information on the Amendment from his "gut" and he'll probably have his lawyers coincidentally come up with the same conclusion. His reading of the 14th is correct!! who knew?!

And as President. "the decider" and the head of ICE he can issue an order and then just let those deported aliens take him to court and let the SCOTUS 5to 4 split on some nuance of the order.

But Some conservatives will cheer the action. Billy Joe Conservative will say "we'll his lawyers says it IS constitutional. Just being born in the U.S. doesn't mean your REALLY a real american. every regular ah-merikin knows that. the lawyers say so and i think it's about time that's been cleared up. There are to many illegals anyway so i agree with the President. God bless america."

This is what Bush and Obama have done when it comes to constitutional questions. Trump will use whatever authority he can claim ... IF he's serious about what he says and isn't just being a SALESMAN to get the job.

[Perianne]

The liberals wrote the 14th Amendment for the negroes. If you notice, any law directly written for one group always winds up screwing regular people.

[Gunny]

The liberals wrote the 14th Amendment for the negroes. If you notice, any law directly written for one group always winds up screwing regular people.

I just re-read it. The most abused Amendment by leftwingers since 1776.

We need an Amendment to abolish that stupid amendment. All it really does is guarantee the tyranny of the minority.

[revelarts]

If he can read the 14th like that ,
why can't others candidates read 2nd in similar way?

Bush and Obama have already read the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th in the same fashion.

[revelarts]

The liberals wrote the 14th Amendment for the negroes. If you notice, any law directly written for one group always winds up screwing regular people.

I just re-read it. The most abused Amendment by leftwingers since 1776.
We need an Amendment to abolish that stupid amendment. All it really does is guarantee the tyranny of the minority.

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

So is this the portion you "regular people" don't want to apply to the "negros"/"minorities" and abolished?

[Gunny]

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

So is this the portion you "regular people" don't want to apply to the "negros"/"minorities" and abolished?

Citizens of the US is not the intent of being an illegal and running across the border to drop a baby. Due process of law is your ass is a criminal, you crossed our border illegally, and we're shipping your ass home. With your kid.

[revelarts]

Citizens of the US is not the intent of being an illegal and running across the border to drop a baby. Due process of law is your ass is a criminal, you crossed our border illegally, and we're shipping your ass home. With your kid.

so what part needs to be "abolished" and applies to minorities specifically in away that's a problem for you?

And is this part ok to leave in?
"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

[fj1200]

The liberals wrote the 14th Amendment for the negroes. If you notice, any law directly written for one group always winds up screwing white people.

Why don't you just post what you want to post?

[Gunny]

so what part needs to abolished and applies to minorities specifically in away that's a problem for you?

is this part ok to leave in?
"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

I got a REAL good idea. How about we quit allowing misdirection plays as excuses to label us? Illegal is illegal. Look it up. I don't give a damn what color you are, what gender you are, nor anything else you might want to be but get off MY Bill of Rights. Get your gay ass out of my church and in my family we have a f-ing mom and dad. Take your co-spouses about 60 miles off FL and drop them.

You're not redirecting English on me. I'm as literal as it gets and all this PC crap? Shove it. Try reading things for what they are. If you're a dumbass black dude criminal shot by a cop ... HERE's a clue: don't be a criminal. That ought to solve the whole damned problem. I grew up poor in a military family where we counted every egg and can of tuna. I got out and got myself a job. I didn't sell drugs to schoolkids and I didn't rob 7-11s.

But I'm white. I didn't expect any breaks because of skin color and got none to this day. If I cop shoots ME, I get page A-9 halfway down. Shoot some black asshat criminal it's on Page 1, CNN, Fox, NBC and the other blacks get to burn the damned city down.

So just how long do you think we should give a fuck about the Rights of idiots that don't even earn them? And I'm sorry if that's beyond your comprehension level. We're all out here trying to stretch our dollars, raise kids, pay for incidentals and these people whine about 3 hots and a cot? They're taken care of while your 14th Amendment robs the rest of us blind and gives handouts to undeserving idiots until they end up in jail and suddenly that's racism.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

To hell with the 14th if it helps destroy this nation.
Anchor babies were never a consideration when the 14th was written.
Illegal immigration is a damn cancer that if we do not destroy it--it will destroy us!
To hell with the ffing 14th!!!! Thats how a real American feels about damn anchor babies, to hell with them too.
This is our nation not the fing illegal's--deport them and their kids too.
I say we stop being damn fools and realize that we lose our own by welcoming and protecting criminals(illegals) and their damn spawn.
My family , my kids first.... --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I got a REAL good idea. How about we quit allowing misdirection plays as excuses to label us? Illegal is illegal. Look it up. I don't give a damn what color you are, what gender you are, nor anything else you might want to be but get off MY Bill of Rights. Get your gay ass out of my church and in my family we have a f-ing mom and dad. Take your co-spouses about 60 miles off FL and drop them.

You're not redirecting English on me. I'm as literal as it gets and all this PC crap? Shove it. Try reading things for what they are. If you're a dumbass black dude criminal shot by a cop ... HERE's a clue: don't be a criminal. That ought to solve the whole damned problem. I grew up poor in a military family where we counted every egg and can of tuna. I got out and got myself a job. I didn't sell drugs to schoolkids and I didn't rob 7-11s.

But I'm white. I didn't expect any breaks because of skin color and got none to this day. If I cop shoots ME, I get page A-9 halfway down. Shoot some black asshat criminal it's on Page 1, CNN, Fox, NBC and the other blacks get to burn the damned city down.

So just how long do you think we should give a fuck about the Rights of idiots that don't even earn them? And I'm sorry if that's beyond your comprehension level. We're all out here trying to stretch our dollars, raise kids, pay for incidentals and these people whine about 3 hots and a cot? They're taken care of while your 14th Amendment robs the rest of us blind and gives handouts to undeserving idiots until they end up in jail and suddenly that's racism.

:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::b eer::beer::beer::salute::salute::salute::salute:-Tyr

[Perianne]

The liberals wrote the 14th Amendment for the negroes. If you notice, any law directly written for one group always winds up screwing regular people.

Originally Posted by Perianne http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=757571#post757571) (This is a changed quote by jf1200) The liberals wrote the 14th Amendment for the negroes. If you notice, any law directly written for one group always winds up screwing white people.



Why don't you just post what you want to post?

I did post what I wanted to post. Since when do I pull back on posting what I want to post? Until Jim or the mods tell me to stop, I won't.

It is of poor taste and character to change someone's original post, sir. Shame on you. You really should stop doing such.

[fj1200]

^Pot... Kettle...

[Perianne]

^Pot... Kettle...

I have never changed anyone's posts.

[revelarts]

I got a REAL good idea. How about we quit allowing misdirection plays as excuses to label us? Illegal is illegal. Look it up. I don't give a damn what color you are, what gender you are, nor anything else you might want to be but get off MY Bill of Rights. Get your gay ass out of my church and in my family we have a f-ing mom and dad. Take your co-spouses about 60 miles off FL and drop them.

You're not redirecting English on me. I'm as literal as it gets and all this PC crap? Shove it. Try reading things for what they are. If you're a dumbass black dude criminal shot by a cop ... HERE's a clue: don't be a criminal. That ought to solve the whole damned problem. I grew up poor in a military family where we counted every egg and can of tuna. I got out and got myself a job. I didn't sell drugs to schoolkids and I didn't rob 7-11s.

But I'm white. I didn't expect any breaks because of skin color and got none to this day. If I cop shoots ME, I get page A-9 halfway down. Shoot some black asshat criminal it's on Page 1, CNN, Fox, NBC and the other blacks get to burn the damned city down.

So just how long do you think we should give a fuck about the Rights of idiots that don't even earn them? And I'm sorry if that's beyond your comprehension level. We're all out here trying to stretch our dollars, raise kids, pay for incidentals and these people whine about 3 hots and a cot? They're taken care of while your 14th Amendment robs the rest of us blind and gives handouts to undeserving idiots until they end up in jail and suddenly that's racism.

No misdirection Gunny, just asking you to explain yourself. didn't want to assume.

Simple question ON topic. you didn't answer directly so i'll have to guess.
the answer is yes.

[revelarts]

To hell with the 14th if it helps destroy this nation.
Anchor babies were never a consideration when the 14th was written.
.....
My family , my kids first.... --Tyr




To hell with the 2nd if it helps destroy this nation....

see that's the problem with to many on the left and right. They really don't care about the law, or rights, or the constitution.

"My family , my kids first...."
is the bottom line if that means pissing on other people's rights to guns, or free speech or church, or free food or free health care, or killing people overseas, of killing people in the U.S.. whatever

"My family , my kids first..."

mob rule, not the rule of law is what far to many political partisans really want.

and the bottom line reason why guys like Trump, Hillary, Putin and other despots of history get a following.

[Perianne]

To hell with the 2nd if it helps destroy this nation....

see that's the problem with to many on the left and right. They really don't care about the law, or rights, or the constitution.

"My family , my kids first...."
is the bottom line if that means pissing on other people's rights to guns, or free speech or church, or free food or free health care, or killing people overseas, of killing people in the U.S.. whatever

"My family , my kids first..."

mob rule, not the rule of law is what far to many political partisans really want.

and the bottom line reason why guys like Trump, Hillary, Putin and other despots of history get a following.

I disagree with you, sir. I am trying to do what is right for the nation. That includes my family.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

To hell with the 2nd if it helps destroy this nation....

see that's the problem with to many on the left and right. They really don't care about the law, or rights, or the constitution.

"My family , my kids first...."
is the bottom line if that means pissing on other people's rights to guns, or free speech or church, or free food or free health care, or killing people overseas, of killing people in the U.S.. whatever

"My family , my kids first..."

mob rule, not the rule of law is what far to many political partisans really want.

and the bottom line reason why guys like Trump, Hillary, Putin and other despots of history get a following.
Don't try that crap on me Rev. Comparing the 14th with 2nd is stupidity. I will not play that comparing apples and oranges my friend. Also be it noted--non-citizens do not automatically get all our rights and even more so when they are illegals and criminals..
That they get treated better than real citizens is political and the usual dem ideology and truly says ffkk the Constitution.
You know this is all about importing dem voters, so don't try that crap on me..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I disagree with you, sir. I am trying to do what is right for the nation. That includes my family.

Which was exactly my point. Our families depend on this nation not falling and not becoming a third world hellhole! The ffing dems dont give a damn about any of that---just getting and keeping power is their only concern the stinking bastards.-Tyr

[Black Diamond]

To hell with the 2nd if it helps destroy this nation....

see that's the problem with to many on the left and right. They really don't care about the law, or rights, or the constitution.

"My family , my kids first...."
is the bottom line if that means pissing on other people's rights to guns, or free speech or church, or free food or free health care, or killing people overseas, of killing people in the U.S.. whatever

"My family , my kids first..."

mob rule, not the rule of law is what far to many political partisans really want.

and the bottom line reason why guys like Trump, Hillary, Putin and other despots of history get a following.

Second amendment isn't destroying the nation. Obama and the liberals are and probably already have.

[revelarts]

Don't try that crap on me Rev. Comparing the 14th with 2nd is stupidity. I will not play that comparing apples and oranges my friend. Also be it noted--non-citizens do not automatically get all our rights and even more so when they are illegals and criminals..
That they get treated better than real citizens is political and the usual dem ideology and truly says ffkk the Constitution.
You know this is all about importing dem voters, so don't try that crap on me..-Tyr

TYR that's BS, it's an amendment.

if someone wants to ignore one they can ignore ANY or all.
this is whats been happening for 2 adminstrations!

look just because you happen to like the 2nd over 14th is no good.
Other people just as sincere (but wrong) think that the 2nd amendment is evil and should be abolished.

You can't just decide that your' gonna get a president to get your way because YOU KNOW best. and u believe that "the left is out to destroy the nation."

If Trump or Obama decide to rewrite any amendment to fit their personal taste or to "SAVE THE COUNTRY" from the left or the right. they've just become kings, and any other president that comes after will have the right to do the same.

you know this.

the left tries to cheat here. But the right claims it believes in "the rule of law" and started a tea party to "get back to the constitution". news flash folks, the 14th is part of the constitution. Not your personal vision of "what's good for the country". the "my family 1st" idea is NOT the constitution.

the way we deal with issues we don't like is as important as dealing with it.
If you want a gang. F-- the constitution. kick the immigrants out, shoot them on sight..
if you want the law to work for EVERYONE then it's got to be BY the Constitutional methods. new laws, votes, repeals, law enforcement etc

hopeful with some thought and not knee jerk cries of BillyJoe Conservative " the Illegals are killing us! WAAAA! get them.... get them!aaah"


If we do encourage a president to change things willy nilly that we don't like, then what's good for the goose applies.

[red state]

Second amendment isn't destroying the nation. Obama and the liberals are and probably already have.

That was almost what I was going to say (except I was going to say that the 2nd Amendment may the ONLY thing that will ultimately save this falling Nation from the liberal pukes).

Oh, and REV, you are dead wrong if you are standing behind a misused/abused amendment......as Tyr said.....you're using stupid apples & orange comparisons here (or shall I say ex-slaves brought here against their will during the days of slavery VS illegal border invaders of today.

I (WE) understand how important it is to mess with with the Constitution or Amendments BUT, in this case, we need to do something before the boat is so full it starts to sink. How about we introduce slave labor for those coming here illegally and put China out of business. We can use the Christian immigrants that B.O. refuses to let in and have them over the muSLUM scum coming here to help the liberal pukes destroy this Nation?!!

[red state]

TYR that's BS, it's an amendment.

Rev, please explain why you are so passionate about the 14th Amendment.....and then tell me that it is a law that is now ONLY abusive and serves no other purpose. I believe it may have a purpose in other battles we have against the left on another issue BUT we've yet to use that wild card. SO, AGAIN, tell me why you wouldn't like to see it LAWFULLY abolished? This should be good (if you can keep it to only three short paragraphs).

[Perianne]

Maybe a little off subject...

Why do we now prefer people who are total losers in their own countries? If we are going to have immigration, why not import Finnish, Swedish... people who come from first class countries and likely have something to contribute to this society. What we are importing now is crime, disease, murder, poverty, ignorance, gangs, and the like. And rapists. Our immigrants seem to really like rape.

[red state]

Maybe a little off subject...

Why do we now prefer people who are total losers in their own countries? If we are going to have immigration, why not import Finnish, Swedish... people who come from first class countries and likely have something to contribute to this society. What we are importing now is crime, disease, murder, poverty, ignorance, gangs, and the like. And rapists. Our immigrants seem to really like rape.

Short answer......the GOOD for America immagrants would not be DIMoCrap votes. Gunny'll like that answer. HA!!!!

[revelarts]

Rev, please explain why you are so passionate about the 14th Amendment.....and then tell me that it is a law that is now ONLY abusive and serves no other purpose. I believe it may have a purpose in other battles we have against the left on another issue BUT we've yet to use that wild card. SO, AGAIN, tell me why you wouldn't like to see it LAWFULLY abolished? This should be good (if you can keep it to only three short paragraphs).

no one here has said ONCE that the amendment should be removed lawfully, but me. My point is Trump said he thinks it means something that it clearly doesn't.
and several people here seemed to generally support the view that He should do what he pleases. BB Con says "to save the country before its TO LATE!!!!":rolleyes:

I don't care if it's Obama or Bush or Trump ---or you people here who know whats best for the country--- that thinks a president should reinterpret any part of the constitution to fit their agenda. they are WRONG.
the 14th the 2nd, 4th 19th 10th all of it. why is that hard to understand? Why such a narrow view and a BS apples oranges dodges. They are all Amendments right? yes or no? The only thing that makes one an "orange" to you folks is you don't LIKE it.

and i've yet to get an answer as to WHAT EXACTLY is wrong with the 14th.
what EXACTLY are the parts that bother you? How would you change them to "FIX" the illegal immigration before we all DIE?!!

[revelarts]

Maybe a little off subject...

Why do we now prefer people who are total losers in their own countries? If we are going to have immigration, why not import Finnish, Swedish... people who come from first class countries and likely have something to contribute to this society. What we are importing now is crime, disease, murder, poverty, ignorance, gangs, and the like. And rapists. Our immigrants seem to really like rape.


most of the immigrants from Europe were "the losers". (unless loser is a euphemism for minorities ) Poor irish, Italians, sidelined quakers, desperate settlers, etc.. the real "1st class" people stayed in Europe. Frankly i think you'd like it better there. though you'd may be considered riff raft by the upper class.



the poem inside the Stute of liberty
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[sundaydriver]

Maybe a little off subject...

Why do we now prefer people who are total losers in their own countries? If we are going to have immigration, why not import Finnish, Swedish... people who come from first class countries and likely have something to contribute to this society. What we are importing now is crime, disease, murder, poverty, ignorance, gangs, and the like. And rapists. Our immigrants seem to really like rape.

Yes, let's limit immigration to only Caucasian people to protect you and your family from your own fears. :poke:
The large majority of illegal aliens that I've known are refugees either due to violence in their own countries or for a better life by escaping economic poverty due to where they lived. I never found them to be the worst of the worst or criminals but people who just wanted to be safe and have a chance at life. I've seen a lot of these people do remarkable things and work harder and longer than any American to have a better life so Perianne, don't just judge everyone by what you read or see a small amount of them do.

As for anchor babies, I'm against that. Just coming here to have a baby for the benefits or to assure your child entry into the US at a later date is not what the 14th Amendment was intended for in my opinion. Children born here of illegals that have lived here all of their lives though is a vexing problem.

[red state]

no one here has said ONCE that the amendment should be removed lawfully, but me. My point is Trump said he thinks it means something that it clearly doesn't.
and several people here seemed to generally support the view that He should do what he pleases. BB Con says "to save the country before its TO LATE!!!!":rolleyes:

I don't care if it's Obama or Bush or Trump ---or you people here who know whats best for the country--- that thinks a president should reinterpret any part of the constitution to fit their agenda. they are WRONG.
the 14th the 2nd, 4th 19th 10th all of it. why is that hard to understand? Why such a narrow view and a BS apples oranges dodges. They are all Amendments right? yes or no? The only thing that makes one an "orange" to you folks is you don't LIKE it.

and i've yet to get an answer as to WHAT EXACTLY is wrong with the 14th.
what EXACTLY are the parts that bother you? How would you change them to "FIX" the illegal immigration before we all DIE?!!

You didn't answer the question.......and I must have missed the post that said to do away with that abused and unnessary amendment that was only put in place to deal with ex-slaves. I and a few others have, however, stated that it needs to go LEGALLY.

Rev, are you going to say that the 14th is a good thing with how it has been used since slavery? If so....you're gone further down 'THAT' road than I had feared. I say we do away with MUCH of what Bush & ALL that B.O. put into place......do you, at least, agree with that?

[red state]

Yes, let's limit immigration to only Caucasian people to protect you and your family from your own fears. :poke:
The large majority of illegal aliens that I've known are refugees either due to violence in their own countries or for a better life by escaping economic poverty due to where they lived. I never found them to be the worst of the worst or criminals but people who just wanted to be safe and have a chance at life. I've seen a lot of these people do remarkable things and work harder and longer than any American to have a better life so Perianne, don't just judge everyone by what you read or see a small amount of them do.

As for anchor babies, I'm against that. Just coming here to have a baby for the benefits or to assure your child entry into the US at a later date is not what the 14th Amendment was intended for in my opinion. Children born here of illegals that have lived here all of their lives though is a vexing problem.

Perianne is SPOT ON! The VAST majority of current immigrants (both legal and ILLEGAL) are B.O.'s muSLUMS who would and (WILL) change our LAWS to sharia lawlessness if/WHEN given the chance & those coming from our SOUTH side are mostly the discarded from their countries who take advantage of our stupid system and run drugs & peddle flesh. Our prisons population prove this and the tactic B.O. is using is obvious.

WAY TO GO PERIANNE!!! You get five of these: :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

A good question I have for SD is; "WHY ARE WE DRASTICALLY LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF (FOR EXAMPLE) SWEDEN & FINLAND IMMIGRANTS (LEGAL IMMIGRANTS)?!

[revelarts]

You didn't answer the question.......and I must have missed the post that said to do away with that abused and unnessary amendment that was only put in place to deal with ex-slaves. I and a few others have, however, stated that it needs to go LEGALLY.

Rev, are you going to say that the 14th is a good thing with how it has been used since slavery? If so....you're gone further down 'THAT' road than I had feared. I say we do away with MUCH of what Bush & ALL that B.O. put into place......do you, at least, agree with that?
I did answer the question it just went by you.

explain to this poor soul what EXACTLY you want to change and how.
IF it FIXs a problem without causing more i'm for it.

I don't know if it's good or bad Red. please explain. take as long as you like.

please don't rant about illegals and slavery.
just tell me what you want to change and how. and how if FIXs more problems than it may create.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

most of the immigrants from Europe were "the losers". (unless loser is a euphemism for minorities ) Poor irish, Italians, sidelined quakers, desperate settlers, etc.. the real "1st class" people stayed in Europe. Frankly i think you'd like it better there. though you'd may be considered riff raft by the upper class.



the poem inside the Stute of liberty
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"




most of the immigrants from Europe were "the losers".

First--thats a damn lie!
They were decent people that came here, integrated and made good!
Secondly , they were legal--read " L-E-G-A-L", since you have an obvious problem with your trying to place the "illegals" in that same group and class of people!
That doesnt cut it with me hoss. You do not get to willy nilly class those people as the same as the legal immigrants that did everything right and respected our laws--Hell no you dont..
End of conversation if you are going to try that crap!
We have good reason and logical thinking in our rejection of the dem strategy to import dem voters by allowing law breaking entering and then promoting these ffing criminals over we true and decent citizens.
I'll never accept such insane and shewed thinking a that. Not from you not from any person alive!-Tyr

[red state]

most of the immigrants from Europe were "the losers". (unless loser is a euphemism for minorities ) Poor irish, Italians, sidelined quakers, desperate settlers, etc.. the real "1st class" people stayed in Europe. Frankly i think you'd like it better there. though you'd may be considered riff raft by the upper class.



the poem inside the Stute of liberty
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"



REv, I have to say that you just wont the $#!T post award for that one.......Washington, Franklin, Jefferson.....and a practically endless list of others were, by NO MEANS, nothing short of FIRST CLASS. Try again.....

[red state]

First--thats a damn lie!
They were decent people that came here, integrated and made good!
Secondly , they were legal--read " L-E-G-A-L", since you have an obvious problem with your trying to place the "illegals" in that same group and class of people!
That doesnt cut it with me hoss. You do not get to willy nilly class those people as the same as the legal immigrants that did everything right and respected our laws--Hell no you dont..
End of conversation if you are going to try that crap!
We have good reason and logical thinking in or rejection of the dem strategy to import dem voters by allowing law breaking entering and ten promoting these ffing criminals over we true and decent citizens.
I'll never accept such insane and shewed thinking a that. Not from you not from any person alive!-Tyr

Sorry TYR.....you beat me to it and I must have been typing when you clicked "POST". Good reply to REV.....he has truly lost it. Many of ya'll would say that he never had it but I see what was once a good member who made since much of the time......just not lately (by a LONG shot).

[sundaydriver]

[QUOTE=red state;757691

A good question I have for SD is; "WHY ARE WE DRASTICALLY LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF (FOR EXAMPLE) SWEDEN & FINLAND IMMIGRANTS (LEGAL IMMIGRANTS)?![/QUOTE]

Are we? I don't know. Do immigration quotas deal with need and how many Nordic refugees are there?

[red state]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tyr-Ziu Saxnot again.


Again.....sorry TYR. I had hoped that Jim had fixed this "U must first spread the wealth REP crap"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Perianne is SPOT ON! The VAST majority of current immigrants (both legal and ILLEGAL) are B.O.'s muSLUMS who would and (WILL) change our LAWS to sharia lawlessness if/WHEN given the chance & those coming from our SOUTH side are mostly the discarded from their countries who take advantage of our stupid system and run drugs & peddle flesh. Our prisons population prove this and the tactic B.O. is using is obvious.

WAY TO GO PERIANNE!!! You get five of these: :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

A good question I have for SD is; "WHY ARE WE DRASTICALLY LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF (FOR EXAMPLE) SWEDEN & FINLAND IMMIGRANTS (LEGAL IMMIGRANTS)?!

Cheapo--she needs at least a hundred of those!

She rightly points out that the dems are bringing in the dregs because they know most of them will vote dem for the ffing freebies that the dems use to buy their votes.
Do not let anybody ever tell you different, one look at the criminal stats of illegals in Texas alone, proves that lie the appeasing fools spout out about that IMHO!-Tyr

[red state]

Are we? I don't know. Do immigration quotas deal with need and how many Nordic refugees are there?

Add "CHRISTIAN" to the equation and try dancing around that one. We bus and fly diseased scum in & openly welcome obvious THREATS from muSLUM haters in YET we give a Christian Home School family grief when they legitimately seek refuge from an oppressive gov who has promised to take their 'wealth' and their children. Like the flag B.O. wasn't going to lower.......WE made that SOW take those German Christians in!!!!

[red state]

:clap:
Cheapo--she needs at least a hundred of those!

She rightly points out that the dems are bringing in the dregs because they know most of them will vote dem for the ffing freebies that the dems use to buy their votes.
Do not let anybody ever tell you different, one look at the criminal stats of illegals in Texas alone, proves that lie the appeasing fools spout out about that IMHO!-Tyr:clap:



*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tyr-Ziu Saxnot again. COME ON, JIM.....fix that CRAP!!!!!

[Perianne]

Are we? I don't know. Do immigration quotas deal with need and how many Nordic refugees are there?

Regardless of how many Scandinavian people we import, why are we accepting the poorest and most unintelligent the world has to offer?

[sundaydriver]

Add "CHRISTIAN" to the equation and try dancing around that one. We bus and fly diseased scum in & openly welcome obvious THREATS from muSLUM haters in YET we give a Christian Home School family grief when they legitimately seek refuge from an oppressive gov who has promised to take their 'wealth' and their children. Like the flag B.O. wasn't going to lower.......WE made that SOW take those German Christians in!!!!

Geez, I didn't realize I was dancing. If you meant Christian all along, you should had said so. IF you believe Christians are being discriminated against, well. I just don't know what to say. Aren't the very large majority of Hispanics Christian? That should bring you some solace.

[Perianne]

The shame is we shouldn't even be having this discussion. Government should protect its citizens from the horde of invaders.

[revelarts]

First--thats a damn lie!
They were decent people that came here, integrated and made good!
Secondly , they were legal--read " L-E-G-A-L", since you have an obvious problem with your trying to place the "illegals" in that same group and class of people!
That doesnt cut it with me hoss. You do not get to willy nilly class those people as the same as the legal immigrants that did everything right and respected our laws--Hell no you dont..
End of conversation if you are going to try that crap!
We have good reason and logical thinking in our rejection of the dem strategy to import dem voters by allowing law breaking entering and then promoting these ffing criminals over we true and decent citizens.
I'll never accept such insane and shewed thinking a that. Not from you not from any person alive!-Tyr

there was no real prohibitions for those coming to U.S.. the natives didn't BLACK the pilgrims or the Jamestown settlers and it wasn't until almost 1800 before laws for naturalization started to be fixed. I don't believe anyone was really BLOCKED from entry but thou could be tossed for bad behavior. If i remember correctly.

the laws on illegal immigration came in because of those low wage low class Chinese immigrants.

but there were TONS of poor underclass euro immigrants poured in the U.S. with Nothing but a roll of clothes. especially during the 1800s and -early 1900s A few of the earlier settlers had money. but a lot didn't. And many of the immigrants that have come from mexico and south america have done VERY well for themselves. some started illegal and became legal later. definitely no worse "class" than some poor souls fleeing from the Irish potato famine over a million POOR irish showed up. legal at the time. the laws were different.


but whatever i don't know what i'm talking about all the Europeans that came to the U.S. were High class upper crust well behaved never did a soap any wrong. case closed.

[revelarts]

REv, I have to say that you just wont the $#!T post award for that one.......Washington, Franklin, Jefferson.....and a practically endless list of others were, by NO MEANS, nothing short of FIRST CLASS. Try again.....

Washington, Franklin, Jefferson were born here. they weren't immigrants..
seems Washignton's family was in the U.S. for nearly 100 years already.
And it seems Washington's great grandmas married a half brother who was a Buckingham of England or the like.
--a lil hillbilly action going there?-- But the english upper class always did believe in marrying cousins such.

[Drummond]

Maybe a little off subject...

Why do we now prefer people who are total losers in their own countries? If we are going to have immigration, why not import Finnish, Swedish... people who come from first class countries and likely have something to contribute to this society. What we are importing now is crime, disease, murder, poverty, ignorance, gangs, and the like. And rapists. Our immigrants seem to really like rape.

You managed to overlook Piers Morgan ... my congratulations .. :laugh:

[Drummond]

The shame is we shouldn't even be having this discussion. Government should protect its citizens from the horde of invaders.:clap::clap::clap:

Indeed it should - well said !

[Drummond]

most of the immigrants from Europe were "the losers". (unless loser is a euphemism for minorities ) Poor irish, Italians, sidelined quakers, desperate settlers, etc.. the real "1st class" people stayed in Europe. Frankly i think you'd like it better there. though you'd may be considered riff raft by the upper class.



the poem inside the Stute of liberty
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"



I somehow doubt it.

What true American Conservative would enjoy a society as dominated by political correctness as ours ? Where, if you want to own a gun, people suspect that there must be something wrong with you ? Where, in fact, it's remarkably difficult to own one, anyway ?

Living in a country without its equivalent of your Constitution ?

Where immigration not only IS out of control, but an EU insists on open borders (between all Member States) ?

Where the more militant Muslims are trying to get Sharia Law imposed ?

Where you're never more than a small handful of miles from a mosque .. and frequently considerably less than that ?

Where a Left wing BBC can demand payment of a licence fee from you, and if you don't pay up but watch ANY television, you can be prosecuted for it, and gain a criminal record ?

No. There's still much of value in America. The point is, you must fight to KEEP it. Because if you don't, your Lefties will make YOU into clones of US !!

It's such a pity that Gabby couldn't be persuaded to visit any of our Inner London 'Leftie social paradises' when she was in England recently. They just MIGHT have cured her of her Leftieism, once and for all ...

[LongTermGuy]

Which was exactly my point. Our families depend on this nation not falling and not becoming a third world hellhole! The ffing dems dont give a damn about any of that---just getting and keeping power is their only concern the stinking bastards.-Tyr


:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Perianne]

most of the immigrants from Europe were "the losers". (unless loser is a euphemism for minorities ) Poor irish, Italians, sidelined quakers, desperate settlers, etc.. the real "1st class" people stayed in Europe. Frankly i think you'd like it better there. though you'd may be considered riff raft by the upper class.


Believe me, I have looked into going back to Finland. I was born there and it seems likely I could go back. My daughter won't go, so that was that.

[gabosaurus]

...why are we accepting the poorest and most unintelligent the world has to offer?

To give them a chance to better themselves?
Consider all the great thinkers and innovators who came to this country with nothing. Our country was built by immigrants.
One of my neighbors came here from Africa. His parents had nothing. Now he is a doctor and makes more than you do.

If we are going to delete the 14th amendment, we need to get rid of the second amendment as well.

[Perianne]

To give them a chance to better themselves?
Consider all the great thinkers and innovators who came to this country with nothing. Our country was built by immigrants.
One of my neighbors came here from Africa. His parents had nothing. Now he is a doctor and makes more than you do.

If we are going to delete the 14th amendment, we need to get rid of the second amendment as well.

It is not our duty to give them a chance to better themselves. Should we take all 5 or 6 billion of them? If we are gonna take someone in, take someone who can contribute now, not hope their kids will be able to contribute.

[red state]

Washington, Franklin, Jefferson were born here. they weren't immigrants..
seems Washignton's family was in the U.S. for nearly 100 years already.
And it seems Washington's great grandmas married a half brother who was a Buckingham of England or the like.
--a lil hillbilly action going there?-- But the english upper class always did believe in marrying cousins such.


Rev, I was lumping them in as most all liberals lump them ole white guys in.....'they didn't belong in the New World' and were merely "INVADERS". I'm sure you've heard the same argument that only Native Americans were the TRUE "Americans" (although their roots can be traced to the FAR East. But that is nic-picking and I merely made a point to counter your lumping in LEGAL immigrants as trash......and you could never have been more wrong. In fact, the first to come to this new land wrote and signed a document much like the infamous document that our founders signed (you know, those decedents who were from such GREATNESS who risked EVERYTHING).

I still don't know why you are so zealous about this 14th Amendment (that needs to GO). It could be used to defend the unborn BUT we have done a poor job of using it and I venture that this may have been one of the reasons you wish to keep it. NOT me, however.

On a strange twist.....the 14th is an outdated, un-needed and extremely abused Amendment that was set up for ex-slaves....funny how it could also liberate those suffering at the hand of butchers yet that does not apply.

Bottom line, it needs to go and I've yet to figure out why you got so passionate about keeping this Amendment (IF) we all agree that it needs to go LEGALLY. I apologize for the award I attempted to give you but your attack on founding fathers was terribly wrong and I'll not apologize for any counter to that statement.

To Sunday Driver.......it must be WAY over your head but LEGAL Christian immigrants seem to be something that you can't catch. I keep throwing the ball and it keeps hitting you between the eyes. CATCH IT!

[red state]

Believe me, I have looked into going back to Finland. I was born there and it seems likely I could go back. My daughter won't go, so that was that.

most of the immigrants from Europe were "the losers". (unless loser is a euphemism for minorities ) Poor irish, Italians, sidelined quakers, desperate settlers, etc.. the real "1st class" people stayed in Europe. Frankly i think you'd like it better there. though you'd may be considered riff raft by the upper class. ~REV


Yeah....funny how the left lump the majority of those coming LEGALLY to America as "losers" but will never do so when speaking of ILLEGAL BORDER INVADERS, rapist, murderers and traffickers. Rev doesn't know it but the "MAJORITY" of immigrants from Europe weren't the so-called "loosers" from Ireland, Italy & quakers. There were others who were loyal to the King not part of that crowd & many of them were successfully overseas and gained success within the New World.

Not to argue this fact, so I'm going to stick with LEGAL, HARDWORKING immigrants of the last generation or two and chalk them up as WINNERS to be admired for they contributed without asking for any hand-outs or bumming off of others......they kept their money HERE and strived to fit in as AMERICANS (under OUR laws). That can not be said of the hoards coming from our Southern borders or the muSLUM pukes!!!

[Perianne]

most of the immigrants from Europe were "the losers". (unless loser is a euphemism for minorities ) Poor irish, Italians, sidelined quakers, desperate settlers, etc.. the real "1st class" people stayed in Europe. Frankly i think you'd like it better there. though you'd may be considered riff raft by the upper class. ~REV


Yeah....funny how the left lump the majority of those coming LEGALLY to America as "losers" but will never do so when speaking of ILLEGAL BORDER INVADERS, rapist, murderers and traffickers. Rev doesn't know it but the "MAJORITY" of immigrants from Europe weren't the so-called "loosers" from Ireland, Italy & quakers. There were others who were loyal to the King not part of that crowd & many of them were successfully overseas and gained success within the New World.

Not to argue this fact, so I'm going to stick with LEGAL, HARDWORKING immigrants of the last generation or two and chalk them up as WINNERS to be admired for they contributed without asking for any hand-outs or bumming off of others......they kept their money HERE and strived to fit in as AMERICANS (under OUR laws). That can not be said of the hoards coming from our Southern borders or the muSLUM pukes!!!

That is my story. Thanks, red state.

[LongTermGuy]

***Tired of Liberalism...a cancer of "Deceit"...Ignorance ...lies and stupidity...?

>>>Tired of Rhinos and weak anti-Trump "Fools" who are to `Fooocking` Blind and "Proud" to see the light?

>>> Tired of breeding "Illegal" Parasites "dropping eggs"....trying to bring down America and feeding off the American Tax-Payer?


>>>Want a Much..MUCH...MUCH...Stronger American Military and good care for Americas Veterans?


>>>Tired of muslim koran reading terrorists cacaroaches??

> Want `better` Jobs for ALL > Americans ?

>>> Want home grown real energy?


>>>> Trump 2016 for the cure...!:cool:

[Gunny]

To give them a chance to better themselves?
Consider all the great thinkers and innovators who came to this country with nothing. Our country was built by immigrants.
One of my neighbors came here from Africa. His parents had nothing. Now he is a doctor and makes more than you do.

If we are going to delete the 14th amendment, we need to get rid of the second amendment as well.

How about if we put the handout asshats y'all enable to work in their jobs first? When we can employ our own, then we can worry about others.

And they don't better their lives. They come over here, take the money living like cockroaches and haul it back home.

[PixieStix]

Ha...looks like Trump is running the show. Everyone is talking about what we have wanted to talk about for years and finally we have a candidate that is speaking our language.


:beer:

[Drummond]

To give them a chance to better themselves?
Consider all the great thinkers and innovators who came to this country with nothing. Our country was built by immigrants.
One of my neighbors came here from Africa. His parents had nothing. Now he is a doctor and makes more than you do.

If we are going to delete the 14th amendment, we need to get rid of the second amendment as well.

Was it Perianne who pointed out that you're taking the most unintelligent that foreign countries have to offer ??

Consider the Socialist Paradise of Tottenham, north London, Gabby (a location you avoided visiting, when you had the chance ..). Now, Tottenham residents have been voting, continually - ever since the 1960's (!!) - for Socialist rule there. In every General election, in every local council election, they always vote for Labour candidates, usually with substantial leads over all other candidates.

You'd have to figure that they do this, to gain the best quality candidate for themselves ? YET .. Tottenham is one of the most dilapidated, poorest, London boroughs there is, and this after GENERATIONS of continually voting Lefties in to positions of power over them !!

It's not very smart of them, to FAIL to learn the lessons that generations of local history should've taught them !!

So then, Gabby ... if you'd want unintelligent foreigners over in America, I suggest you import the population of Tottenham ! Just think .. they can settle, build their own version of a slum .. and, presumably, in your general locality, too, since if you won't go to Tottenham, you'd want Tottenham to come to YOU ??

Here's a guide to Tottenham's crime statistics. Be 'impressed' .. be VERY 'impressed' --

http://www.ukcrimestats.com/Constituency/66074

By the way, its local MP wants to be London's mayor ..........

P.S .. late addition. Enjoy this, from Tottenham's Member of Parliament and Mayoral 'hopeful' .. on his approach to illegal immigrants ...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/lammy-let-300000-illegal-immigrants-remain-in-london-a2871701.html


An amnesty for 300,000 illegal immigrants living “in the shadows” in London was today proposed by Labour mayoral hopeful David Lammy.

He said it was time to bring them into mainstream society so they could pay taxes and enjoy more secure lives. The Tottenham MP pointed to a GLA report that estimated illegal immigrants working illicitly in London could contribute up to £600 million each year in taxes if they were brought into the regular economy.

[Perianne]

Was it Perianne who pointed out that you're taking the most unintelligent that foreign countries have to offer ??

Consider the Socialist Paradise of Tottenham, north London, Gabby (a location you avoided visiting, when you had the chance ..). Now, Tottenham residents have been voting, continually - ever since the 1960's (!!) - for Socialist rule there. In every General election, in every local council election, they always vote for Labour candidates, usually with substantial leads over all other candidates.

You'd have to figure that they do this, to gain the best quality candidate for themselves ? YET .. Tottenham is one of the most dilapidated, poorest, London boroughs there is, and this after GENERATIONS of continually voting Lefties in to positions of power over them !!

It's not very smart of them, to FAIL to learn the lessons that generations of local history should've taught them !!

So then, Gabby ... if you'd want unintelligent foreigners over in America, I suggest you import the population of Tottenham ! Just think .. they can settle, build their own version of a slum .. and, presumably, in your general locality, too, since if you won't go to Tottenham, you'd want Tottenham to come to YOU ??

Here's a guide to Tottenham's crime statistics. Be 'impressed' .. be VERY 'impressed' --

http://www.ukcrimestats.com/Constituency/66074 (http://www.ukcrimestats.com/Constituency/66074)

By the way, its local MP wants to be London's mayor ..........

P.S .. late addition. Enjoy this, from Tottenham's Member of Parliament and Mayoral 'hopeful' .. on his approach to illegal immigrants ...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/lammy-let-300000-illegal-immigrants-remain-in-london-a2871701.html

They are not smart people.


Ethnic composition Tottenham has a multicultural population, with many ethnic groups inhabiting the area. It contains one of the largest and most significant populations of African-Caribbean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_African-Caribbean_community) people. These were among the earliest immigrant groups to settle in the area, starting the UK's Windrush (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Windrush) era. Soon afterwards West African communities – notably the many Ghanaians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana) – began to migrate into the area. Between 1980 and the present day there has been a slow immigration of Colombians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia), Congolese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Congo), Albanian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanians), Kurdish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people), Turkish-Cypriot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus), Turkish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_the_United_Kingdom), Somali (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom), Irish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_%28people%29), Portuguese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people), and Zimbabweans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabweans) populations.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] South Tottenham is reported to be the most ethnically-diverse area in Europe, with up to 300 languages being spoken by its residents.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham#cite_note-16)
According to David Lammy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lammy) MP, Tottenham has the highest unemployment rate in London and the 8th highest in the United Kingdom, and it has some of the highest poverty rates within the country.[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham#cite_note-17) There have also been major tensions between the African-Caribbean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_African-Caribbean_community) community and the police since (and before) the 1985 Broadwater Farm riot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadwater_Farm_riot).


No country has ever been better off with an increased African-Caribbean population. Or any of the other immigrant groups Tottenham has been unfortunate enough to have suffered.

You have all sorts of first world countries nearby. Why chose to allow third worlders in?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham

[fj1200]

I have never changed anyone's posts.

And I've never whined about an amendment to grant citizenship to a race of people who came here neither willingly nor allowed to live freely...

... so we've both got something. :cool:

[Drummond]

And I've never whined about an amendment to grant citizenship to a race of people who came here neither willingly nor allowed to live freely...

... so we've both got something. :cool:

Astonishing that you choose to be self-righteous about conduct which, in case you missed it yesterday, brought a consensus of DISapproval !

You think you've 'got something' .. ? What is it that you imagine you've 'got' ?

[Perianne]

And I've never whined about an amendment to grant citizenship to a race of people who came here neither willingly nor allowed to live freely...

... so we've both got something. :cool:

And again, neither have I.

[fj1200]

:blah:

Anything that puts you in the camp of "disapproval" I'll wear as pride considering that you're a lying hypocrite. :)


And again, neither have I.

No, no, of course not.


The liberals wrote the 14th Amendment for the negroes. If you notice, any law directly written for one group always winds up screwing regular people.

:rolleyes:

[Perianne]

No, no, of course not.



:rolleyes:

You were right, fj. I forgot about that. I thought you were referring to the 14th Amendment re Latinos.

[Drummond]

They are not smart people.



No country has ever been better off with an increased African-Caribbean population. Or any of the other immigrant groups Tottenham has been unfortunate enough to have suffered.

You have all sorts of first world countries nearby. Why chose to allow third worlders in?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham

I think I'd argue about the 'choice' aspect ...

Labour, our Socialists, have been the ones leading all that. And when I say 'lead', what I mean is they tried to instil in people the belief that to object to ANY extent of immigration was automatically 'racist', therefore 'shameful' and deserving of the harshest perception of an antisocial attitude.

I can't say why Labour is so set upon having unrestrained immigration ... unless it's to completely kill the indigenous culture ? They just ARE. You'll have seen the Gordon Brown gaffe I posted days ago, where he was caught accusing a Rochdale lady of 'bigotry' because she dared to speak up on immigration concerns. Fact is, Labour have long wanted to create a 'multicultural' society here, and they've gone all out to achieve it.

What you say, Perianne, is simply TRUE. I'm not aware that we in the UK could ever be said to be 'better off' with such an influx. BUT, it's a truth which Socialists will stifle for all they're worth. Because that's what Lefties DO. Any inconvenient truth, in LeftieWorld, suddenly is no truth to be perceived, at all !

So it is that people in Tottenham will always vote for those who maintain slum conditions. They believe what they want to believe, as opposed to opening their eyes to any wider truths. Besides ... all immigrants there will naturally vote for the Party that puts THEIR interests, above that of the indigenous population ...

[Perianne]

So it is that people in Tottenham will always vote for those who maintain slum conditions. They believe what they want to believe, as opposed to opening their eyes to any wider truths. Besides ... all immigrants there will naturally vote for the Party that puts THEIR interests, above that of the indigenous population ...

Such people (the third world immigrants) by their very nature are not intelligent. If they came from an intelligent place they would not be third world.

Drummond, you and I are both from Europe and are kindred spirits.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Rev, I was lumping them in as most all liberals lump them ole white guys in.....'they didn't belong in the New World' and were merely "INVADERS". I'm sure you've heard the same argument that only Native Americans were the TRUE "Americans" (although their roots can be traced to the FAR East. But that is nic-picking and I merely made a point to counter your lumping in LEGAL immigrants as trash......and you could never have been more wrong. In fact, the first to come to this new land wrote and signed a document much like the infamous document that our founders signed (you know, those decedents who were from such GREATNESS who risked EVERYTHING).

I still don't know why you are so zealous about this 14th Amendment (that needs to GO). It could be used to defend the unborn BUT we have done a poor job of using it and I venture that this may have been one of the reasons you wish to keep it. NOT me, however.

On a strange twist.....the 14th is an outdated, un-needed and extremely abused Amendment that was set up for ex-slaves....funny how it could also liberate those suffering at the hand of butchers yet that does not apply.

Bottom line, it needs to go and I've yet to figure out why you got so passionate about keeping this Amendment (IF) we all agree that it needs to go LEGALLY. I apologize for the award I attempted to give you but your attack on founding fathers was terribly wrong and I'll not apologize for any counter to that statement.

To Sunday Driver.......it must be WAY over your head but LEGAL Christian immigrants seem to be something that you can't catch. I keep throwing the ball and it keeps hitting you between the eyes. CATCH IT!


To Sunday Driver.......it must be WAY over your head but LEGAL Christian immigrants seem to be something that you can't catch. I keep throwing the ball and it keeps hitting you between the eyes. CATCH IT!

Is always way over the heads of any and every liberal scum my friend. They hate Christians thus they hate decent people!
Those waves of immigrants were majority hard working , decent people, not so the current wave from Mexico. THAT BY THE MILLIONS BURDEN OUR GOVERNMENT AID PROGRAMS TO THE TUNE OF MANY TENS OF BILLIONS YEARLY....
Sure some few maybe 20% actually work--the others help bankrupt this nation --and thats another goal of the
powerful entity (globalist)that made sure they get to waltz right on in. All of it is sad,tragic and treason.. -Tyr

[revelarts]

Rev, I was lumping them in as most all liberals lump them ole white guys in.....'they didn't belong in the New World' and were merely "INVADERS". I'm sure you've heard the same argument that only Native Americans were the TRUE "Americans"
(although their roots can be traced to the FAR East. But that is nic-picking and I merely made a point to counter your lumping in LEGAL immigrants as trash......and you could never have been more wrong. In fact, the first to come to this new land wrote and signed a document much like the infamous document that our founders signed (you know, those decedents who were from such GREATNESS who risked EVERYTHING).


Perianne came out and called current immigrants "LOSERS". I took that in a fairly mild way as poor, and not from fine schools, people that have had hard times making it and often barely made it to the U.S. not from wealthy families. You take my Co-op of her term to mean "TRASH" ? whoa, OK, Maybe that is what she meant. and i've been again interpreting her words in the most benign way. maybe i should assume the worse as you have.




I still don't know why you are so zealous about this 14th Amendment (that needs to GO). It could be used to defend the unborn BUT we have done a poor job of using it and I venture that this may have been one of the reasons you wish to keep it. NOT me, however.
On a strange twist.....the 14th is an outdated, un-needed and extremely abused Amendment that was set up for ex-slaves....funny how it could also liberate those suffering at the hand of butchers yet that does not apply.
Bottom line, it needs to go and I've yet to figure out why you got so passionate about keeping this Amendment (IF) we all agree that it needs to go LEGALLY. I apologize for the award I attempted to give you but your attack on founding fathers was terribly wrong and I'll not apologize for any counter to that statement.
It's old, so it needs to go. it's caused trouble. and hasn't helped. it's just bad.
does that sum it up?
OK that still doesn't tell me much or how it fixes illegal immigration. or avoids other problems.

you keep saying you don't get WHY i'm defending the 14th amendment.
think of it this way. I'm defending ALL the amendments from illegal reinterpretation. the thread started with Trump wanting to illegally willy nilly change it. even BILL O'RILLY was DEFENDING THE 14th. But when i did the SAME you and others assumed i was somehow IN LOVE with the 14th.
I hope that's clear.

so you say you want it gone legally.
OK fine.
i'm not an expert on it or what's it's been used for.
You need to tell me why. specifically, because I don't see the HORROR of it text wise. maybe you're right an it needs to go but you haven't made a good case.

the 19th amendment giving woman the right to vote is OLD, and was for people who treated women badly maybe IT should go too. it doesn't really need to be spelled out anymore that woman can vote does it? hmm?

all the amendments are old. that's not a good place to start.

[fj1200]

Sure some few maybe 20% actually work--

Got a link or is this one of those "truth" proclamations of yours?

[Perianne]

Got a link or is this one of those "truth" proclamations of yours?

Well, since each of them have at least 4-5 kids, no more than 20% actually work. Duh.

[fj1200]

Well, since each of them have at least 4-5 kids, no more than 20% actually work. Duh.

Wow, well that just proves it all. Question withdrawn. :rolleyes:

[Drummond]

Anything that puts you in the camp of "disapproval" I'll wear as pride considering that you're a lying hypocrite.

... says the self-professed 'Thatcherite' who'll happily attack every other Thatcherite in existence ?

Says the 'Obama sucks' individual who's never approved of any argument posted on DP which argues for Obama's impeachment ?

Says the 'Conservative' who keeps dreaming up new excuses and means to attack other Conservatives here ?

Don't waste my time !!!

[fj1200]

... 'Thatcherite' ...

Ah yes, now it comes out. Try and keep things on topic. As shown yesterday nobody wants to read your mindless drivel.

[Drummond]

Wow, well that just proves it all. Question withdrawn. :rolleyes:

Oh, wow. FJ 'concedes' something !!!!!

What's the catch ?

With FJ, we can be guaranteed of one ... wait for it ........

........................................

[fj1200]

Oh, wow. I don't understand sarcasm !!!!!

What's the catch ?

Asked and answered.

EDIT:

And if you're going to troll, at least do it right.

[Drummond]

Ah yes, now it comes out. Try and keep things on topic. As shown yesterday nobody wants to read your mindless drivel.

You raised the matter of a 'lying hypocrite'. I answered you in a manner your comment best deserved.

As to whether anyone wants to read anything I post, well, that's their choice. Unlike you, I'm not forever chasing my ego ..

[Drummond]

Asked and answered.

EDIT:

And if you're going to troll, at least do it right.

I'm going to 'troll', FJ ?

Which of us is rewriting other's posts, and abusively ??

Perhaps it's your way of illustrating how to 'do it right' .. ??

[fj1200]

You raised the matter of a 'lying hypocrite'.

Yes I did. And you keep living up down to it.

[fj1200]

I'm going to 'troll'?

Yes.

[Drummond]

Yes.:laugh2::laugh2:

Well, if I'm 'going to' troll, that means I haven't done it yet !!!!!

Nice of you to determine for me what I'm 'going' to do .. your Leftieism at work, FJ ?

[fj1200]

Well, if I'm 'going to' troll...

Yeah, that's it. Focus on the tense of a word rather than you being asked to prove your mindless drivel and then slinking away from countless threads. Good on ya'.

[Drummond]

Yeah, that's it. Focus on the tense of a word rather than you being asked to prove your mindless drivel and then slinking away from countless threads. Good on ya'.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

You were obviously looking in a mirror when you typed that one ... :laugh:

Tell you what. You type, I'll laugh. That way, the incidence of posts here is decreased by 50%, but we both get to enjoy the result. You, loving the sound of your own typing. Me, enjoying the self-defeating (and now, even self-descriptive !) stuff you keep posting ... :rolleyes:

[sundaydriver]

Got a link or is this one of those "truth" proclamations of yours?


How does someone of working age sit at home on a computer all day for years complaining about freeloaders, hmm? :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

:blah:

I think many of us are still waiting for your treatise on exactly when small government is superior to big government. In the appropriate thread of course.

[red state]

Is always way over the heads of any and every liberal scum my friend. They hate Christians thus they hate decent people!
Those waves of immigrants were majority hard working , decent people, not so the current wave from Mexico. THAT BY THE MILLIONS BURDEN OUR GOVERNMENT AID PROGRAMS TO THE TUNE OF MANY TENS OF BILLIONS YEARLY....
Sure some few maybe 20% actually work--the others help bankrupt this nation --and thats another goal of the
powerful entity (globalist)that made sure they get to waltz right on in. All of it is sad,tragic and treason.. -Tyr

Spot on, TYR....and one only need look at the percentage ratio of prisons to prove OUR point. The 14, however crucial during its "time" is no longer needed and is now one of the gateways of TREASON.

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________


For REV's sake: I am against it because it allows hoards to come here illegally and poop illegal children that this amendment entitles CITIZENS. I'd do away with it in a heartbeat if they'd have a vote on it.......you wouldn't. I'm no Constitutional expert either BUT I know a heck of a lot more about it than our muSLUM president who referenced 57 iSLUMic States when he was campaigning for the first time and I know when an amendment is in need of amending/revising or deleted. How does the 14th benefit you or excite you enough to keep an outdated, unnecessary law since slavery days. I hate to say it but you seem more and more liberal each day and if you can't see that it is being terribly abused then you have something seriously wrong with your left/wrong-O-meter. I hope you snap out of it soon because it is seriously effecting your health (mental stability) just as the 14th is SERIOUSLY damaging this Nation. YES, by all means fine or imprison folks for hiring illegals and by all means put up a fence with signs STRICTLY promising to SHOOT ON SITE any border invaders but this would NOT fix the problem with HOARDS of chinese coming over to abuse the "system" via a BAD, BADLY un-needed amendment among AMENDMENTS.

[Little-Acorn]

Trump never said the 14th amendment was unconstitutional. It's obvious why. He said that O'Reilly's (misquoted) version was unconstitutional.

It's a hoot watching people try to tear him down for something he never said in the first place.

But the "controversy" does give rise to questions.

If Trump becomes President, might he be intending to say:

"The 14th amendment says anchor babies are citizens if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That's open to interpretation. And my interpretation is, since they're children of citizens of another country who are here illegally, they are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction", and so they are not citizens. The 14th was clearly intended to make freed slaves who were born here or brought here legally (according to the laws at the time) citizens, not children of people who stepped across the border illegally just to drop a baby and gain a foothold in this country.

"And so, since I have sworn to uphold the Constitution, I will issue an Executive Order saying that children of illegal aliens are NOT citizens, and all the ones born here from now on, will be deported along with the illegal-alien woman who bore them, and any other illegal aliens (father?) who are with her at the time.

"There is more evidence that my interpretation is correct, than there is for saying Federal laws restricting guns are constitutional. So that's what I will do. And if anyone doesn't like it, they have to get a court ruling, which I'll appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, saying that it's NOT constitutional."



That is one way to go. Sure, the usual open-borders screamers will fight him tooth and nail, but he's used to that, and he'll carry it through anyway. Obama is using the same tactics (with less justification) in issuing Executive orders to change duly passed laws. It would make a pleasant change if President Trump were to issue some to bring U.S. policy closer to what the Constitution actually requires.

Then he can step back and, instead of trying to push through what he wants, just let the open-borders hysterics spend their efforts trying to stop him. He's the President, and they're not.

[red state]

If Trump becomes President, might he be intending to say:

"The 14th amendment says anchor babies are citizens if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That's open to interpretation. And my interpretation is, since they're children of citizens of another country who are here illegally, they are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction", and so they are not citizens. The 14th was clearly intended to make freed slaves who were born here or brought here legally (according to the laws at the time) citizens, not children of people who stepped across the border illegally just to drop a baby and gain a foothold in this country.

"And so, since I have sworn to uphold the Constitution, I will issue an Executive Order saying that children of illegal aliens are NOT citizens, and all the ones born here from now on, will be deported along with the illegal-alien woman who bore them, and any other illegal aliens (father?) who are with her at the time.

"There is more evidence that my interpretation is correct, than there is for saying Federal laws restricting guns are constitutional. So that's what I will do. And if anyone doesn't like it, they have to get a court ruling, which I'll appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, saying that it's NOT constitutional."

That is one way to go. Sure, the usual open-borders screamers will fight him tooth and nail, but he's used to that, and he'll carry it through anyway.

GOOD POST...as I said; Do away with it OR DEFINE or "amend" it. As it stands, it is not helping the unborn but it IS damaging as it now stands.

[indago]

Found on the internet...

So, I was walking through Chicago and I saw that there was a "Muslim Book Store." I was wondering what exactly was in a Muslim bookstore, so I went in. As I was wandering around taking a look, the clerk stopped me and asked if he could help me. I imagine I didn't look like his normal clientele, so I asked, “Do you have a copy of Donald Trump's book on his U.S. Immigration Policy regarding Muslims and illegal Mexicans?"

The clerk said, "Fuck off, get out and stay out!"

I said, "Yes, that's the one. Do you have it in paperback?"

[indago]

Article 30 - Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization.


a) Mexicans by birth are:


I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, no matter what the nationality of their parents is;


II. Those born in foreign territory, sons or daughters of Mexican parents born in national territory, a Mexican father born in national territory, or a Mexican mother born in national territory;

source (http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=93#T1C2)

So, it would behoove us to send the WHOLE illegal alien family back to Mexico

[Gunny]

Ha...looks like Trump is running the show. Everyone is talking about what we have wanted to talk about for years and finally we have a candidate that is speaking our language.


:beer:

Trump running ANY show that isn't entertainment TV or private enterprise is a trainwreck.

His behavior is akin to Harry Reid's. And it's NOT okay if he does it, so it's not okay if Trump does it. All the little firebrands who want to support this loudmouth wiyjouy a vlue are just giving the presidency to the Democrats.

He cannot build the "Great Wall of Trump"; much less, have Mexico pay for it.

He cannot deport 11M illegal aliens. What's he going to do? Play HItler, have the Gestapo round them up and put them on cattle cars?

He cannot repeal the 14th Amendment. Not going to happen. Doesn't need to be anyway. The 14th doesn't provide for anchor babies. A judicial ruling does.

He cannot build the greatest military ever. Where's he going to get the people? Our prisons?

And he'll just blame the Dems for each failure. Business as usual.

Here's what he HAS accomplished:

No matter what you ask him, he's going to hire "wonderful people" to accomplish the task. I have a more intricate plan to shower, shave and eat breakfast.

He;s managed to alienate Hispanic voters, regardless what he claims. For all you Midwesterners and Yankees who don't live with Mexicans day in and day out, he's creating a divide. Not just for himself, but for the GOP. When his fuze fizzles out and/or he decides to run 3rd party, the GOP is going to have to clean up his mess and it'll be too late.

And Fox News is pimping him out like a prized whore. They fawn at his every word. He's a bully and a blowhard. We've had 7 years enough of that.

[Kathianne]

Trump running ANY show that isn't entertainment TV or private enterprise is a trainwreck.

His behavior is akin to Harry Reid's. And it's NOT okay if he does it, so it's not okay if Trump does it. All the little firebrands who want to support this loudmouth wiyjouy a vlue are just giving the presidency to the Democrats.

He cannot build the "Great Wall of Trump"; much less, have Mexico pay for it.

He cannot deport 11M illegal aliens. What's he going to do? Play HItler, have the Gestapo round them up and put them on cattle cars?

He cannot repeal the 14th Amendment. Not going to happen. Doesn't need to be anyway. The 14th doesn't provide for anchor babies. A judicial ruling does.

He cannot build the greatest military ever. Where's he going to get the people? Our prisons?

And he'll just blame the Dems for each failure. Business as usual.

Here's what he HAS accomplished:

No matter what you ask him, he's going to hire "wonderful people" to accomplish the task. I have a more intricate plan to shower, shave and eat breakfast.

He;s managed to alienate Hispanic voters, regardless what he claims. For all you Midwesterners and Yankees who don't live with Mexicans day in and day out, he's creating a divide. Not just for himself, but for the GOP. When his fuze fizzles out and/or he decides to run 3rd party, the GOP is going to have to clean up his mess and it'll be too late.

And Fox News is pimping him out like a prized whore. They fawn at his every word. He's a bully and a blowhard. We've had 7 years enough of that.

It seems like there's lots of reality here. What is true though is all of this information is out there and it seems a significant portion of the 'conservative' electorate have decided for now anyways, that it doesn't matter. I'm unsure if they really think he can accomplish what he claims in his 'You'll see when it happens' or not, but they want 'that guy' whichever. It's like an Obama reversal and it's about damn time.

i didn't understand how the electorate could ignore Obama's lack of experience; lack of seriousness while in the Senate; his questionable past, but they did. It's like deja vu all over again. Different candidate, different followers, different media, same outcome? Obama is just past the half way of 2nd term too.

[Kathianne]

While I think the bias is clear in the following, there's a part that reflects what I'm seeing in the 'Trump Revolution':

http://nypost.com/2015/08/25/donald-trumps-appeal-an-obama-for-the-right/


Donald Trump’s appeal — an Obama for the right (http://nypost.com/2015/08/25/donald-trumps-appeal-an-obama-for-the-right/)By John Podhoretz (http://nypost.com/author/john-podhoretz/)

August 25, 2015 | 8:00pm

...

I think there’s something else at play here. Trump has basically declared himself the anti-Obama, an all-American (he still believes Obama was born in Kenya) who has built things and run things and hasn’t just been an egghead and government guy.


In fact, what Trump is promising is simply a different form of Obamaism, and that is what perversely makes him attractive to so many people.


Obama’s astonishing second-term efforts to do an end-run around the constitutional limits of the presidency have given Trump’s approach peculiar resonance with certain conservatives.


They’ve watched in horrified amazement as Obama has single-handedly postponed parts of the Affordable Care Act; unilaterally installed people in federal jobs (at the National Labor Relations Board) that require congressional consent and announced in November 2014 that he’d cease enforcing certain immigration laws and effectively grant protection to 5 million so-called “dreamers” — when it is his constitutional obligation to enforce existing laws passed by Congress.


Trump is, in effect, promising to be a right-wing Obama, to run roughshod over the rules to fix things Obama and other politicians have broken.


It’s easy to see why this is seductive.


Conservatives and others who dislike Obama see him acting with impunity. They believe the media cover for him. They think Republicans in Congress are too weak to challenge him. And so he gets whatever he wants.


They’re largely right about the media, but they’re wrong that he gets away with whatever he pleases.

[NightTrain]

While I think the bias is clear in the following, there's a part that reflects what I'm seeing in the 'Trump Revolution':

http://nypost.com/2015/08/25/donald-trumps-appeal-an-obama-for-the-right/


You're right, the article is biased... lol


I keep hearing this from the naysayers : "Trump is a right-wing Obama!"

Where has he said that he intends to disregard his oath and illegally refuse to enforce our laws?

[NightTrain]

Trump running ANY show that isn't entertainment TV or private enterprise is a trainwreck.

His behavior is akin to Harry Reid's. And it's NOT okay if he does it, so it's not okay if Trump does it. All the little firebrands who want to support this loudmouth wiyjouy a vlue are just giving the presidency to the Democrats.

He cannot build the "Great Wall of Trump"; much less, have Mexico pay for it.

He cannot deport 11M illegal aliens. What's he going to do? Play HItler, have the Gestapo round them up and put them on cattle cars?

He cannot repeal the 14th Amendment. Not going to happen. Doesn't need to be anyway. The 14th doesn't provide for anchor babies. A judicial ruling does.

He cannot build the greatest military ever. Where's he going to get the people? Our prisons?

And he'll just blame the Dems for each failure. Business as usual.

Here's what he HAS accomplished:

No matter what you ask him, he's going to hire "wonderful people" to accomplish the task. I have a more intricate plan to shower, shave and eat breakfast.

He;s managed to alienate Hispanic voters, regardless what he claims. For all you Midwesterners and Yankees who don't live with Mexicans day in and day out, he's creating a divide. Not just for himself, but for the GOP. When his fuze fizzles out and/or he decides to run 3rd party, the GOP is going to have to clean up his mess and it'll be too late.

And Fox News is pimping him out like a prized whore. They fawn at his every word. He's a bully and a blowhard. We've had 7 years enough of that.


You've got a couple of days to catch up on the board, Gunny. That babysitting gig must have you stretched pretty thin - I've been there.

Most of these points you outline have been answered fairly satisfactory IMO in other threads... mostly in the Trump Wall thread.

[Kathianne]

You're right, the article is biased... lol


I keep hearing this from the naysayers : "Trump is a right-wing Obama!"

Where has he said that he intends to disregard his oath and illegally refuse to enforce our laws?

As I said regarding bias. What he says is pretty much, 'Not government as usual,' that's the attraction to so many, no? 'Run it like a business, management'. What his supporters are hearing is 'He'll get things done!' No? How exactly can he, anymore than Obama get around Congress, the Constitution, without end runs? Same as Obama, the difference being what he 'wants.' Truth is though, many of Obama's end runs have been blocked. Not as many as I'd like, but a hell of a lot more than the left expects.

[NightTrain]

As I said regarding bias. What he says is pretty much, 'Not government as usual,' that's the attraction to so many, no? 'Run it like a business, management'. What his supporters are hearing is 'He'll get things done!' No? How exactly can he, anymore than Obama get around Congress, the Constitution, without end runs? Same as Obama, the difference being what he 'wants.' Truth is though, many of Obama's end runs have been blocked. Not as many as I'd like, but a hell of a lot more than the left expects.


I think every single one of the candidates will look you in the eye and tell you that they will be all about 'Not government as usual'. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard any candidate, ever, say they're going to institute 'government as usual'.

Where has Trump said he's going to perform an end run around Congress and/or skirt the Constitution? This is very baffling to me and I must have missed something somewhere along the line that he's said.

[Kathianne]

I think every single one of the candidates will look you in the eye and tell you that they will be all about 'Not government as usual'. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard any candidate, ever, say they're going to institute 'government as usual'.

Where has Trump said he's going to perform an end run around Congress and/or skirt the Constitution? This is very baffling to me and I must have missed something somewhere along the line that he's said.

"They are all like this," sounds very familiar. Are you saying that Trump is only 'saying' he'll be different?

What I'm missing is how so many (way beyond here at DP), are so certain he can 'do this,' whatever 'this' is, while working with the incompetent, stupid, business as usual members of Congress?

Contrary to what some think, I'm not attacking anyone's choice and it appears the overwhelming majority here are for Trump. I'm though more than a bit confused at the lack of skepticism usually found-and even expressed about 'any candidates.'

[NightTrain]

"They are all like this," sounds very familiar. Are you saying that Trump is only 'saying' he'll be different?

What I'm missing is how so many (way beyond here at DP), are so certain he can 'do this,' whatever 'this' is, while working with the incompetent, stupid, business as usual members of Congress?

Contrary to what some think, I'm not attacking anyone's choice and it appears the overwhelming majority here are for Trump. I'm though more than a bit confused at the lack of skepticism usually found-and even expressed about 'any candidates.'

I don't think you're attacking anyone. I take you at your word that you are trying to understand and hence the questions you pose.

Conversely, I am curious about your skepticism with Trump and why you think that way. Your track record over the years has shown me that your logic and insight are to be taken seriously. Trust me, I wouldn't bother asking if Gabby or TF says they don't like Trump, because I don't give any weight whatsoever to their opinions.

Why is Trump less trustworthy in your eyes than the other candidates in the race? That question is probably going to prompt a 4-page response, but I promise I'll read it with great interest.

[Kathianne]

I don't think you're attacking anyone. I take you at your word that you are trying to understand and hence the questions you pose.

Conversely, I am curious about your skepticism with Trump and why you think that way. Your track record over the years has shown me that your logic and insight are to be taken seriously. Trust me, I wouldn't bother asking if Gabby or TF says they don't like Trump, because I don't give any weight whatsoever to their opinions.

Why is Trump less trustworthy in your eyes than the other candidates in the race? That question is probably going to prompt a 4-page response, but I promise I'll read it with great interest.

I'm skeptical of any candidate. Indeed when I hear something that resonates with my positions, I start looking for what I can find. All have their changes of positions, things I don't agree with, things that make one go, "Hmmm?"

Look at Walker, I like what I've seen in WI. I liked what his first appearances on national scene looked and sounded like. Right now? He is trying to decide whether to 'go Trump' or 'attack Trump.' That does not resonate with me or it seems many that were initially favorable, he's tanking. However, there is time to find himself and recover. Will he? :dunno:

With Trump for me, it's the overwhelming number of issues, political donations, Kelo, and populist outreach that has me on edge. From the beginning these were known and how recently nearly all the 'important to conservatives issues' were the opposite of what he's now putting out. If it were one or even two? Yea, folks can change their minds. For me the numbers and positions are just overwhelming.

Not for others though and we all get our 1 vote. As things stand now, in the primaries I'll be in the minority with my choice. But August is hardly Spring of '16.

[NightTrain]

I'm skeptical of any candidate. Indeed when I hear something that resonates with my positions, I start looking for what I can find. All have their changes of positions, things I don't agree with, things that make one go, "Hmmm?"

Look at Walker, I like what I've seen in WI. I liked what his first appearances on national scene looked and sounded like. Right now? He is trying to decide whether to 'go Trump' or 'attack Trump.' That does not resonate with me or it seems many that were initially favorable, he's tanking. However, there is time to find himself and recover. Will he? :dunno:

Walker was my favorite candidate. That wasn't prompted by his performance since he entered the race; that was based on his previous battles that he fought and won decisively in Wisconsin. I've been aware of him for years because of my family in WI who were understandably very interested in his performance and developments as events unfolded.

Unfortunately, he's been flip-flopping like a beached salmon since the race began, and it's not who I understood him to be. That cost him dearly in my view and obviously with millions of other Americans as well when you look at the numbers. Unless he does something very different, he's done for - unless it's a VP slot later.


With Trump for me, it's the overwhelming number of issues, political donations, Kelo, and populist outreach that has me on edge. From the beginning these were known and how recently nearly all the 'important to conservatives issues' were the opposite of what he's now putting out. If it were one or even two? Yea, folks can change their minds. For me the numbers and positions are just overwhelming.

Can you expound on 'overwhelming number of issues'? You kind of lost me here.

What don't you like about his political donations? Are you talking about ones he's made or donations made to his campaign?

Kelo... well, that's a probably a good topic for another thread. Eminent Domain cuts both ways. I think we all agree that the Keystone Pipeline is a no brainer, but I guarantee that there's going to be more than a few unlucky recipients of a forced buyout. I feel for them, but I want that pipeline built because it's important for the USA. The USSC is responsible for that decision, not Trump - and, yes, he said he supports it.

And I honestly think that I can come up with a few scenarios where you would support it, too.

As far as populism... I guess that depends on what definition you subscribe to - there's more than one. Can you elaborate?


Not for others though and we all get our 1 vote. As things stand now, in the primaries I'll be in the minority with my choice. But August is hardly Spring of '16.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I definitely can't tell you who I'm going to vote for at this point. The election is quite a ways off yet and there's still plenty of time to observe someone pulling the trigger on a Howard Dean Scream. But at this point in space and time, Trump is my favorite of the 16 other guys.

[Kathianne]

Walker was my favorite candidate. That wasn't prompted by his performance since he entered the race; that was based on his previous battles that he fought and won decisively in Wisconsin. I've been aware of him for years because of my family in WI who were understandably very interested in his performance and developments as events unfolded.

Unfortunately, he's been flip-flopping like a beached salmon since the race began, and it's not who I understood him to be. That cost him dearly in my view and obviously with millions of other Americans as well when you look at the numbers. Unless he does something very different, he's done for - unless it's a VP slot later.



Can you expound on 'overwhelming number of issues'? You kind of lost me here.

What don't you like about his political donations? Are you talking about ones he's made or donations made to his campaign?

Kelo... well, that's a probably a good topic for another thread. Eminent Domain cuts both ways. I think we all agree that the Keystone Pipeline is a no brainer, but I guarantee that there's going to be more than a few unlucky recipients of a forced buyout. I feel for them, but I want that pipeline built because it's important for the USA. The USSC is responsible for that decision, not Trump - and, yes, he said he supports it.

And I honestly think that I can come up with a few scenarios where you would support it, too.

As far as populism... I guess that depends on what definition you subscribe to - there's more than one. Can you elaborate?



I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I definitely can't tell you who I'm going to vote for at this point. The election is quite a ways off yet and there's still plenty of time to observe someone pulling the trigger on a Howard Dean Scream. But at this point in space and time, Trump is my favorite of the 16 other guys.

As I replied to Perianne, I'm not going to discuss populism, I don't see anything positive in doing so, just a lot of bad.

Kelo was for using eminent domain for the purpose of favoring corporations by taking private property, logic being that 'what's good for business is good for the community in general.' That never was the purpose. The pipeline is for both supply of energy; cost of energy; and reducing reliance on dangerous neighborhoods. Very different than providing a parking lot for casino.

When Trump entered the contest, I posted all the issues he's 'changed since 1999 and since. How many times he's changed political affiliations, contributions, having argued against a ban for partial birth abortion and changing his stance within days-when he decided to do his first 'election' foray, etc.

That seems to be when some began to seriously question my being 'conservative,' so I don't think I want to go there either.

I'm not going to refrain from posting on Trump-what's 'good news' or 'bad news' for his supporters. I've done quite a bit of both.

I seriously don't think my opinions or takes on one candidate or another will change anyone's minds, nor should it. They have to weigh what factors they deem important and go from there. I'll do the same, I've voted many times and always make up my own mind. ;)

[NightTrain]

As I replied to Perianne, I'm not going to discuss populism, I don't see anything positive in doing so, just a lot of bad.

Fair enough. I don't agree with that assessment, but there's nothing wrong with your opinion and I respect it.


Kelo was for using eminent domain for the purpose of favoring corporations by taking private property, logic being that 'what's good for business is good for the community in general.' That never was the purpose. The pipeline is for both supply of energy; cost of energy; and reducing reliance on dangerous neighborhoods. Very different than providing a parking lot for casino.

Agree, but you can't make the law spell out every possible scenario. That would literally be impossible to do so.


When Trump entered the contest, I posted all the issues he's 'changed since 1999 and since. How many times he's changed political affiliations, contributions, having argued against a ban for partial birth abortion and changing his stance within days-when he decided to do his first 'election' foray, etc.

He freely admits that his views have changed over time, which is the normal human experience. I think all of us probably had views much different a decade ago than they are today.


That seems to be when some began to seriously question my being 'conservative,' so I don't think I want to go there either.

For the record, I never have.


I'm not going to refrain from posting on Trump-what's 'good news' or 'bad news' for his supporters. I've done quite a bit of both.

Nor should you. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone agrees, we all have the freedom to express our opinions.

In fact, I like the skepticism. That's how we properly vet our candidates - and we all know what happened the last 2 times that didn't happen on a national level.


I seriously don't think my opinions or takes on one candidate or another will change anyone's minds, nor should it. They have to weigh what factors they deem important and go from there. I'll do the same, I've voted many times and always make up my own mind. ;)

If you uncover something that makes me change my mind about Trump, I'll be the first one to publicly say that I was wrong and you were right.

I think my own personal track record speaks for itself, I've said that very thing a few times around here.

I think FJ was the last one to get a cheerful apology and a reversal from me a while back when he fact checked me on something. bastard!

[fj1200]

As far as populism... I guess that depends on what definition you subscribe to - there's more than one. Can you elaborate?

I'll bite, here's my definition of populism:


Populists IMO are those with little understanding of the issues at hand and glom onto a solution merely because it is popular, or will appeal to the populous, and not because it is correct.

Regarding populism in general it doesn't seem to be construed as positive by almost anyone.


Populism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism) is a political doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_doctrine) that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general population, especially when contrasting any new collective consciousness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness) push against the prevailing status quo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo) interests of any predominant political sector. Populism is commonly defined as: "the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite."[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-1) Since the 1980s, populist movements and parties have enjoyed degrees of success in First World (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World) democracies such as Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), Italy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), the Netherlands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands), the United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), and the Nordic countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries).
Political parties and politicians often use the terms populist and populism as pejoratives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejoratives) against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as merely empathising with the public, (usually through rhetoric or "unrealistic" proposals) in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum) (cf. demagogy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy)).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-2)

But speaking of the primary process in general shouldn't we as conservative Republicans be trying to identify the most conservative candidate? It seems like we have a hundred different Trump threads but we don't really have any/many that say Trump is conservative because...

[NightTrain]

I'll bite, here's my definition of populism:



Regarding populism in general it doesn't seem to be construed as positive by almost anyone.


Correct. It's generally used in a derogatory fashion, but the concept itself is rather noble :




At its root, populism is a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government rather than a small group of political insiders or a wealthy elite.



I like this idea.

[fj1200]

Correct. It's generally used in a derogatory fashion, but the concept itself is rather noble :

True, but so is communism. :poke: However I don't typically see populism as its own ideology. There are going to be likely two options come next year and one is going to be conservative (hopefully) with a small government message (hopefully) and the other is going to be liberal with a big government message. I don't like populism for the outcome it represents.

[Black Diamond]

Trump running ANY show that isn't entertainment TV or private enterprise is a trainwreck.

His behavior is akin to Harry Reid's. And it's NOT okay if he does it, so it's not okay if Trump does it. All the little firebrands who want to support this loudmouth wiyjouy a vlue are just giving the presidency to the Democrats.

He cannot build the "Great Wall of Trump"; much less, have Mexico pay for it.

He cannot deport 11M illegal aliens. What's he going to do? Play HItler, have the Gestapo round them up and put them on cattle cars?

He cannot repeal the 14th Amendment. Not going to happen. Doesn't need to be anyway. The 14th doesn't provide for anchor babies. A judicial ruling does.

He cannot build the greatest military ever. Where's he going to get the people? Our prisons?

And he'll just blame the Dems for each failure. Business as usual.

Here's what he HAS accomplished:

No matter what you ask him, he's going to hire "wonderful people" to accomplish the task. I have a more intricate plan to shower, shave and eat breakfast.

He;s managed to alienate Hispanic voters, regardless what he claims. For all you Midwesterners and Yankees who don't live with Mexicans day in and day out, he's creating a divide. Not just for himself, but for the GOP. When his fuze fizzles out and/or he decides to run 3rd party, the GOP is going to have to clean up his mess and it'll be too late.

And Fox News is pimping him out like a prized whore. They fawn at his every word. He's a bully and a blowhard. We've had 7 years enough of that.

This is why I think someone needs to light a fire under Jeb Bush's ass. How can his cautious monotone style thusfar compete with Trump?

[Perianne]

This is why I think someone needs to light a fire under Jeb Bush's ass. How can his cautious monotone style thusfar compete with Trump?

Why would we want Jeb? He supports legalizing Hispanics. In his mind, the Asians are the real problem. Geez, he's a doofus if that is what he thinks. And he apparently does.

[Black Diamond]

Why would we want Jeb? He supports legalizing Hispanics. In his mind, the Asians are the real problem. Geez, he's a doofus if that is what he thinks. And he apparently does.

If immigration is all that's important, don't vote for Jeb.

[Perianne]

If immigration is all that's important, don't vote for Jeb.

It is all that matters. But in his twisted mind, the Asians are the problem. I suspect if he were married to an Asian, he would feel differently.

[Gunny]

It seems like there's lots of reality here. What is true though is all of this information is out there and it seems a significant portion of the 'conservative' electorate have decided for now anyways, that it doesn't matter. I'm unsure if they really think he can accomplish what he claims in his 'You'll see when it happens' or not, but they want 'that guy' whichever. It's like an Obama reversal and it's about damn time.

i didn't understand how the electorate could ignore Obama's lack of experience; lack of seriousness while in the Senate; his questionable past, but they did. It's like deja vu all over again. Different candidate, different followers, different media, same outcome? Obama is just past the half way of 2nd term too.

We'll have to disagree on the "about damned time" thing. I don't want a monarch in EITHER party. A bully that pouts and attacks if he doesn't get his way, and just does what he wants anyway. I don't recall reading THAT in the Constitution.

I never got the Obama thing either, but if you want to ensure his policies are continued, support Trump.

[Kathianne]

We'll have to disagree on the "about damned time" thing. I don't want a monarch in EITHER party. A bully that pouts and attacks if he doesn't get his way, and just does what he wants anyway. I don't recall reading THAT in the Constitution.

I never got the Obama thing either, but if you want to ensure his policies are continued, support Trump.
Me? Support Trump? Gunny, we're singing the same tune!

[Gunny]

Me? Support Trump? Gunny, we're singing the same tune!

You know how hard it is to get this guy's eye off the ball?

Criticize him. Question one of his ain't happening ideals. Then he goes into this petty, name-calling like a 3rd grader.

[Black Diamond]

You know how hard it is to get this guy's eye off the ball?

Criticize him. Question one of his ain't happening ideals. Then he goes into this petty, name-calling like a 3rd grader.
And then threaten to go third party....

[NightTrain]

Welcome back, Grandpa! Are your diaper changing skills improving?

There was speculation as to whether or not the sperm donor was still above or below ground during your absence...


I never got the Obama thing either, but if you want to ensure his policies are continued, support Trump.

I must have missed it, but which of Bambam's policies did Trump say he would continue?

[Kathianne]

Welcome back, Grandpa! Are your diaper changing skills improving?

There was speculation as to whether or not the sperm donor was still above or below ground during your absence...



I must have missed it, but which of Bambam's policies did Trump say he would continue?

I'm pretty sure he agrees with me that from every sound of it, following the procedures of the Constitution would be as troublesome with Trump as they've been for Obama. You and many others disagree, the disagreement will have to be settled if and when it comes to pass. ;)

[NightTrain]

I'm pretty sure he agrees with me that from every sound of it, following the procedures of the Constitution would be as troublesome with Trump as they've been for Obama. You and many others disagree, the disagreement will have to be settled if and when it comes to pass. ;)

I watched Trump discuss the 14th Amendment and he mentioned - multiple times - that he referenced legal scholars as to the constitutionality of Anchor Babies and that he intended to look further into that.

That in itself demonstrates that he is concerned with following the constitution.

I have seen nothing from him even hinting that he intends on ruling by phone and pen regardless of what the Oath spells out.

[Kathianne]

I watched Trump discuss the 14th Amendment and he mentioned - multiple times - that he referenced legal scholars as to the constitutionality of Anchor Babies and that he intended to look further into that.

That in itself demonstrates that he is concerned with following the constitution.

I have seen nothing from him even hinting that he intends on ruling by phone and pen regardless of what the Oath spells out.
I can only go with what he says, then surmise on my own. He seems to become 'concerned' with legalities, after he learns about them though. I'm reminded of his getting his advice on defense from those he watches on TV. I'm not reassured.

Nevertheless, we will find out if and when.

[LongTermGuy]

:coffee:

9:44 a.m. ET
"Trump crushes the rest of the GOP field in new nationwide poll (http://theweek.com/speedreads/573860/trump-crushes-rest-gop-field-new-nationwide-poll)"


"Donald Trump's lead in the race for the GOP presidential nomination just reached an all-time high (http://politicalwire.com/2015/08/26/trump-holds-massive-lead-over-gop-rivals/) in a new national poll conducted by Gravis Marketing. The survey,released Tuesday by One American News Network (http://www.oann.com/trump-breaks-new-ceiling-in-national-gop-poll/), shows Trump leading the Republican field with a whopping 40 percent, up from 31 percent in Gravis' July poll.
Ben Carson, who placed second in the new poll, had just 13 percent — 27 points behind Trump. Jeb Bush came in third at 10 percent, followed by Ted Cruz at 7 percent, and John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, and Marco Rubio at 5 percent each.
This poll was conducted on August 21 and 22 among 3,567 registered voters across the U.S. Its margin of error is plus or minus two percentage points. Becca Stanek (http://theweek.com/authors/becca--stanek)"

http://theweek.com/speedreads/573860/trump-crushes-rest-gop-field-new-nationwide-poll

Trump is Nothing Like Obama...

Trump vs Obama on: Just a few things...Totally different!

Iran and Israel

Illegal Parasites feeding on American tax payers

Taking care of Veterans

Much Stronger Military

Back to real home grown Energy

XXX Political Correctness XXX

Ladies and Gentlemen...How come Donald Trump critics never say... who they are supporting?:laugh:

[Kathianne]

:coffee:

9:44 a.m. ET
"Trump crushes the rest of the GOP field in new nationwide poll (http://theweek.com/speedreads/573860/trump-crushes-rest-gop-field-new-nationwide-poll)"


"Donald Trump's lead in the race for the GOP presidential nomination just reached an all-time high (http://politicalwire.com/2015/08/26/trump-holds-massive-lead-over-gop-rivals/) in a new national poll conducted by Gravis Marketing. The survey,released Tuesday by One American News Network (http://www.oann.com/trump-breaks-new-ceiling-in-national-gop-poll/), shows Trump leading the Republican field with a whopping 40 percent, up from 31 percent in Gravis' July poll.
Ben Carson, who placed second in the new poll, had just 13 percent — 27 points behind Trump. Jeb Bush came in third at 10 percent, followed by Ted Cruz at 7 percent, and John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, and Marco Rubio at 5 percent each.
This poll was conducted on August 21 and 22 among 3,567 registered voters across the U.S. Its margin of error is plus or minus two percentage points. Becca Stanek (http://theweek.com/authors/becca--stanek)"

http://theweek.com/speedreads/573860/trump-crushes-rest-gop-field-new-nationwide-poll

Trump is Nothing Like Obama...

Trump vs Obama on: Just a few things...Totally different!

Iran and Israel

Illegal Parasites feeding on American tax payers

Taking care of Veterans

Much Stronger Military

Back to real home grown Energy

XXX Political Correctness XXX

Ladies and Gentlemen...How come Donald Trump critics never say... who they are supporting?:laugh:












I do believe this was discussed this morning, between NT and myself. Some choose to get onboard right away, others don't. Neither is wrong.

[Perianne]

I do believe this was discussed this morning, between NT and myself. Some choose to get onboard right away, others don't. Neither is wrong.

So, you think you might be on Trump's side some day?

[Kathianne]

So, you think you might be on Trump's side some day?

Afraid not, like you I tend to eliminate. He's joined Christie, Kasich, Graham, the couple I don't know their names-for the simple reason in such a crowded slate, likely never will.

[Kathianne]

Oh, won't vote for Paul or Pataki either. How could I forget?

[Black Diamond]

Afraid not, like you I tend to eliminate. He's joined Christie, Kasich, Graham, the couple I don't know their names-for the simple reason in such a crowded slate, likely never will.
The L-word is about to be lobbed in your direction again.

[Kathianne]

The L-word is about to be lobbed in your direction again.

Ah well, I didn't think Obama was a messiah either.

[Gunny]

You've got a couple of days to catch up on the board, Gunny. That babysitting gig must have you stretched pretty thin - I've been there.

Most of these points you outline have been answered fairly satisfactory IMO in other threads... mostly in the Trump Wall thread.

Thin enough to not go searching every forum forum for "just the right thread". It's all the same crap to me, anyway. Trump this, Trump that. This is a Trump thread.

Hell, I could do a better job with substance than this loon. I wouldn't be attacking other Republican hopefuls or the media. I'd be going after leftwing policies, their candidates, and have a VIABLE solution besides "I'll hire wonderful people and get the job done". I'll hire half you evil f*ckers on this message board, a few vets I know, and get the job done in a realistic fashion.

BTW, anyone remember the last Republican to wage war with the media? The media brought him down.

[Perianne]

Thin enough to not go searching every forum forum for "just the right thread". It's all the same crap to me, anyway. Trump this, Trump that. This is a Trump thread.

Hell, I could do a better job with substance than this loon. I wouldn't be attacking other Republican hopefuls or the media. I'd be going after leftwing policies, their candidates, and have a VIABLE solution besides "I'll hire wonderful people and get the job done". I'll hire half you evil f*ckers on this message board, a few vets I know, and get the job done in a realistic fashion.

BTW, anyone remember the last Republican to wage war with the media? The media brought him down.

What if they attacked you first?

[Kathianne]

What if they attacked you first?

He's as thin skinned as that shooter today. He's offended at everything.

[Kathianne]

Thin enough to not go searching every forum forum for "just the right thread". It's all the same crap to me, anyway. Trump this, Trump that. This is a Trump thread.

Hell, I could do a better job with substance than this loon. I wouldn't be attacking other Republican hopefuls or the media. I'd be going after leftwing policies, their candidates, and have a VIABLE solution besides "I'll hire wonderful people and get the job done". I'll hire half you evil f*ckers on this message board, a few vets I know, and get the job done in a realistic fashion.

BTW, anyone remember the last Republican to wage war with the media? The media brought him down.
I don't think the rules apply to Trump, not with the media, not with the supporters.

[Perianne]

He's as thin skinned as that shooter today. He's offended at everything.

I don't think Gunny is all that thin skinned. I like him.

[Kathianne]

I don't think Gunny is all that thin skinned. I like him.
The Gunny knows. :laugh2:

[tailfins]

I don't think the rules apply to Trump, not with the media, not with the supporters.


It will all catch up to him eventally, let not your heart be troubled.

[Gunny]

What if they attacked you first?

Irrelevant. He never gave anyone a chance. He doesn't give ANYONE a chance. He went after Megyn Kelly for asking "unfair" questions which were actually pertinent questions, and his juvenile, petty ass hasn't stopped. He attacked Bush first. He's not attacking anyone that attacked him first. Rand Paul would hand Trump his ass. And I'm not saying I'm a Rand Paul supporter but he isn't going to take any shit off that blowhard Trump. I wouldn't.

Bush is only out of his league because he's not a class-less prig. He wants to discuss policy, not trade insults with a 4th grader.

You tell me what attacking each other has accomplished the last two elections ..... oh yeah .... losses.

[Kathianne]

How long is 'too long' since flip and flop meet?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/that-time-donald-trump-had-a-meeting-with-dreamers-and-said#.kj1zyNEZVM


That Time Donald Trump Had A Meeting With DREAMers And Said “You Convinced Me” On ImmigrationTwo years ago, Trump met with immigration activists who told them their stories and asked for his support on immigration. “You convinced me,” Trump said as the meeting ended.
posted on Aug. 26, 2015, at 3:06 p.m. Adrian Carrasquillo (http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo)

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-08/26/16/enhanced/webdr10/enhanced-8612-1440621135-9.jpg

On an August day two years ago, Donald Trump was in a much different place: He was just a billionaire with the simple goal of connecting his beauty pageant business with the upcoming Hispanic Heritage Awards.


So at his New York penthouse office atop Trump Tower, he convened a meeting (http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/22/donald-trump-tells-immigrant-advocates-youve-convinced-me/).


Trump ushered in a pair of men — one to talk about the awards and a Democratic strategist who works with nonprofits — and three young DREAMer activists. The DREAMers were on a tour sharing their stories with those less likely to support them, like Tea Party supporters.


Trump, according to four attendees who recounted the meeting to BuzzFeed News, talked about how rich he is (“This is the best view in New York!”), the golf courses he was building around the world, and about each prospective Republican candidate (“What do you think about Jeb Bush?”) and whether Latinos liked them.


Then the DREAMers began telling their life stories.

...

But he also kept asking, “Can’t you just become a citizen if you want to?” No, we can’t, the activists said, there’s no process for that. Trump was reflective, the activists said.


“You know, the truth is I have a lot of illegals working for me in Miami,” he told them, using the term for undocumented immigrants those in the meeting found offensive. “You know in Miami, my golf course is tended by all these Hispanics — if it wasn’t for them my lawn wouldn’t be the lawn it is, it’s the best lawn,” Pacheco recalled Trump saying.


Trump said he knew the work of undocumented people is what makes his golf courses and hotels great.


“At the end of the day, what we’re looking at is a value proposition for America,” Tijerino said to Trump at the end of the meeting, referring to immigration legislation.


“You’ve convinced me,” Trump said to the delight of the activists in the room.


“We all smiled at each other and said, ‘Wow, we did it, we got this guy to change his mind,’” Pacheco said.

...

[NightTrain]

How long is 'too long' since flip and flop meet?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/that-time-donald-trump-had-a-meeting-with-dreamers-and-said#.kj1zyNEZVM


lol... okay then.

Firstly, the reporter's own name raises a red flag to me regarding his impartiality. Adrian Carrasquillo probably has a dog in this fight, and after reading his article it appears like another hatchet job.

So, young Carrasquillo takes issue with Trump networking to increase his beauty pageant business to the Hispanic Heritage Awards. Surprise, surprise - a few illegal immigrant activists are dispatched to meet with Trump to work him over for donations. Trump continues with his mission and politely listens to their pitch instead of scrapping the whole idea.


Trump alternated between making no sense and broad ignorance on the issue, according to Gaby Pacheco, a prominent national activist and the third DREAMer in the meeting.

Now let's contrast this with another quote from another illegal activist at the same meeting :


“He really listened and asked thoughtful questions,” said Machado of the meeting to discuss immigration reform. “We had the opportunity to share our stories and explain why millions of Americans from California, Colorado, Texas, Florida and New York (to name a few states) have come out to say, ‘We need to find a solution to our broken immigration system.’”
http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/22/donald-trump-tells-immigrant-advocates-youve-convinced-me/

Polar opposite views of the same meeting, don't you think? The only difference is time - the negative statement is from today, and the positive one is from 2 years ago.

Why would that be?



“Don’t you think someone in a wheelchair is more deserving than you all?” Trump said to silence.

:laugh: Love that!

Contrary to the illegal aliens' beliefs, we do not have an unlimited amount of 'free' money to throw at them. Our safety net funds should indeed be prioritized to disabled Americans before illegals. I'm sure that idea didn't go over very well in that meeting.



But he also kept asking, “Can’t you just become a citizen if you want to?” No, we can’t, the activists said, there’s no process for that. Trump was reflective, the activists said.

I'll bet he was reflective, because that was a blatant lie. We all know there is a process to become a legal US citizen.


“You know, the truth is I have a lot of illegals working for me in Miami,” he told them, using the term for undocumented immigrants those in the meeting found offensive. “You know in Miami, my golf course is tended by all these Hispanics — if it wasn’t for them my lawn wouldn’t be the lawn it is, it’s the best lawn,” Pacheco recalled Trump saying.
Trump said he knew the work of undocumented people is what makes his golf courses and hotels great.

I really seriously doubt that Trump was stupid enough to say this in public. Besides the fact that he'd get in a lot of very publicized trouble if that were true, anyone that has tens of thousands of people working for him isn't going to know what the backstory is on a guy trimming the bushes on one of his golf courses.

Beyond that, if it were true, I guarantee that these people would be Front and Center on MSNBC right now on a 24/7 loop talking about how Trump loves him some illegals labor. There is no shortage of Trump haters in the media and this story would destroy him.

I wonder, why isn't Carrasquillo going for the Pulitzer and Rock Star status by blowing this story wide open - and effectively destroying Trump's candidacy all by himself? All he has to do is find those mysterious illegals working for Trump at his Miami golf course. He's just one plane ticket away from stardom!

Yeah, just not adding up.


“At the end of the day, what we’re looking at is a value proposition for America,” Tijerino said to Trump at the end of the meeting, referring to immigration legislation.
“You’ve convinced me,” Trump said to the delight of the activists in the room.
“We all smiled at each other and said, ‘Wow, we did it, we got this guy to change his mind,’” Pacheco said.

What you guys didn't understand, Pacheco, is that you convinced him that the rampant illegal alien presence and abuses of our system needs to stop - and that he knew he was lied to repeatedly during the meeting.


One thing I do agree with about this article - they did indeed convince him... to fix the problem.


There's my $0.02.

Incoming!

[Gunny]

lol... okay then.

Firstly, the reporter's own name raises a red flag to me regarding his impartiality. Adrian Carrasquillo probably has a dog in this fight, and after reading his article it appears like another hatchet job.

So, young Carrasquillo takes issue with Trump networking to increase his beauty pageant business to the Hispanic Heritage Awards. Surprise, surprise - a few illegal immigrant activists are dispatched to meet with Trump to work him over for donations. Trump continues with his mission and politely listens to their pitch instead of scrapping the whole idea.



Now let's contrast this with another quote from another illegal activist at the same meeting :


http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/22/donald-trump-tells-immigrant-advocates-youve-convinced-me/

Polar opposite views of the same meeting, don't you think? The only difference is time - the negative statement is from today, and the positive one is from 2 years ago.

Why would that be?




:laugh: Love that!

Contrary to the illegal aliens' beliefs, we do not have an unlimited amount of 'free' money to throw at them. Our safety net funds should indeed be prioritized to disabled Americans before illegals. I'm sure that idea didn't go over very well in that meeting.




I'll bet he was reflective, because that was a blatant lie. We all know there is a process to become a legal US citizen.



I really seriously doubt that Trump was stupid enough to say this in public. Besides the fact that he'd get in a lot of very publicized trouble if that were true, anyone that has tens of thousands of people working for him isn't going to know what the backstory is on a guy trimming the bushes on one of his golf courses.

Beyond that, if it were true, I guarantee that these people would be Front and Center on MSNBC right now on a 24/7 loop talking about how Trump loves him some illegals labor. There is no shortage of Trump haters in the media and this story would destroy him.

I wonder, why isn't Carrasquillo going for the Pulitzer and Rock Star status by blowing this story wide open - and effectively destroying Trump's candidacy all by himself? All he has to do is find those mysterious illegals working for Trump at his Miami golf course. He's just one plane ticket away from stardom!

Yeah, just not adding up.



What you guys didn't understand, Pacheco, is that you convinced him that the rampant illegal alien presence and abuses of our system needs to stop - and that he knew he was lied to repeatedly during the meeting.


One thing I do agree with about this article - they did indeed convince him... to fix the problem.


There's my $0.02.

Incoming!

Turrets one and three, 65 degrees to port, 45 degrees elevation, range, 3500 km ..... :laugh:

Devil's advocate ... the fallacy to the argument is yes, there IS a process. It takes YEARS, and a lot of graft on the other side of the border just to get on the list. It's cheaper to pay a coyote, or try yourself. And a lot quicker. They need money NOW. Our stupid legislators and judiciary has allowed this to happen.

I'm for shutting down ALL immigration legal or otherwise until we unfuck ourselves. You get a welfare check from me, your ass is picking tomatoes for it. Might give you some incentive to at least apply at McDonald's.

And I keep hearing all this talk about busting the illegals ... how about busting the people that hire them?If there's no incentive to come here, they won't. A US citizen gets $7.50 minimum wage and has to pay taxes. An illegal gets $5. an hour cash. What's the difference? The only ones making out are the people that hire.

You really want to cut this off, cut it off at the HEAD, not the feet.

[indago]

Turrets one and three, 65 degrees to port, 45 degrees elevation, range, 3500 km ..... :laugh:

Devil's advocate ... the fallacy to the argument is yes, there IS a process. It takes YEARS, and a lot of graft on the other side of the border just to get on the list. It's cheaper to pay a coyote, or try yourself. And a lot quicker. They need money NOW. Our stupid legislators and judiciary has allowed this to happen.

I'm for shutting down ALL immigration legal or otherwise until we unfuck ourselves. You get a welfare check from me, your ass is picking tomatoes for it. Might give you some incentive to at least apply at McDonald's.

And I keep hearing all this talk about busting the illegals ... how about busting the people that hire them?If there's no incentive to come here, they won't. A US citizen gets $7.50 minimum wage and has to pay taxes. An illegal gets $5. an hour cash. What's the difference? The only ones making out are the people that hire.

You really want to cut this off, cut it off at the HEAD, not the feet.

POSTING (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?50826-Ridding-Ourselves-of-Disease-and-Crime&p=751743#post751743)

[NightTrain]

Turrets one and three, 65 degrees to port, 45 degrees elevation, range, 3500 km ..... :laugh:

You just shelled Skagway, outside of Juneau, Skipper.

Recommend recalculation for 4197.88 klicks from your location... but give me a few minutes to move my boat first. I'm really fond of that thing.


Devil's advocate ... the fallacy to the argument is yes, there IS a process. It takes YEARS, and a lot of graft on the other side of the border just to get on the list. It's cheaper to pay a coyote, or try yourself. And a lot quicker. They need money NOW. Our stupid legislators and judiciary has allowed this to happen.

I'm for shutting down ALL immigration legal or otherwise until we unfuck ourselves. You get a welfare check from me, your ass is picking tomatoes for it. Might give you some incentive to at least apply at McDonald's.

And I keep hearing all this talk about busting the illegals ... how about busting the people that hire them?If there's no incentive to come here, they won't. A US citizen gets $7.50 minimum wage and has to pay taxes. An illegal gets $5. an hour cash. What's the difference? The only ones making out are the people that hire.

You really want to cut this off, cut it off at the HEAD, not the feet.

Yeah, it does take a couple of years according to those I've talked to about their experience... but it was worth it in their view. But I have no sympathy for those using that as an excuse as to why they came across anyway.

I can't argue with any of the rest, and especially with going after the employers of illegals and punishing them harshly - I've said that a few times.

[Gunny]

You just shelled Skagway, outside of Juneau, Skipper.

Recommend recalculation for 4197.88 klicks from your location... but give me a few minutes to move my boat first. I'm really fond of that thing.



Yeah, it does take a couple of years according to those I've talked to about their experience... but it was worth it in their view. But I have no sympathy for those using that as an excuse as to why they came across anyway.

I can't argue with any of the rest, and especially with going after the employers of illegals and punishing them harshly - I've said that a few times.

You're looking at it from your side of the fence. I used to sit on the beach in Kenya and just marvel at the things we take for granted that were a goldstrike to those who had nothing. I HATE MRE's. I used to starve in the field once they came up with that crap. Reconstituted dust by adding water is NOT my idea of food. That was a real meal to them. I don't blame those that want. I'd do anything to ensure my kids got fed. So I don't see it as an excuse from their POV.

At the same time, whoever decided to make us responsible for the entire world is an idiot if we can't even keep our own house clean. And at no point, from Woodrow Wilson to date, have we not had people within the US living in squalor. However the dynamic is far from simple.

Philosophical discussion aside, somebody's hiring these people. A fact completely overlooked by blaming the illegals. You cut off the source of their income and they have no incentive to come. All that usually happens to anyone hiring illegals is from nothing to a paltry fine. It's worth the risk if you're in business.

So I say let's make it not worth the risk. Hard time if you get caught. No buying your way out. That and cut off that anchor baby crap and you just cut your cost in half.

[revelarts]

You're right, the article is biased... lol
I keep hearing this from the naysayers : "Trump is a right-wing Obama!"
Where has he said that he intends to disregard his oath and illegally refuse to enforce our laws?

I think every single one of the candidates will look you in the eye and tell you that they will be all about 'Not government as usual'. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard any candidate, ever, say they're going to institute 'government as usual'.
Where has Trump said he's going to perform an end run around Congress and/or skirt the Constitution? This is very baffling to me and I must have missed something somewhere along the line that he's said.

But NT, Obama is a constitutional scholar.
And BEFORE his 1st election promised to follow the constitution... unlike that ol republican constitution breaker Bush.

But I don't think it was until his 2nd term that Obama actually came out and said that he'd do an end run on cronygress with the immigration issues. Before that he always claimed ---like those before him--- that everything he did was fully constitutionally... his lawyers said so. so that settled it.

I predicted the Obama was lying during his 1st campaign. That he didn't care about the constitution based on his votes in his short time as senator and based on what he 'promised' to do.

Now, if by some tragedy Trump becomes president, i predict that simply based on what he's said he'd do, and the way he says he'll run the show. there's NO WAY he'll stick to the constitution to do it.

That doesn't mean conservative won't cheer for it And make justifications and rationalizations for it all.
But it still won't be constitutional, or based on powers the president has in the constitution.

[NightTrain]

Now, if by some tragedy Trump becomes president, i predict that simply based on what he's said he'd do, and the way he says he'll run the show. there's NO WAY he'll stick to the constitution to do it.

What has he said that leads you to believe that he'll operate unconstitutionally? People keep saying that, and they must have seen something that I missed completely. I don't know why the reluctance... if it were my argument, I'd be the first to give the hard example to back it up.

Can you elaborate?


That doesn't mean conservative won't cheer for it And make justifications and rationalizations for it all.
But it still won't be constitutional, or based on powers the president has in the constitution.

Rev, I think you're painting with a large brush here. I personally get angry when I see any flavor of politician ignoring the constitution.

[jimnyc]

What has he said that leads you to believe that he'll operate unconstitutionally? People keep saying that, and they must have seen something that I missed completely. I don't know why the reluctance... if it were my argument, I'd be the first to give the hard example to back it up.

Can you elaborate?



Rev, I think you're painting with a large brush here. I personally get angry when I see any flavor of politician ignoring the constitution.

Seems some across the internetospehere are already accusing Trump of not following the COTUS, and we haven't even come close to the first primary yet!! Of course it would be nice if they had facts, or the mans words stating such, or his actual actions in office... but based on what he would LIKE to do, let's just go ahead and make the accusations now.

[NightTrain]

Philosophical discussion aside, somebody's hiring these people. A fact completely overlooked by blaming the illegals. You cut off the source of their income and they have no incentive to come. All that usually happens to anyone hiring illegals is from nothing to a paltry fine. It's worth the risk if you're in business.

So I say let's make it not worth the risk. Hard time if you get caught. No buying your way out. That and cut off that anchor baby crap and you just cut your cost in half.

Combine that with the Wall and all of our LE agencies doing what they're supposed to be doing, and I think we're down to 20% or better in 4 years time.

[Gunny]

What has he said that leads you to believe that he'll operate unconstitutionally? People keep saying that, and they must have seen something that I missed completely. I don't know why the reluctance... if it were my argument, I'd be the first to give the hard example to back it up.

Can you elaborate?



Rev, I think you're painting with a large brush here. I personally get angry when I see any flavor of politician ignoring the constitution.


Seems some across the internetospehere are already accusing Trump of not following the COTUS, and we haven't even come close to the first primary yet!! Of course it would be nice if they had facts, or the mans words stating such, or his actual actions in office... but based on what he would LIKE to do, let's just go ahead and make the accusations now.

The left used the same blinders and argument in 08. Look what we got out of the deal. The most unconstitutional President since Dishonest Abe.

All you have to do is look at the man. He picks petty sideshow fights with the media to cover his inadequacies in politics. While his rhetoric may appeal to some, his general pipe dream ideals have about a ZERO chance of ever happening. He'll never do a damned thing he says he's going to and his entire stance is an appeal to emotion. He missed the bus. He'd be a perfect Democrat.

I don't want Dems running this country and I damned sure don't want one disguised as a RINO doing it.

[Gunny]

Combine that with the Wall and all of our LE agencies doing what they're supposed to be doing, and I think we're down to 20% or better in 4 years time.

Our agencies enforcing the law would take us down to 20%.

Cut off their source of income and you'll get it down to 5%. That wall will deter toddlers. That's about it.

[revelarts]

What has he said that leads you to believe that he'll operate unconstitutionally? People keep saying that, and they must have seen something that I missed completely. I don't know why the reluctance... if it were my argument, I'd be the first to give the hard example to back it up.

Can you elaborate?

Rev, I think you're painting with a large brush here. I personally get angry when I see any flavor of politician ignoring the constitution.

well it started this post


As O'Reilly pointed out, however, the Constitution's 14th Amendment enshrines birthright citizenship into US law.
"That's not going to happen because the 14th Amendment says if you're born here, you're an American," O'Reilly said. "And you can't kick Americans out. The courts would block you at every turn. You must know all that."
....
"Bill, I think you're wrong about the 14th Amendment," Trump said. "And frankly, the whole thing with 'anchor babies' and the concept of 'anchor babies' — I don't think you're right about that."
O'Reilly was incredulous.
"I can quote it!" O'Reilly exclaimed. "You want me to quote you the amendment? If you're born here, you're an American — period! Period!"
Trumps response to that was the same as Bush/Obama
"Many lawyers are saying... that’s not the way it is in terms of this,” "
O'riely: "there is a way to do it and that is to attempt to repeal the amendment..."
Trump: "THAT"S a MUCH LONGER PROCESS I'D MUCH RATHER... I'd much rather... find out if anchor babies are legal... ....were going to test it out..."

OK So please tell me what's the difference in Obama "testing out" his immigration executive orders and Trump "testing out" his?
Trump knows the law at this point ISN'T kicking people out and because of the 14th assumes all who are born in the U.S. ARE in fact citizens.
Obama can test Out OBAMACARE because well "the general welfare" claus applies right? His lawyers say so.

NT this is exactly the type of thinking I'm talking about.
Maybe you don't see it because you agree with Trump's unused ...never used... interpretation of the 14th.
But I'm not debating whether the 14th is right or wrong. But at this point. as so many have pointed out to me in the past.
today it's the LAW . And not just the law but the supreme law of the land...so called.

So for me based on this and his general demeanor and stances on what he'd like to do. I suspect he'll do whatever he has to do to try to make his will law. if that means "testing" the constitution on, immigration, on taxes, tariffs, treaties, trade and on war powers to name a few --none of which are presidential powers btw-- then i suspect he'll do it.

maybe you give him the benny of the doubt on all those other areas outside of immigration OK fine. But just as i told people about Obama.. Obama never said he'd "test" any amendments but he did show by his votes that he didn't care about 4th amendment. So i didn't trust him to honor the other amendments or the rest of the constitution.
So now Trump has already SAID he's ready to "test out" a constitutional amendment. i see no reason why i should trust him on the others.
I've got nothing good to go on. why should i assume that a completely untried new politician will stick with the constitution? he's flipped as much as Ronmey on his views... as least talk wise... maybe you have a basis why i should trust him?

You, of course, are free to assume the best of him.

[NightTrain]

[SIZE=2]

well it started this post


Trumps response to that was the same as Bush/Obama
"Many lawyers are saying... that’s not the way it is in terms of this,” "
O'riely: "there is a way to do it and that is to attempt to repeal the amendment..."
Trump: "THAT"S a MUCH LONGER PROCESS I'D MUCH RATHER... I'd much rather... find out if anchor babies are legal... ....were going to test it out..."

OK So please tell me what's the difference in Obama "testing out" his immigration executive orders and Trump "testing out" his?
Trump knows the law at this point ISN'T kicking people out and because of the 14th assumes all who are born in the U.S. ARE in fact citizens.
Obama can test Out OBAMACARE because well "the general welfare" claus applies right? His lawyers say so.

]this is exactly the type of thinking I'm talking about.
Maybe you don't see it because you agree with the unused ...never used... interpretation of the 14th.
But I'm not debating whether the 14th is right or wrong. But at this point. as so many have pointed out to me in the past.
today it's the LAW . And not just the law but the supreme law of the land...so called.

So for me based on this and his general demeanor and stances on what he'd like to do. I suspect he'll do whatever he has to do to try to make his will law. if that means "testing" the constitution on, immigration, on taxes, tariffs, treaties, trade and on war powers to name a few --none of which are presidential powers btw-- then i suspect he'll do it.

maybe you give him the benny of the doubt here on all those other areas outside of immigration OK fine. But just as i told people about Obama.. Obama never said he'd "test" any amendments but he did show by his votes that he didn't care about 4th amendment. So i didn't trust him to honor the other [/COLOR][/FONT]amendments or the rest of the constitution[FONT=Roboto][COLOR=#333333].
So now Trump has already SAID he's ready to "test out" a constitutional amendment. i see no reason why i should trust him on the others.
I've got nothing good to go on. why should i assume that an completely untried new politician will stick with the constitution? he's flipped as much as Ronmey on his view.. as least talk wise. maybe you have a basis why i should trust him?

You, of course, are free to assume the best of him.


Close!

But here's what he actually said :


Under the 14th Amendment, O’Reilly told Trump on “The O’Reilly Factor,” mass deportations of so-called birthright citizens cannot happen.

Trump disagreed, and said that “many lawyers are saying that’s not the way it is in terms of this.”


“What happens is, they’re in Mexico, they’re going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,” Trump said, telling O’Reilly that the lawyers said, “It’s not going to hold up in court, it’s going to have to be tested."

Can you explain how it's nefarious to test this out in court?

If it's found that the 14th does indeed apply, then all those anchor babies are going to be legal US citizens and as far as I'm concerned, that's that... until it's modified, which DOES take a long time to do.

[NightTrain]

Our agencies enforcing the law would take us down to 20%.

Cut off their source of income and you'll get it down to 5%. That wall will deter toddlers. That's about it.


He didn't say it would be an undefended wall. A policed wall will be quite effective.

[Gunny]

Welcome back, Grandpa! Are your diaper changing skills improving?

There was speculation as to whether or not the sperm donor was still above or below ground during your absence...



I must have missed it, but which of Bambam's policies did Trump say he would continue?

Oh I missed this one.

We shall not discuss the sperm donor on account of I'm going to fuck his ass up. He might as well make his plans now. And I'm not just going to beat his ass, I'm going to hurt him. He's made this too personal and he's using the child as his bargaining chip. Fucking with children is the name of my fucking game. I'm a United States Marine. You want to fuck with babies, go right the fuck ahead. I got eyes on and he's going to pay. I'm just smart enough to bide my time.



Otherwise, I'm just fine. :)

[revelarts]

Close!

But here's what he actually said :

[/I][/U]Can you explain how it's nefarious to test this out in court?

If it's found that the 14th does indeed apply, then all those anchor babies are going to be legal US citizens and as far as I'm concerned, that's that... until it's modified, which DOES take a long time to do.

my quote was acurate. you must be quoting another part of his statement...
which really makes it no better. how's he going to determine if someone just came across the boarder for a few days 5 10 20 30 + years ago?
or that they are the "criminals" he wants out? But its still the same.

as i said NT please tell me the difference in Trumps executive orders to treat people born in U.S. differently than the law has been exercised up until point. THEN let the deported file suit up to the SOCTUS to test the orders constitutionality, any different from Obama's executive orders to change immigration laws without congress? or Obamacare or etc?

If you can say that Obama's action aren't "nefarious" then. OK we disagree on what nefarious and unconstitutional acts are.
But if Obama's acts are unconstitutional then Trump's would be as well.

Same legal game being played ...called piss on the constitution... just different POVs of the players.
both players swore.. hope to swear to defend it BTW.


Here's what I'm quoting from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlTOhEGp4VM

[NightTrain]

my quote was acurate. you must be quoting another part of his statement...
which really makes it no better. how's he going to determine if someone just came across the boarder for a few days 5 10 20 30 + years ago?
or that they are the "criminals" he wants out? But its still the same.

as i said NT please tell me the difference in Trumps executive orders to treat people born in U.S. differently than the law has been exercised up until point. THEN let the deported file suit up to the SOCTUS to test the orders constitutionality, any different from Obama's executive orders to change immigration laws without congress? or Obamacare or etc?

If you can say that Obama's action aren't "nefarious" then. OK we disagree on what nefarious and unconstitutional acts are.
But if Obama's acts are unconstitutional then Trump's would be as well.

Same legal game being played ...called piss on the constitution... just different POVs of the players.
both players swore.. hope to swear to defend it BTW.


Here's what I'm quoting from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlTOhEGp4VM


Okay, I think the water is sufficiently muddied... so let's take a step back.

The whole immigration thing isn't ONLY about Anchor Babies. In fact, I think it's a small problem overall as far as impact on our country.

Here's how I understand his stance to be :

1) Instruct all LE to begin doing their jobs, and deport anyone found to be here illegally without any ambiguous circumstances. That's the vast majority of our illegals.

2) Begin construction of the wall to prevent boomerang deportation.

3) With regard to Anchor Babies, ask the SCOTUS for a ruling on the matter. In the meantime, until a legal judgement is issued, the Anchor Babies remain because there is a legal question regarding their status, whether or not anyone likes it.

4) Should the SC rule in favor of the 14th to include Anchor Babies, it is then up to Congress to deal with it one way or another. However, I'm fairly cynical at this point that they will do anything about it.



I've already shown you, Rev, that Trump said the 14th needs to be tested in court with regard to Anchor Babies. He did NOT say he'd issue Executive Orders and deport them anyway. He never said it. If you still believe that he means to deal with Anchor Babies by EO despite what he clearly said by using our Judicial branch to resolve it, then I can't help you because you're putting words in his mouth.

I can only go by what he's said.

[revelarts]

...
I've already shown you, Rev, that Trump said the 14th needs to be tested in court with regard to Anchor Babies. He did NOT say he'd issue Executive Orders and deport them anyway. He never said it. If you still believe that he means to deal with Anchor Babies by EO despite what he clearly said by using our Judicial branch to resolve it, then I can't help you because you're putting words in his mouth.
I can only go by what he's said.

O'riely: "there is a way to do it and that is to attempt to repeal the amendment..."
Trump: "THAT"S a MUCH LONGER PROCESS I'D MUCH RATHER... I'd much rather... find out if anchor babies are legal... ....were going to test it out..."

"WE'RE going to test it out."
who's "we" here? is it you or me?
You've already said the congress isn't going to do anything.
the only way for the SCOTUS to look at it is for a case to be brought after someones has been denied citizenship.

So whose going to deny it?
"WE'RE going to..."
Donald trump and his lawyers.
But he can't "test it" unless he's got some authority. He's not running for Govenor of AZ or a Texas broader sherif seat.

sorry No, i don't give politicians the benny of the doubt on their constitutional positions anymore.
i don't let the scum bag politicians BS me anymore on this we've gone WAY to far here even if NO ONE really cares anymore.
I see that he's ready to piss on the constitution to get what he wants concerning immigration. and i see no reason to think he'll stop there. that's all i need to know.

[NightTrain]

O'riely: "there is a way to do it and that is to attempt to repeal the amendment..."
Trump: "THAT"S a MUCH LONGER PROCESS I'D MUCH RATHER... I'd much rather... find out if anchor babies are legal... ....were going to test it out..."

"WE'RE going to test it out."
who's "we" here? is it you or me?
You've already said the congress isn't going to do anything.
the only way for the SCOTUS to look at it is for a case to be brought after someones has been denied citizenship.

So whose going to deny it?
"WE'RE going to..."
Donald trump and his lawyers.
But he can't "test it" unless he's got some authority. He's not running for Govenor of AZ or a Texas broader sherif seat.

sorry No, i don't give politicians the benny of the doubt on their constitutional positions anymore.
i don't let the scum bag politicians BS me anymore on this we've gone WAY to far here even if NO ONE really cares anymore.
I see that he's ready to piss on the constitution to get what he wants concerning immigration. and i see no reason to think he'll stop there. that's all i need to know.







Trump said, telling O’Reilly that the lawyers said, “It’s not going to hold up in court, it’s going to have to be tested."

You're seeing a boogie man that's not there, Rev. Cherry picking other parts of the conversation where he didn't completely spell it out isn't honest.

[revelarts]

[/FONT][/COLOR]You're seeing a boogie man that's not there, Rev. Cherry picking other parts of the conversation where he didn't completely spell it out isn't honest.

tested by who NT?

help me be honest.

Who's going to test it?

[NightTrain]

tested by who NT?

help me be honest.

Who's going to test it?


Here, watch this vid :

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/opinions/cevallos-trump-14th-amendment/

[revelarts]

Here, watch this vid :

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/opinions/cevallos-trump-14th-amendment/

tested by who NT?

help me be honest.

Who's going to test it?

[jimnyc]

tested by who NT?

help me be honest.

Who's going to test it?

How about the supreme court? If they brought it there, would that be then unconstitutional to do so? Or what if the amendment was repealed? Also unconstitutional? If they "test" these, and the amendment is then done with, I would see nothing wrong with that, and hardly against the constitution. Bringing lawyers and scholars forth is 'testing'. Going to court or to try and repeal an amendment can be seen as 'testing' the validity. And I still would see nothing wrong if those routes were taken.

[NightTrain]

tested by who NT?

help me be honest.

Who's going to test it?


Rev, you keep asking the same questions after I've already answered you. I'm sorry if you don't like the answer, but it doesn't change.

I will say it one... more... time.

The SCOTUS. It will eventually end up in their laps.

Additionally, Congress can also answer the question, as pointed out in the CNN video I provided you.

[jimnyc]

Btw, 2/3rds of Congress repealing might not be appealing to some, but it WOULD be constitutional also.

[Gunny]

Btw, 2/3rds of Congress repealing might not be appealing to some, but it WOULD be constitutional also.

Good luck with THAT. I'd LOVE to see it. Congress ca overrride the President AND the judiciary. Just need to grow some balls.

[jimnyc]

Btw, the MAJORITY of things that candidates are promising will rely on congress as well. This doesn't necessarily mean they all plan on end around of the COTUS.

[revelarts]

Rev, you keep asking the same questions after I've already answered you. I'm sorry if you don't like the answer, but it doesn't change.

I will say it one... more... time.

The SCOTUS. It will eventually end up in their laps.

Additionally, Congress can also answer the question, as pointed out in the CNN video I provided you.



It can ONLY end up in the SCOTUS laps IF someone denies what had been considered citizenship or tries to deport someone born in the U.S.. And then the deportee files a suit against the local, state or federal officials who've "tested" the current application of the of the 14th.
Trump has said "WE'RE" going to test it. He can only do that as a U.S. official, he' running for president. And from that seat it's only by illegal executive orders to the Depts he heads that he can "test it". Which would be an end run around congress on immigration law. the same as Obama has done. And more than Obama a violation of the 14th.

right now no one is testing it or will test it. not the SCOTUS or congress or the any executive agency under Obama at this point. would Hillary test it? Or Jeb Bush?

"We're going to test it"

you say you've answered my question.
but you've dodged this point.

Obama's unconstitutional on immigration because he overstepped his presidential authority.
Trump indicates that he'd do that plus ignore or personally redefine the 14th amendment and hope the SCOTUS backs his actions. Just as Obama did with Obama care and other issues.

what am i missing here?

[jimnyc]

Trump has said "WE'RE" going to test it. He can only do that as a U.S. official, he' running for president. And from that seat it's only by illegal executive orders to the Depts he heads that he can "test it". Which would be an end run around congress on immigration law. the same as Obama has done. And more than Obama a violation of the 14th.


You are LITERALLY guessing, literally, as he NEVER stated what you think he might do. The GOP could be "we". The USA as a whole can be "we". He's simply stating he disagrees with the amendment, and he is going to test it. It's YOU declaring that this test is somehow illegal or unconstitutional. If he gets others to do the "testing", that's hardly an executive order. If he gets his party to test it, that's hardly an executive order. If he gets people to bring it forward towards scotus, that's hardly an executive order.

You are LITERALLY making up the executive order thing, but refusing to see the legal possibilities.

Why is it that folks like Rand Paul get a pass then, on their words about "executive orders"?

[jimnyc]

Every candidate has stated things that they would get done, that would require intervention of congress - OR - perhaps an executive order (even if they never said that). So, I guess then that they ALL are planning executive orders. That's how "I" see things, even if they really never all said those exact words.

[jimnyc]

NSA issues and patriot act type stuff - enacted by congress. Do these things take votes to rescind? Things that are legal and enacted - if we disagree with them - do we go through congress again to have them rescinded - or do we just write an order and put a stop to them because "we" disagree with them? Should be some interesting answers...

[jimnyc]

Rand Paul stated he would instantly repeal Obamacare when he gets into office. Sounds like an EO to me.

Rand Paul said he would instantly end the NSA spying on day one. But what if it's legal, as it is? Does HE decide that with an EO, or should it be congress or the courts? Sounds like someone who plans with a heavy pen to me...

In other words, ALL the candidates make claims about what they will do and not do when in office, even if it means stating they will instantly change things on day one. One mans immigration is another mans patriot act. What's important to one, is important to another.

But regardless - if one will bitch about making orders, bitch about ALL who imply they will do so, not just the front runner.

[revelarts]

You are LITERALLY guessing, literally, as he NEVER stated what you think he might do. The GOP could be "we". The USA as a whole can be "we". He's simply stating he disagrees with the amendment, and he is going to test it. It's YOU declaring that this test is somehow illegal or unconstitutional. If he gets others to do the "testing", that's hardly an executive order. If he gets his party to test it, that's hardly an executive order. If he gets people to bring it forward towards scotus, that's hardly an executive order.

You are LITERALLY making up the executive order thing, but refusing to see the legal possibilities.

Why is it that folks like Rand Paul get a pass then, on their words about "executive orders"?


Is the GOP doing it?
they can't it has to be an official.

it doesn't get to to the SCOTUS without a case. period.
for a case to be brought an official has to ALTER CURRENT PROCEDURES.

WHAT official will do that NT, Jim?

Trumps said to O'reily
O'riely: "there is a way to do it and that is to attempt to repeal the amendment..."
Trump: "THAT"S a MUCH LONGER PROCESS I'D MUCH RATHER...I'd much rather... find out if anchor babies are legal... ....we're going to test it out..."


if he thinks someone else is going to test it and "we're" doesn't mean HIM specifically then he's just blowing smoke out his arse to make some people think he's serious about immigration. Or if he's willing to mouth a promise to break the constitution to get votes then sorry he's off the table in my book.

ether way it doesn't put him in a good position.

[jimnyc]

Think as you will, Rev, I'm not getting heated over this. If you want to assume people said stuff, then assume them of all.

But it doesn't need to be an "official" to say "we are going to test this" - that can be ANYONE. that can mean that we, the US citizens will test it. He can have Congress get involved, attorneys or whomever it may take to challenge it LEGALLY. But if you instantly assume his words mean he plans an end around, well so be it. I'm not worried about that. I'm more worried about what he actually says. And quite frankly, immigration is one of our hugest issues anyway, so I hope he DOES have the 14th challenged, in addition to many other immigration issues harming our country. Even the loony Paul states that immigration is a national security issue.

[NightTrain]

You are LITERALLY guessing, literally, as he NEVER stated what you think he might do. The GOP could be "we". The USA as a whole can be "we". He's simply stating he disagrees with the amendment, and he is going to test it. It's YOU declaring that this test is somehow illegal or unconstitutional. If he gets others to do the "testing", that's hardly an executive order. If he gets his party to test it, that's hardly an executive order. If he gets people to bring it forward towards scotus, that's hardly an executive order.

You are LITERALLY making up the executive order thing, but refusing to see the legal possibilities.

Why is it that folks like Rand Paul get a pass then, on their words about "executive orders"?


Thank you.

I really have a hard time sometimes arguing with someone that I KNOW is smart, but is being deliberately obtuse.


Rev, I like you and I'm trying not to be condescending, but if you continue to be obtuse about this issue you're going to force me to lay this all out like I'm explaining things to my 12 year old son. You know what my point is.

Argue all you want about who, specifically, is going to test it in court. It doesn't matter to me, as long as it's done lawfully and we get an answer.

What I questioned, specifically, was the claims of some people running around saying Trump intends to defy current laws, when he clearly said it was going to be tested in court. By every measure, this spells out his desire to conduct himself and his Presidency in a lawful manner. Then, in the course of the same conversation in question, he referred to it again without spelling out the entire concept specifically saying 'court'. You're pouncing on that like Perry Mason tripping up a witness on the stand with contradictory testimony - but it's not contradictory. Every reasonable person already knows what he wants to do, because he already said it.


Can we now agree that Trump intends to have this tested in court?

I am not interested in the methods or who tests it. The correct answer is that he intends on testing the Anchor Baby problem in court. This is what he said.


Muddying the water with comparisons of Obama's lack of integrity with anyone else because of what they never said compared to what Obama never said is a baffling argument. Obama never said that he'd love to rob a Girl Scout Cookie stand, either. Does that mean that it's highly likely that Trump intends to?

[jimnyc]

Thank you.

I really have a hard time sometimes arguing with someone that I KNOW is smart, but is being deliberately obtuse.


Rev, I like you and I'm trying not to be condescending, but if you continue to be obtuse about this issue you're going to force me to lay this all out like I'm explaining things to my 12 year old son. You know what my point is.

Argue all you want about who, specifically, is going to test it in court. It doesn't matter to me, as long as it's done lawfully and we get an answer.

What I questioned, specifically, was the claims of some people running around saying Trump intends to defy current laws, when he clearly said it was going to be tested in court. By every measure, this spells out his desire to conduct himself and his Presidency in a lawful manner. Then, in the course of the same conversation in question, he referred to it again without spelling out the entire concept specifically saying 'court'. You're pouncing on that like Perry Mason tripping up a witness on the stand with contradictory testimony - but it's not contradictory. Every reasonable person already knows what he wants to do, because he already said it.


Can we now agree that Trump intends to have this tested in court?

I am not interested in the methods or who tests it. The correct answer is that he intends on testing the Anchor Baby problem in court. This is what he said.


Muddying the water with comparisons of Obama's lack of integrity with anyone else because of what they never said compared to what Obama never said is a baffling argument. Obama never said that he'd love to rob a Girl Scout Cookie stand, either. Does that mean that it's highly likely that Trump intends to?

If you read it as Rev does - then Rand Paul is doing the same, planning on EO's on the first day I suppose, as are quite a few other candidates, from BOTH parties.

What if someone stated "when I'm in office we sure are going to test the legality of Obamacare". Woohoo, an EO and it's literally gone on day one!!! Oh, wait, that's not what they mean?

What if someone stated they plan on ending any/all spying by the NSA (even approved crap). An end around with an EO, or planning on taking the appropriate route? I guess it's all in who is saying it and who is reading it.

What if Hillary stated she would test the 2nd amendment the minute she gets into office. Does this mean she can unilaterally end the 2nd and it's gone forever? I don't think so, simply can't happen that way. No different than how one person can supposedly get rid of the 14th. Test it LEGALLY, yes. But an EO to get around it? The why doesn't Obama just shelve the 2nd right now? BECAUSE HE CAN'T.

[Gunny]

It can ONLY end up in the SCOTUS laps IF someone denies what had been considered citizenship or tries to deport someone born in the U.S.. And then the deportee files a suit against the local, state or federal officials who've "tested" the current application of the of the 14th.
Trump has said "WE'RE" going to test it. He can only do that as a U.S. official, he' running for president. And from that seat it's only by illegal executive orders to the Depts he heads that he can "test it". Which would be an end run around congress on immigration law. the same as Obama has done. And more than Obama a violation of the 14th.

right now no one is testing it or will test it. not the SCOTUS or congress or the any executive agency under Obama at this point. would Hillary test it? Or Jeb Bush?

"We're going to test it"

you say you've answered my question.
but you've dodged this point.

Obama's unconstitutional on immigration because he overstepped his presidential authority.
Trump indicates that he'd do that plus ignore or personally redefine the 14th amendment and hope the SCOTUS backs his actions. Just as Obama did with Obama care and other issues.

what am i missing here?





Wrong. Try again?

[revelarts]

Thank you.

I really have a hard time sometimes arguing with someone that I KNOW is smart, but is being deliberately obtuse.


Rev, I like you and I'm trying not to be condescending, but if you continue to be obtuse about this issue you're going to force me to lay this all out like I'm explaining things to my 12 year old son. You know what my point is.

Argue all you want about who, specifically, is going to test it in court. It doesn't matter to me, as long as it's done lawfully and we get an answer.

What I questioned, specifically, was the claims of some people running around saying Trump intends to defy current laws, when he clearly said it was going to be tested in court. By every measure, this spells out his desire to conduct himself and his Presidency in a lawful manner. Then, in the course of the same conversation in question, he referred to it again without spelling out the entire concept specifically saying 'court'. You're pouncing on that like Perry Mason tripping up a witness on the stand with contradictory testimony - but it's not contradictory. Every reasonable person already knows what he wants to do, because he already said it.
Can we now agree that Trump intends to have this tested in court?
I am not interested in the methods or who tests it. The correct answer is that he intends on testing the Anchor Baby problem in court. This is what he said.
Muddying the water with comparisons of Obama's lack of integrity with anyone else because of what they never said compared to what Obama never said is a baffling argument. Obama never said that he'd love to rob a Girl Scout Cookie stand, either. Does that mean that it's highly likely that Trump intends to?
well ok i guess we'll just disagree. since i'm being baffling i guess...
ok,
but i will respond to this.

"Can we now agree that Trump intends to have this tested in court?"
yes.

"I am not interested in the methods or who tests it."
this is where we differ. Im very interested in the method and who. If it's done, it should be done constitutionally. At least if your'e a "tea party" conservative, God bless the founders get back to the constitution rah rah etc. But if you don't care at all if it's constitutionally done then we really do disagree.

"The correct answer is that he intends on testing the Anchor Baby problem in court. This is what he said."
now you say "he intends" OK now i'm baffled. You and others keep telling me it's NOT him whose going to test anything maybe it's "AMERICA" or the Mailman will do it, or Grandma will do it, anyone but TRUMP becasue "he never said that." it's all a perry mason lawyer like reading to even THINK he said anything CLOSE to that.

look. It seems to me that you and others seem convinced of his "desire to conduct himself and his Presidency in a lawful manner." . well ok fine, but i'm from Missouri here, he needs to spell out the constitutional methods to me especially since he'd "rather not" use the obvious constitutional route of repeal.
Being from Missouri I need more than you guys good faith pledge on his intended lawful constitutional dealing in the future. With your most positive spin on his few words that can easily be read exactly as i have portrayed them.

He needs to spell out his Methods and Who will test, any parts of the constitution is that to much to expect from a potential president?
I hope that's doesn't seem to far fetched that i just won't go on "trust me"

[revelarts]

If you read it as Rev does - then Rand Paul is doing the same, planning on EO's on the first day I suppose, as are quite a few other candidates, from BOTH parties.

Not all EOs are unconstitutional. you know this Jim.



What if someone stated "when I'm in office we sure are going to test the legality of Obamacare". Woohoo, an EO and it's literally gone on day one!!! Oh, wait, that's not what they mean?
well in my book Obamacare is already unconstitutional. however it should be dismantled lawfully. and constitutionally.



What if someone stated they plan on ending any/all spying by the NSA (even approved crap). An end around with an EO, or planning on taking the appropriate route? I guess it's all in who is saying it and who is reading it.the blanket spying is on it's FACE unconstitutional and has been in effect for less than 2 decades. started supposedly because of an emergency.
And a president has legal constitutional authority over the FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD, etc. he can stop what the law ALLOWS him to do.
that is. If you have authority to stay up until 4am. doesn't mean you have to do it. There are no laws in effect that i know of that MANDATE or ORDER universally spying on all citizens. the congress just folded to Bush/Obama's wills and allowed it "legally". It can be stopped (brought to constitutional limits) within the law by EOs during any presidents admin.. But to be killed with universal finality the congress and the courts have to step up.



What if Hillary stated she would test the 2nd amendment the minute she gets into office. Does this mean she can unilaterally end the 2nd and it's gone forever? I don't think so, simply can't happen that way. No different than how one person can supposedly get rid of the 14th. Test it LEGALLY, yes. But an EO to get around it? The why doesn't Obama just shelve the 2nd right now? BECAUSE HE CAN'T.
this EXACTLY what Obama did with the immigration rules. He decided to "test" his powers and made up EOs that go against the law to see who'd stop him? same with the invasion of Libya. He (and Bush) decided what they could GET AWAY WITH as president. and just did it.

If that's the way you want the presidents to act FINE.
I thought you guys were conservatives and liked the constitution, separation of powers etc.. but it looks like you don't mind some presidents "testing it on a daily basis by making up BS willy nilly to see if the congress or the courts will block it. as long as a few lawyers say it's ok of course.

ok, fine. whatever.

I've always known liberals thought the constitution was a "living" document to be tested and changed at ever turn but it looks like Trump has convinced "conservatives" that it's OK as well.

sad times.

and people wonder why i vote 3rd party?

[Gunny]

Not all EOs are unconstitutional. you know this Jim.


well in my book Obamacare is already unconstitutional. however it should be dismantled lawfully. and constitutionally.

the blanket spying is on it's FACE unconstitutional and has been in effect for less than 2 decades. started supposedly because of an emergency.
And a president has legal constitutional authority over the FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD, etc. he can stop what the law ALLOWS him to do.
that is. If you have authority to stay up until 4am. doesn't mean you have to do it. There are no laws in effect that i know of that MANDATE or ORDER universally spying on all citizens. the congress just folded to Bush/Obama's wills and allowed it "legally". It can be stopped (brought to constitutional limits) within the law by EOs during any presidents admin.. But to be killed with universal finality the congress and the courts have to step up.


this EXACTLY what Obama did with the immigration rules. He decided to "test" his powers and made up EOs that go against the law to see who'd stop him? same with the invasion of Libya. He (and Bush) decided what they could GET AWAY WITH as president. and just did it.

If that's the way you want the presidents to act FINE.
I thought you guys were conservatives and liked the constitution, separation of powers etc.. but it looks like you don't mind some presidents "testing it on a daily basis by making up BS willy nilly to see if the congress or the courts will block it. as long as a few lawyers say it's ok of course.

ok, fine. whatever.

I've always known liberals thought the constitution was a "living" document to be tested and changed at ever turn but it looks like Trump has convinced "conservatives" that it's OK as well.

sad times.

and people wonder why i vote 3rd party?

What you ain't realizing is Trump is the manifestation of a bunch of frustrated people. You can't wish angry people away. Blaming Jim is just stupid. He isn't the head of the "I'm sick of this PC bullshit" crowd. Why don't you put the blame where it belongs? On a bunch of ineffectual, efeminite Republican'ts like McConnell and Boehner?

[NightTrain]

well ok i guess we'll just disagree. since i'm being baffling i guess...
ok,
but i will respond to this.

"Can we now agree that Trump intends to have this tested in court?"
yes.

Thank you. That puts to rest the theory of illegal EO end-runs.


"I am not interested in the methods or who tests it."
this is where we differ. Im very interested in the method and who. If it's done, it should be done constitutionally. At least if your'e a "tea party" conservative, God bless the founders get back to the constitution rah rah etc. But if you don't care at all if it's constitutionally done then we really do disagree.

You cherry picked me. I already said as long as it was lawful; ie : constitutional. Besides, if you're taking it to court, you're not trying for an unlawful outcome.


"The correct answer is that he intends on testing the Anchor Baby problem in court. This is what he said."
now you say "he intends" OK now i'm baffled. You and others keep telling me it's NOT him whose going to test anything maybe it's "AMERICA" or the Mailman will do it, or Grandma will do it, anyone but TRUMP becasue "he never said that." it's all a perry mason lawyer like reading to even THINK he said anything CLOSE to that.

Of course he "intends". He's a candidate, not a sitting President. And he's not a lawyer, let alone a Constitutional lawyer. A President has many duties; personally arguing in front of SCOTUS is not one of them.

Here's how that will work :


DOJ is led by the United States Attorney General, the nation’s top law enforcement official and chief legal adviser to the President. Another top DOJ official is the Solicitor General, who represents the federal government in cases heard before the US Supreme Court.

http://www.allgov.com/departments/department-of-justice?detailsDepartmentID=573



look. It seems to me that you and others seem convinced of his "desire to conduct himself and his Presidency in a lawful manner." . well ok fine, but i'm from Missouri here, he needs to spell out the constitutional methods to me especially since he'd "rather not" use the obvious constitutional route of repeal.
Being from Missouri I need more than you guys good faith pledge on his intended lawful constitutional dealing in the future. With your most positive spin on his few words that can easily be read exactly as i have portrayed them.

He needs to spell out his Methods and Who will test, any parts of the constitution is that to much to expect from a potential president?
I hope that's doesn't seem to far fetched that i just won't go on "trust me"


Hey, I totally get the level of paranoia about the next President and the possibility of his or her lack of ethics regarding the Constitution. Prior to 2008 it wasn't really a concern, because it went without saying that Presidents would take their oaths seriously.


My biggest concern is what's being said that has no basis in the facts - there's articles galore spreading distorted half-truths and outright lies. It personally grates me to see this, because of what happened to Palin and her family. Hell, even to this day Gabby is still running around parroting lies about her, 7 years later! It's funny, but also sad. It speaks to a large portion of Americans willing to buy into this kind of crap when the truth is right there to find. I really don't get it.

I'm not in the bag for Trump. It's not election time yet and there's a lot of time to blow it. But he is my favorite candidate so far, even though he is over the top. The rest of the field is getting destroyed and none of them are rising to the challenge. If one of them grows a set and starts saying things I like, my favor will drift accordingly.

Unfortunately, there isn't a Reagan in the group. Looking at all of them, there's only one that's kicking ass and taking names. In the last few years, there's been a remarkable lack of gonads on the field, and every time they start to do something, they get screamed at by liberals and they retreat like a bunch of cowards. Boehner and McConnell are destroying the conservatives after being handed the House and Senate - nothing is being done. Nothing except pussy-footing around, that is. Backdoor deals like what Rand Paul exposed McConnell doing a few weeks ago really pisses me off and he should have paid the price immediately - nothing was done and Republicans ignored it.

I'm tired of it. I want my country back that wasn't afraid of being great and cherishing our traditions and enforcing our laws. Being confident that we're doing the right thing and ignoring the 'Blame America' idiots. We're wallowing because we have literally no respectable leadership - and if you look around the world, you'll see that I'm not alone in that opinion.

[jimnyc]

If that's the way you want the presidents to act FINE.
I thought you guys were conservatives and liked the constitution, separation of powers etc.. but it looks like you don't mind some presidents "testing it on a daily basis by making up BS willy nilly to see if the congress or the courts will block it. as long as a few lawyers say it's ok of course.

Do you read what others write, what you write? We just stated that we didn't believe someone was going to go unconstitutional, and how we thought they would, what our interpretation was. I even went further and stated what a president CANNOT do (2nd). Then you somehow come back and imply we have an issue with the constitution? Who said ANYTHING about courts blocking it? I thought myself and NT were more than abundantly clear that we believed this was something to be tested IN the courts, not by the courts to block an unconstitutional grab.

Are you purposely being obtuse about this? Why do you AGAIN place words in folks mouths? WHO said anything about purposeful unconstitutional grabs and see if congress or courts block it? You say "you guys" and I only saw 2 of us replying to you with this discussion. Perhaps you can use the QUOTE function and actually QUOTE these statements, instead of tossing out made up things for effect? My bad if I'm wrong, but that's why the quote function is there.

[jimnyc]

What you ain't realizing is Trump is the manifestation of a bunch of frustrated people. You can't wish angry people away. Blaming Jim is just stupid. He isn't the head of the "I'm sick of this PC bullshit" crowd. Why don't you put the blame where it belongs? On a bunch of ineffectual, efeminite Republican'ts like McConnell and Boehner?

Fact is, nothing to blame Jim about. Not only am I NOT those folks, but hell, we aren't even stating the things that he "thinks" we are!!

[revelarts]

Thank you. That puts to rest the theory of illegal EO end-runs.

Obama's end runs have gone to court as well.
taking it to court doesn't negate that it's an attempt at an end run around congress and the constitution.


You cherry picked me. I already said as long as it was lawful; ie : constitutional. Besides, if you're taking it to court, you're not trying for an unlawful outcome.
Obama knew his immigration EOs would go to court he took the chance that they would be seen as "lawful"
Obama knew ObamaCare would go to court. he took the chance..he doesn't consider it unconstitutional.. do you?



Of course he "intends". He's a candidate, not a sitting President. And he's not a lawyer, let alone a Constitutional lawyer. A President has many duties; personally arguing in front of SCOTUS is not one of them.
Here's how that will work :
http://www.allgov.com/departments/department-of-justice?detailsDepartmentID=573

OK now YOU are assuming how it will work. when i did it I was "making stuff up", so it's ok to make it up if it's favorable i guess. :poke:
But even here you fail to add the crucial part that SOMEONE must have a grievance against a gov't act BEFORE the DOJ can DEFEND the presidential/executive action. at this point there is no such grievance. everyone in at the local, state, and federal levels are acting on the 14th as meaning "born in the U.S. = citizenship". And the court only works on real cases not hypotheticals presented by the DOJ. So how is Trump going to get the DOJ to go the court without a real live case?




Hey, I totally get the level of paranoia about the next President and the possibility of his or her lack of ethics regarding the Constitution. Prior to 2008 it wasn't really a concern, because it went without saying that Presidents would take their oaths seriously.Sorry, have to stop you here. When cronygress and Bush signed the patriot act, created the TSA, began blanket spying on all U.S. citizens, putting people in prison without due process, keeping them there indefinitely without trial and torture etc THAT'S when i loss all confidence in politicians keeping their oaths by default. and became "paranoid".



My biggest concern is what's being said that has no basis in the facts - there's articles galore spreading distorted half-truths and outright lies. It personally grates me to see this, because of what happened to Palin and her family. Hell, even to this day Gabby is still running around parroting lies about her, 7 years later! It's funny, but also sad. It speaks to a large portion of Americans willing to buy into this kind of crap when the truth is right there to find. I really don't get it.
I get that, I don't want to put words any anyones mouths, please don't LUMP me in with others who have. I've quoted Verbatim Trump's words. You just don't like the my understanding of the implications of what he's said.

So he needs to make it crystal CLEAR, since there's some --small IMO-- room for interpretation.


I'm not in the bag for Trump. It's not election time yet and there's a lot of time to blow it. But he is my favorite candidate so far, even though he is over the top. The rest of the field is getting destroyed and none of them are rising to the challenge. If one of them grows a set and starts saying things I like, my favor will drift accordingly.

Unfortunately, there isn't a Reagan in the group. Looking at all of them, there's only one that's kicking ass and taking names. In the last few years, there's been a remarkable lack of gonads on the field, and every time they start to do something, they get screamed at by liberals and they retreat like a bunch of cowards. Boehner and McConnell are destroying the conservatives after being handed the House and Senate - nothing is being done. Nothing except pussy-footing around, that is. Backdoor deals like what Rand Paul exposed McConnell doing a few weeks ago really pisses me off and he should have paid the price immediately - nothing was done and Republicans ignored it.

I'm tired of it. I want my country back that wasn't afraid of being great and cherishing our traditions and enforcing our laws. Being confident that we're doing the right thing and ignoring the 'Blame America' idiots. We're wallowing because we have literally no respectable leadership - and if you look around the world, you'll see that I'm not alone in that opinion.

I want the constitution back. and my radars up to anyone who wants to play with it. i don't really care about what other countries think about us, how macho our rep or whatever. I want us to be a constitutional and a moral nation "greatest" follows IMO.

[revelarts]

What you ain't realizing is Trump is the manifestation of a bunch of frustrated people. You can't wish angry people away. Blaming Jim is just stupid. He isn't the head of the "I'm sick of this PC bullshit" crowd. Why don't you put the blame where it belongs? On a bunch of ineffectual, efeminite Republican'ts like McConnell and Boehner?

Ok so because people are angry does that mean people stop thinking clearly and support for anyone who says the right things without any real substance and...
uhhh hmmm well um yes i guess it does.

[jimnyc]

I get that, I don't want to put words any anyones mouths, please don't LUMP me in with others who have. I've quoted Verbatim

Try this on the board here too! :) With all due respect, your ability to place words in others mouths, leads this site, IMO. Simply quoting verbatim, with help of the quote function, would solve this issue. I just saw you break down NY's post into quote functions several times over. You know how, but sometimes you prefer to shoot from the hip, and claim others here have stated things that they haven't (yes, just like Trump)

[jimnyc]

I want the constitution back. and my radars up to anyone who wants to play with it. i don't really care about what other countries think about us, how macho our rep or whatever. I want us to be a constitutional and a moral nation "greatest" follows IMO.

Other candidates have made similar statements about doing things from DAY ONE in office, which is basically impossible without some sort of order. You like it from a few, but denounce it on others. You imply it's ok for some, as the things they would reverse would ALREADY be unconstitutional. <----- Did scotus determine as much, or is that YOUR take on things? So since YOU and Paul think it's unconstitutional, that makes it ok from day one to do the end around? Sounds like that IS PLAYING WITH IT if you don't go through the legal manners, and plan an END AROUND on day one.

Now let's watch the dance!

[Gunny]

Ok so because people are angry does that mean people stop thinking clearly and support for anyone who says the right things without any real substance and...
uhhh hmmm well um yes i guess it does.

When did you start thinking clearly? I must have missed that post.

How about you deal with some reality in the meantime? In case you haven't noticed, I don't like Trump and I see him for what he is. I also see the angry people that are tired of pussies running the show. I don't have to agree with them to get it. Your wannabe philosophical BS is just THAT. BS.

[revelarts]

Do you read what others write, what you write? We just stated that we didn't believe someone was going to go unconstitutional, and how we thought they would, what our interpretation was. I even went further and stated what a president CANNOT do (2nd). Then you somehow come back and imply we have an issue with the constitution? Who said ANYTHING about courts blocking it? I thought myself and NT were more than abundantly clear that we believed this was something to be tested IN the courts, not by the courts to block an unconstitutional grab.

Are you purposely being obtuse about this? Why do you AGAIN place words in folks mouths? WHO said anything about purposeful unconstitutional grabs and see if congress or courts block it? You say "you guys" and I only saw 2 of us replying to you with this discussion. Perhaps you can use the QUOTE function and actually QUOTE these statements, instead of tossing out made up things for effect? My bad if I'm wrong, but that's why the quote function is there.

Jim I fully understand that you don't believe Trumps is going to act unconstitutionally.
However my point is that you seem to think just BELIEVING it's not unconstitutional means it's constitutional.
you guys keep making every excuse and not allowing any connecting of the dots and leaving every open loophole, trying to find every example of someone else doing the same to JUSTIFY the proposed actions rather than simply putting the constitution down on one side and the potential actions on the other and seeing if there's an honest fit.

You may be right. Trump might not do anything like what he SEEMS TO describe.
Challenging the constitution by EO's instead of trying to repeal parts he doesn't agree with.
He may never DO IT. he may be blowing smoke.
But i can't honestly listen to what what he said and assume that he has NO intention to.
maybe you can assume the best and feel good about it. that's your choice.

but don't try to pretend I'm being obtuse or something.

he said he doesn't LIKE the constitutional method, REPEAL. "it's to slow". "we're going to challenge it".
Neither You or NT have told me how that can be done --- by Trump "we're"--

---BTW Where I'm from if someone says "we're" it's not wrong or dishonest or obtuse to assume the speaker INCLUDES MYSELF in "we're" --- Jim you and NT can assume he DIDN'T mean himself but it seems to me a reasonable reading of his words. correct?--

So until Trump clarifies. I can only assume that he means to do the same as Obama has done with immigration law and Obamacare and killing americans without due process and attacking Libya without congressional approval etc. TESTING the what congress and courts will allow him to do. Rather than honoring his oath.

I find it hard to make distinctions between Rs or Ds "testing" myself. and don't like to make excuses even if i LIKE what they may want to do.

[revelarts]

Other candidates have made similar statements about doing things from DAY ONE in office, which is basically impossible without some sort of order. You like it from a few, but denounce it on others. You imply it's ok for some, as the things they would reverse would ALREADY be unconstitutional. <----- Did scotus determine as much, or is that YOUR take on things? So since YOU and Paul think it's unconstitutional, that makes it ok from day one to do the end around? Sounds like that IS PLAYING WITH IT if you don't go through the legal manners, and plan an END AROUND on day one.

Now let's watch the dance!

Quote me on what EOs i've endorsed.
please quote me on what I've implied.

I'll save you a search. I haven't backed or positively mentioned anyone's policies so far. I could barely watch the debates or listen to any of them.

[Gunny]

Quote me on what EOs i've endorsed.
please quote me on what I've implied.

I'll save you a search. I haven't backed or mentioned anyone's policies so far. I could barely watch the debates or listen to any of them.

What would be the point? You're so busy with your head stuck up your butt judging others you'd just pull a Hillary on me ..."it wasn't marked classified so ...." Whatever dude.

You ain't going to save me a damned thing since I can barely get through one of your rambling, going nowhere posts, much less following a link.

You attempt to be someone "above" it all and your condescending posts prove it, when you're just a dumbass on a mission with no regard for the beliefs of others. You just ain't that smart, bubba.

[NightTrain]

Obama's end runs have gone to court as well.
taking it to court doesn't negate that it's an attempt at an end run.


Obama knew his immigration EOs would go to court he took the chance that they would be seen as "lawful"
Obama knew ObamaCare would go to court. he took the chance..he doesn't consider it unconstitutional.. do you?

Being taken to court and taking it to court are very different things in their execution as to how you arrived in court.



OK now YOU are assuming how it will work. when i did it I was "making stuff up", so it's ok to make it up if it's favorable i guess. :poke:
But even here you fail to add the crucial part that SOMEONE must have a grievance against a gov't act BEFORE the DOJ can DEFEND the presidential/executive action. at this point there is no such grievance. everyone in at the local, state, and federal levels are acting on the 14th as meaning "born in the U.S. = citizenship". And the court only works on real cases not hypotheticals presented by the DOJ. So how is Trump going to get the DOJ to go the court without a real live case?

I already told you that I'm not interested in the methods or who actually delivers the argument in front of SCOTUS. I'm quite sure that DOJ is loaded with lawyers who know exactly how to go about it. That's their job and specialty.

I'm just a telecom guy. Ask me questions about communication networks or outdoorsmanship and I can speak with personal knowledge. Other fields are best handled by the experts and this question is right up DOJ's alley.

Dragon or FJ or LA or SFG might possibly have an answer for you, judging from past & present discussions. I do not, nor does it interest me. Complicated legal procedures and rules bore me to tears - if it did excite me, I'd have been a lawyer instead of a working man.



Sorry, have to stop you here. When cronygress and Bush signed the patriot act, created the TSA, began blanket spying on all U.S. citizens, putting people in prison without due process, keeping them there indefinitely without trial and torture etc THAT'S when i loss all confidence in politicians keeping their oaths by default. and became "paranoid".

I'll not get drawn in with an off-topic discussion of Dubya. If you want to talk about that, start the thread and I'll join you there. But you and I have already gone round-and-round more than a few times about that topic. Still, if you wish, I'm game.



I get that, I don't want to put words any anyones mouths, please don't LUMP me in with others who have. I've quoted Verbatim Trump's words. You just don't like the my understanding of the implications of what he's said.

So he needs to make it crystal CLEAR, since there's some --small IMO-- room for interpretation.

You cherry picked the conversation to suit your argument.

But I agree that Trump needs to address this and put all of the fears of illegal EOs to rest. So should the rest of the candidates.

FWIW, I'm quite sure that this will be a question asked to all of the candidates in one of the next debates.


I want the constitution back. and my radars up to anyone who wants to play with it. i don't really care about what other countries think about us, how macho our rep or whatever. I want us to be a constitutional and a moral nation "greatest" follows IMO.

I agree. My comment was referring to the way the world is going to hell in a rapid way, not just America. Our lack of leadership and Bambam's incredible incompetence has created a very dangerous world.

[Gunny]

Being taken to court and taking it to court are very different things in their execution as to how you arrived in court.




I already told you that I'm not interested in the methods or who actually delivers the argument in front of SCOTUS. I'm quite sure that DOJ is loaded with lawyers who know exactly how to go about it. That's their job and specialty.

I'm just a telecom guy. Ask me questions about communication networks or outdoorsmanship and I can speak with personal knowledge. Other fields are best handled by the experts and this question is right up DOJ's alley.

Dragon or FJ or LA or SFG might possibly have an answer for you, judging from past & present discussions. I do not, nor does it interest me. Complicated legal procedures and rules bore me to tears - if it did excite me, I'd have been a lawyer instead of a working man.




I'll not get drawn in with an off-topic discussion of Dubya. If you want to talk about that, start the thread and I'll join you there. But you and I have already gone round-and-round more than a few times about that topic. Still, if you wish, I'm game.




You cherry picked the conversation to suit your argument.

But I agree that Trump needs to address this and put all of the fears of illegal EOs to rest. So should the rest of the candidates.

FWIW, I'm quite sure that this will be a question asked to all of the candidates in one of the next debates.



I agree. My comment was referring to the way the world is going to hell in a rapid way, not just America. Our lack of leadership and Bambam's incredible incompetence has created a very dangerous world.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Mr Expand-a-post just said complicated rules and procedures bore him. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Thanks ofr making my moring, MFer. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[NightTrain]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Mr Expand-a-post just said complicated rules and procedures bore him. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Thanks ofr making my moring, MFer. :laugh::laugh::laugh:


Welcome! :slap:

It's true, though. Reading that stuff is dreadfully boring to me, and I'm glad there are people who find it interesting.

[jimnyc]

Quote me on what EOs i've endorsed.
please quote me on what I've implied.

I'll save you a search. I haven't backed or positively mentioned anyone's policies so far. I could barely watch the debates or listen to any of them.

Exactly, you ignore the others. You have NO IDEA what platforms candidates like Cruz and Rand Paul are running on? Do you really expect me to believe you are clueless as to Paul's platform an stances on the NSA issues and such? You quickly jump to condemn Trump on things you assume he means - but not a peep on things, for example, where someone like Paul HAS stated he would do an end around. Odd that.

[jimnyc]

Quote me on what EOs i've endorsed.
please quote me on what I've implied.

I'll save you a search. I haven't backed or positively mentioned anyone's policies so far. I could barely watch the debates or listen to any of them.

I brought up Paul earlier and his planned end around. Your reply was that not all EO's are unconstitutional. Sounds to me like an implied endorsement - mainly because you agree with him of course. But if it's good for one, it's good for another. If it's wrong for one, and they should go a "legal route", then that's how it is for others. Then you said that not all EO's are unconstitutional. Well hell, Trump hasn't barely stated anything other than he would want to test something and you're going on about how it's unconstitutional and how he's just the same as Obama and Bush.

WHO determines the constitutionality of such, Rev? Rand Paul? You? Why is it ok for Paul to use an EO on opening day, but not Trump, if that were the case? It's OK for Paul to avoid congress and the courts, but wrong if someone else does it?

BS, he doesn't get a pass just because it's YOUR cause of the day. They can go 100% the legal route as well. And not even an EO should be allowed to instantly yank back national security.

[Gunny]

Exactly, you ignore the others. You have NO IDEA what platforms candidates like Cruz and Rand Paul are running on? Do you really expect me to believe you are clueless as to Paul's platform an stances on the NSA issues and such? You quickly jump to condemn Trump on things you assume he means - but not a peep on things, for example, where someone like Paul HAS stated he would do an end around. Odd that.

He's quite the cherry picker, that's for sure. Tends to leave out all the relevant facts.

[revelarts]

Exactly, you ignore the others. You have NO IDEA what platforms candidates like Cruz and Rand Paul are running on? Do you really expect me to believe you are clueless as to Paul's platform an stances on the NSA issues and such? You quickly jump to condemn Trump on things you assume he means - but not a peep on things, for example, where someone like Paul HAS stated he would do an end around. Odd that.

very little on specifics. I know what Rand has said from older info more than the past few months.
when you create a thread on "Rand Paul smokes crack" with O'reily pointing out the the unconstitutional proposals then maybe i'll jump in with both feet and defend or condemn him. then please feel free to point out my hypocrisy but "don't put words in my mouth" or assume you know what i think about it until then Jim. thanks

Funny you're upset that I'm not bringing up Rand Paul in YOUR thread about Trump Jim.

[Gunny]

very little on specifics. I know what Rand has said from older info more than the past few months.
when you create a thread on "Rand Paul smokes crack" with O'reily pointing out the the unconstitutional proposals then maybe i'll jump in with both feet and defend or condemn him. then please feel free to point out my hypocrisy but "don't put words in my mouth" or assume you know what i think about it until then Jim. thanks

Funny you're upset that I'm not bringing up Rand Paul in YOUR thread about Trump Jim.

I must be invisible. Or did I call you what you are?

Let's play. What specifically is a unconstitutional proposal by Rand Paul? Fuckwit. You don't like manning up to shit, do you?

[jimnyc]

very little on specifics. I know what Rand has said from older info more than the past few months.
when you create a thread on "Rand Paul smokes crack" with O'reily pointing out the the unconstitutional proposals then maybe i'll jump in with both feet and defend or condemn him. then please feel free to point out my hypocrisy but "don't put words in my mouth" or assume you know what i think about it until then Jim. thanks

Funny you're upset that I'm not bringing up Rand Paul in YOUR thread about Trump Jim.

Goodnight, into the 86 can alongside Gabby.

[jimnyc]

He's quite the cherry picker, that's for sure. Tends to leave out all the relevant facts.

He doesn't understand what relevant even means. Anyone who can't write a complete sentence, makes more spelling errors than a 2nd grader, has the grammar of a 1st grader and can't figure out how to use the most basic of all the functions on the board.... Sorry, too much work for me. And THEN add in the "expand-a-post" on top of the rest of the gibberish? Sorry, it's like reading a 50 page essay written by a kindergartner.

[jimnyc]

I must be invisible. Or did I call you what you are?

Let's play. What specifically is a unconstitutional proposal by Rand Paul? Fuckwit. You don't like manning up to shit, do you?

Paul has stated he will basically do away with all of the NSA spying and all other related shit on day one - no congress, no courts, no one else - just gone on day one. Of course we both know that won't happen. BUT, one would think that his biggest supporter would at least see the comparisons between that, and Trump stating he wants to do something. One he sees as "unconstitutional", based on his own inability to read and comprehend. But Paul's IS NOT, and why? Well, because Revv says so, no need for courts or congress.

[revelarts]

Paul has stated he will basically do away with all of the NSA spying and all other related shit on day one - no congress, no courts, no one else - just gone on day one. Of course we both know that won't happen. BUT, one would think that his biggest supporter would at least see the comparisons between that, and Trump stating he wants to do something. One he sees as "unconstitutional", based on his own inability to read and comprehend. But Paul's IS NOT, and why? Well, because Revv says so, no need for courts or congress.


Jim, I really don't appreciate you not believing me when i tell you that I haven't been following much of any of the the candidates. I PMd you a while back about a personal situation that i'm still having. it's kept me away from a lot of politics that i usually am on top of. frankly i've read more on this board and what's linked from this board than i have any news. I haven't watch CNN, or FOX except for a few youtube links related to items from here. and the Planned Parenthood story I got news on from another site i follow.

So I honestly have not heard what Paul has said in months concerning the NSA or anything else. I haven't finished watching any debates just read bits and pieces of it.
call me a lair if that makes you feel better. but you're wrong.

I'd have to look up what he's said about the NSA. because YOU are the 1st to tell me.
if you want to point me to a link with exact quotes on what he said. I'll be happy to reply.
But please don't assume I'm on top of every candidates words this season, I'm not.

You started this tread on Trump. I watched the clips. I read some links, and based on my knowledge of how the Scotus works and the president's constitutional authority I've made my comments.

You know it's not my way to run or dodge.
I literally have not heard or read much about Paul or ANY other candidates in depth for the past few months.