Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[Yankguy1]

Along with "shouldn't," he legally can't end birthright citizenship through Executive Order.  Though perhaps you should ask our Constitutional expert.

[kiidcarter8]

As the article says -  Trump's counsel says he can

Destined for the Supreme Court if he proceeds.

[Yankguy1]

As the article says -  Trump's counsel says he can

Where does the article say that: "adding that he has run it by his counsel"?  And you believe that?  To quote an "esteemed" poster here: "Heh."

[REDSTATEWARD]

Along with "shouldn't," he legally can't end birthright citizenship through Executive Order.  Though perhaps you should ask our Constitutional expert.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.

[Yankguy1]

Cite?

In any event, my guess is that somebody read the President the column in the Washington Post written by Michael Anton a couple of months ago and Trump's "running it by counsel" consisted of his handing the column to one of his lawyers. 

[NeedsAdjustments]

You guys would know - having bowed at the feet of the Executive Orderer in Chief

This is rich, coming from the crew that crowed that Trump was accomplishing more than any other President when he was signing a new batch of Executive Orders every week (when his party has control of Congress…)  But we all know your beef wasn’t with Obama’s executive orders, it was with what it was he was ordering.  For some reason you and yours aren’t brave enough to stand behind your own shitty opinions, though, so need to make the baseless procedural argument. 

This latest round of “governance” by ignorant boast will be forgotten after the mid-terms, but it is 100% telling that Trump sees this latest anti-“anchor baby” push as a base juicer. 

[NeedsAdjustments]

As the article says -  Trump's counsel says he can

Where does the article say that: "adding that he has run it by his counsel"?  And you believe that?  To quote an "esteemed" poster here: "Heh."

I usually prefer to address the argument not the poster who made it, but anyone with the point of view that "Trump said it so we can assume its true" is simply one of the dumbest human beings alive.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Along with "shouldn't," he legally can't end birthright citizenship through Executive Order.  Though perhaps you should ask our Constitutional expert.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.

Because no one has brought one?  Because anyone who did would obviously have no standing?

"All persons" is truly not a vague phrasing.

[oilcan]

So how are Trump apologists dealing with this ugly picture? Partly through denial, pretending not to see any link between hateful rhetoric and hate crimes. But also through attempts to spread the blame by claiming that Democrats are just as bad if not worse. Trump supporters try to kill his critics? Well, some Trump opponents have yelled at politicians in restaurants!

This whataboutism doesn’t stop with equating protests with violence. It also relies on outright lying.

The day after the Pittsburgh massacre, John Cornyn — the second-ranked Republican in the Senate — tweeted “Pelosi: If There Is ‘Collateral Damage’ for Those Who Don’t Share Our View, ‘So Be It’.” This is a lie, plain and simple. I know, because I was there.

Nancy Pelosi’s remark about collateral damage came while I was interviewing her in front of a live audience; you can see the interview here. She wasn’t talking about punishing political opponents. She was, instead, talking about the economic impact of policies to fight climate change, which she conceded would adversely affect some industries even as it helped others. Many people have pointed this out to Cornyn; as I write this column, he has not retracted his false claim.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/opinion/hate-is-on-the-ballot-next-week.html

[oilcan]

Along with "shouldn't," he legally can't end birthright citizenship through Executive Order.  Though perhaps you should ask our Constitutional expert.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.

Because no one has brought one?  Because anyone who did would obviously have no standing?

"All persons" is truly not a vague phrasing.

It's not vague to the Neo-Nazis who cooked up this idea, either.  They just define "persons" differently. 

[NeedsAdjustments]

As the article says -  Trump's counsel says he can

Where does the article say that: "adding that he has run it by his counsel"?  And you believe that?  To quote an "esteemed" poster here: "Heh."

I usually prefer to address the argument not the poster who made it, but anyone with the point of view that "Trump said it so we can assume its true" is simply one of the dumbest human beings alive.

Of course, this is the same poster who believes that Trump is concerned with debt reduction.  He'll be getting to that any day now:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/treasury-estimates-annual-net-marketable-debt-to-total-1-338-trillion-in-2018-1540839709

The U.S. Treasury Department estimates it will issue more than $1 trillion in debt this year as higher government spending and sluggish tax revenues push the deficit higher.

The Treasury said Monday it expects net marketable debt to total $425 billion in the fourth quarter, which would bring total debt issuance in 2018 to $1.338 trillion, compared with $546 billion in 2017. That would be the highest annual debt issuance since $1.586 trillion in 2010, when the U.S. economy was still crawling out of a recession.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Along with "shouldn't," he legally can't end birthright citizenship through Executive Order.  Though perhaps you should ask our Constitutional expert.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.

So...his son could be deported.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Good reading for those who refuse to believe that Trump's violent rhetoric amounts to incitement; it isn't only on Trump, but also his enablers in the GOP.  Saying that Trump's language, attacks, and encouragement of physical threats was irresponsible wasn't so controversial for Marco Rubio a few years ago. Now he is too much of a chicken-shit to say it.  So this is also on him:

https://crooked.com/articles/gop-problem-from-hell/

[Hamilton Samuels]

Good reading for those who refuse to believe that Trump's violent rhetoric amounts to incitement; it isn't only on Trump, but also his enablers in the GOP.  Saying that Trump's language, attacks, and encouragement of physical threats was irresponsible wasn't so controversial for Marco Rubio a few years ago. Now he is too much of a chicken-shit to say it.  So this is also on him:

https://crooked.com/articles/gop-problem-from-hell/

As much as I loathe Trump, it's not all on him. Only an extreme partisan or an idiot would say that.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Good reading for those who refuse to believe that Trump's violent rhetoric amounts to incitement; it isn't only on Trump, but also his enablers in the GOP.  Saying that Trump's language, attacks, and encouragement of physical threats was irresponsible wasn't so controversial for Marco Rubio a few years ago. Now he is too much of a chicken-shit to say it.  So this is also on him:

https://crooked.com/articles/gop-problem-from-hell/

As much as I loathe Trump, it's not all on him. Only an extreme partisan or an idiot would say that.

You are welcome to point out where anyone is saying this is "all on him."  You can start with the post you quoted.