POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Where did you play today, John? University Club, Houston Oaks, The Bull?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tucker-carlson-turns-trump-apos-052247022.html
Tucker not happy with Trump.
Tucker not happy with Trump.
Trump should remind everyone of the D's broken promises made to Reagan from the immigration deal 30 years ago... then point to the Dims and say: This time, you guys go first.
Mr. President, the people that hate you now will still hate you after you give in on DACA. Remember that Sir.
Actually was headed to Moss Hill (I have a friend who is a member there and another friend who lives in Versailles) but got yanked into a fire drill for work and had to bail. Naturally they are blowing me up with pictures. Aholes.
I agree with him. Hoping Trump speaking of his confidence in them is his way of saying it better be close to what I want or I'll humiliate all of you.
Trans weirdo wins $800k settlement despite proving none of its claims. The cost was apparently mounting up. The case went 5-2 for settlement, which $650k went to the lawyers.
The Dem Party is a great example that evil will find a way. Immigration and welfare is how they will get power. If there was ever a #resistance needed, it’s military and the ones who actually give a shit about this country, refusing to let them destroy it.
The whole GOP house and senate going to retire? Seems like 1 announces every few days.
The cheaper-to-settle-it situation. This is the kind of Tish that reminds me what an uphill battle we are in for regaining some sanity in this country. Groan*
At least James Woods is killing it on social media. Love reading his stuff.
I got to thinking about Trump when last weeks story broke about that dude wrote a book bashing Trump, despite being let into the WH. Trump tweeted something to the extent of "I'm, like, REALLY Smart..". Liberals had a field day with that one, and I can't say I blame them. It was gold.
But this has to be a setup, right? Trump, no matter what you think of him, is no dummy. He built an empire. Sure, he's an egomaniac. But that tweet was just too good to be true for liberals. It felt like a setup, because while I believe Trump doesn't quite understand twitter.. there's no way he thought that response wouldn't get all of media in a buzz..
Which makes me wonder.. Is he just using Twitter to rope-a-dope the left at this point? To keep them focused on his nonsensical and pointless tweets while he works on bigger issues.. actively taking on the bad guy role to clear out a path for his cabinet and others to get shit done?
Maybe everyone knew this.. I'm always late to the party.. but that tweet.. can't be real, can it?
But this has to be a setup, right? Trump, no matter what you think of him, is no dummy. He built an empire. Sure, he's an egomaniac. But that tweet was just too good to be true for liberals. It felt like a setup, because while I believe Trump doesn't quite understand twitter.. there's no way he thought that response wouldn't get all of media in a buzz..
Which makes me wonder.. Is he just using Twitter to rope-a-dope the left at this point? To keep them focused on his nonsensical and pointless tweets while he works on bigger issues.. actively taking on the bad guy role to clear out a path for his cabinet and others to get shit done?
Maybe everyone knew this.. I'm always late to the party.. but that tweet.. can't be real, can it?
Issa won his last election by less than 1% and was the top target for dems in CA. He was most likely going to lose. Instead he can focus on spending the half a billion that he made in the auto security business. 18 years is enough time in the swamp.
The best analogy of conservatives vs leftists today is like someone trying to fly a plane and another person is trying to open the door while 35,000 feet in the air.
Or perhaps being in a battle and while trying to fight off enemies, someone decides to put down a bridge to help the enemy over the moat and leave the castle gates wide open.
These two groups cannot co-exist anymore. We do not have the same values or interest of the nation. One group is not concerned about the traditions and culture nor have admiration for the founding fathers.
Democrats and RINOs being against “America first” agenda speaks volumes. We can’t even begin to agree on what’s important. Dems wouldn’t give a shit if the whole country looked like the inner city hellholes they run.
Or perhaps being in a battle and while trying to fight off enemies, someone decides to put down a bridge to help the enemy over the moat and leave the castle gates wide open.
These two groups cannot co-exist anymore. We do not have the same values or interest of the nation. One group is not concerned about the traditions and culture nor have admiration for the founding fathers.
Democrats and RINOs being against “America first” agenda speaks volumes. We can’t even begin to agree on what’s important. Dems wouldn’t give a shit if the whole country looked like the inner city hellholes they run.
He’s simply honing his landscaping skills for when he obtains U.S. citizenship. Looks like someone we can put to work and won’t be a drain on welfare system.
Uh-oh. White skin people doing that? That’s an issue. Mexicans and Muslims coming in and doing it every single effing day? No problem.
Even when pregnant Chinese women were discovered being horded in an Irvine, CA hotel to get their kids birthright citizenship, not an issue.
Believe it or not, birthright citizenship was slipped in by a justice in 1982. No constitutional basis for it at all.
Last edited:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" seems fairly clear to me.
I thought it was part of the 14th amendment. Is that not right?
https://www.google.com/amp/humaneve...-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/amp/
The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves — many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.
The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)
Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it’s amazing the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on the children of aliens.
But they did.
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.
I've read that generation z is very conservative, do you all think it will stay this way or will they be brainwashed in college?
Younger generations always just aim for contrarianism and counterculture. Right now being conservative is "evil" and "problematic" and "racist" and "bigoted" and etc... So it's cool to be a part of it.
Once the pendulum (hopefully) swings back far enough for conservatives to enact legislation and become a decently-sized majority again you'll see little shitlords swing back to the left.
Thanks for the clarification.
Definitely did not know about that Doe footnote.
I found this on americanbar.org:
The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question of whether the children of illegal immigrants are eligible for birthright citizenship. The Court did say in INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985) that such children are citizens, but that was in dicta, or language not directly part of the holding. The Court had previously ruled in Plyler v. Doe (1982) that the Equal Protection Clause, another part of the Fourteenth Amendment, applied to illegal immigrants.
The 14th amendment says what it says. But today's application was never the intent. It's also ripe for legal challenge.
Legality cannot flow from illegal behavior. If I rob a bank then die, that inheritance is just as forfeit. The fact it passed to another makes no difference.
Same thing with real estate. If I have less than fee simple, I can't transfer fee simple. I can't grant more than I have to give.
Under logic and equity, it's a clear result. Any such decision would have to be applied going forward. Will be interesting to see if it's ever heard.
Legality cannot flow from illegal behavior. If I rob a bank then die, that inheritance is just as forfeit. The fact it passed to another makes no difference.
Same thing with real estate. If I have less than fee simple, I can't transfer fee simple. I can't grant more than I have to give.
Under logic and equity, it's a clear result. Any such decision would have to be applied going forward. Will be interesting to see if it's ever heard.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
How do we get the Elam Ending in C. Basketball?- Latest: docholiday51
-
-
-
-
