Search found 149 matches

by philbo
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:27 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

Trump intimately involved in arranging Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal payoffs:

President Trump was personally involved in arranging hush money to a porn star and a Playboy centerfold despite his repeated denials that he was aware of the details, according to a bombshell report published Friday by The Wall Street Journal.
https://nypost.com/2018/11/09/trump-per ... -mcdougal/
by philbo
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:14 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

bbhack wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:55 am
philbo wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:39 am
bbhack wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:24 pm
... but I'm not interested.
And that sums up what's wrong with the silent GOP who have acquiesced and enabled the amoral activities of the current administration. If the story doesn't fit your preconceived narrative you just don't want to be bored with anything more than what you already believe to be true. To borrow from above:
Bottom line, what tRump says for the next two years became a lot less important after the midterms. It seems that votes do matter, and apparently our president seems agitated he may not get his way any longer.
And you address none of the points. I won.
A bunch of conclusory statements without any underlying reasoning or supporting facts is not a making a point. When you make a point I'll be sure to respond. Until you can do that, "I'm not interested."
by philbo
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:09 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

rotor wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:52 am
philbo wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:47 pm
rotor wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:07 pm
Not saying there was "collusion" but if there was what statute would have been violated? Is collusion illegal?
Trump and his surrogates have repeatedly sought to delegitimize the special counsel’s investigation by saying there was “no collusion” and calling the special counsel’s probe a “witch hunt.” By focusing on the word "collusion" one might miss the fact that the convictions of trumps former associates and indictments of more than 2 dozen russians has instead relied on statutes containing words such as “conspiracy,” “obstruction of justice” and making “false statements.”
As I asked (and I didn't ask you), is collusion illegal and you didn't answer but it was nice of you to change the subject. Jaywalking is illegal but not collusion. So we have to find another crime to go after Trump with because collusion is not illegal. The special prosecutor did uncover illegal actions by some of Trump's associates and they were collateral damage. Even if Trump had asked Putin for info to use against HRC (and I did not say he did), what Federal statute would he have violated?
Never changed the subject, just pointed out that collusion was never used by anyone other than trump and his surrogates to distract from what Muellar was actually tasked to do. Attached is the original document authorizing the special counsel and what he was charged with investigating. Do you see the word "collusion"? Even once? Nope, no matter how far you stretch it. He was authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may rise directly from the investigation". The reference to 28 C.F.R. Section 600.4(a) authorizes Special Counsel Mueller to investigate and prosecute “federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.” So, the wild goose chase is you insisting we stick with the word "collusion" when the investigation was never hobbled with that limitation.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... Russia.pdf

As far as responding, when you post in a public forum, one should expect the public to respond. Kinda thought that was obvious, but maybe not.
by philbo
Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:54 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

mojo84 wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:30 pm
Russia has tried to influence our elections for decades. The US does the same.
You're absolutely right. Illegals have been crossing the border for years, why care? It's only a misdemeanor. We build nukes, Russia and China build nukes, if N. Korea and Iran build nukes, why care? China steals intellectual property, but so has the US thru the years... why care? trump lies about protecting preexisting conditions, caravans and all manner of things, but all politicians lie, why care? Hillary did something years ago, but why would I be interested in that? Why care?

Your thoughtful and considered analysis is visionary in it's application. Truly applicable in any situation. :tiphat:
by philbo
Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:39 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

bbhack wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:24 pm
... but I'm not interested.
And that sums up what's wrong with the silent GOP who have acquiesced and enabled the amoral activities of the current administration. If the story doesn't fit your preconceived narrative you just don't want to be bored with anything more than what you already believe to be true. To borrow from above:
03Lightningrocks wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:38 pm
If you don't see that, you are the one with his head stuck in the sand.
Bottom line, what tRump says for the next two years became a lot less important after the midterms. It seems that votes do matter, and apparently our president seems agitated he may not get his way any longer.

Image
by philbo
Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:47 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

rotor wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:07 pm
Not saying there was "collusion" but if there was what statute would have been violated? Is collusion illegal?
Trump and his surrogates have repeatedly sought to delegitimize the special counsel’s investigation by saying there was “no collusion” and calling the special counsel’s probe a “witch hunt.” By focusing on the word "collusion" one might miss the fact that the convictions of trumps former associates and indictments of more than 2 dozen russians has instead relied on statutes containing words such as “conspiracy,” “obstruction of justice” and making “false statements.”
by philbo
Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:57 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

03Lightningrocks wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:59 pm
philbo wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:39 pm
oljames3 wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:28 pm
Darn. I missed the "last word". Gotta love the ignore list.
I do enjoy the ignore list advocates, especially as it separates the closed minds from the critical thinkers. Please feel free to return to the Ostrich position. :tiphat:
While you may be fooling yourself, what you exhibit on this thread is anything but critical thinking. It is better described as CNN inspired NPC think.
Thank you for proving my point with an emotional outburst, devoid of evidence, that jumps straight to name calling. tRump couldn't have done it better himself. Give yourself a nice big pat on the back! :txflag:

Perhaps TXHawk will show up and begin yet another post by misspelling ad hominem one more time.
by philbo
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:39 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

oljames3 wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:28 pm
Darn. I missed the "last word". Gotta love the ignore list.
I do enjoy the ignore list advocates, especially as it separates the closed minds from the critical thinkers. Please feel free to return to the Ostrich position. :tiphat:
by philbo
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:36 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

srothstein wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:37 pm
philbo wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:30 am
But wait, there's more. Now tRump is wanting more troops to the border (where they are legally prohibited from engaging in police activites) and suggesting they have the authority to shoot anyone throwing rocks at them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 5ad5878e58
srothstein wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:37 pm
I strongly suggest that you do better research on your points. When you repeat false claims it really hurts your credibility in all other arguments. The military is not prohibited from all police activities in the US. The law prohibiting this is called the Posse Comitatus Act and it is in the US code in Title 18, section 1385. The wording of the law forbids the military from being used as a posse except for where authorized by the Congress (among other exceptions).
I'm not sure what falsehood you are saying was made. I'm perfectly aware of The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and how it restricts the U.S. military from acting as law enforcement on U.S. soil. without approval from congress. In the present case this means troops will not be authorized to "detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping" the migrant caravan, the Military Times reports. Instead, troops will "largely mirror that of the existing National Guard" already at the border. Maybe congress passed new authorizations recently, but I am unaware they were in session...?
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your ... er-can-do/
srothstein wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:37 pm
One of the known exceptions, for example, is that the military can be used to help enforce drug laws. This was how the military was used in several recent encounters against US citizens, with the most notable in our area being in Waco against the Branch Davidians (the ATF told the AG and our Governor that they suspected them of having drugs). Another one, used and favored by the Democratic Party, is that the President may order the military out to enforce federal law. The example of this being favors by the Democrats is when the 101st Airborne Division was ordered out to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Ark in 1957.

I could be wrong, but I understand after some very brief research that the deployment of military troops to the border to enforce federal law is within the legal authority of the president. If you want to argue against it, you might use the example of what happened when Marines were assigned to patrol the border. That resulted in them shooting Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., a US citizen on his own property. You might not want to use it as an example though, because that was in 1997 when a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) assigned active duty troops to patrol our southern border to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in while carrying drugs. Kind of cuts against your argument of it being illegal to use troops to enforce the law.
As far as being authorized to use deadly force to protect against rock throwing? Even if the caravan arrives at some point in the future (pretty evident they won't be here by tomorrow), pretty clear the military will not be authorized to do so, or if they would follow such an illegal order. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, retired U.S. Army officer recently tweeted: "[T]here is no leader in the military - Officer or NCO - who would allow a soldier to shoot at an individual throwing a rock. They know that violates the rules of engagement, the law of land warfare & the values those in the military believe. It would be an unlawful order." Maybe you believe differently?

I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make about the 1998 killing. It was a wrongful death then (and I believe criminal), and would be stupid to repeat that sort of circumstance again today. To make matters worse though, is now we have a president who seems to want such a confrontation and seems hellbent on making it happen. But who knows, in a few weeks after the election, tRump might just drop the whole thing as nothing more than an attempt to sow fear and get people to vote on that issue alone.
by philbo
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:09 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

TXHawk wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:39 pm
I will allow you the last word after this as we clearly are at impasse and I am not going to make an honest attempt at a discussing an issues with your dedication to the the ad homenim. I will just say this. I have clearly presented the legal precedence which you and your side of the aisle who prefer a broader definition do not accept. Fortunately that is precisely what the SCOTUS is for is to settle questions such as this. My guess is they will do exactly that in regard to the 14th, pending 2nd issues, and many more. I will go ahead and address what is sure to be a diatribe about court stacking with this. Elections matter. Blue lost in 2016.
Be blessed.
Your original post made a conclusion and used only the Elk case and a single quote from the original debates to support your conclusion. In fact, you made the assertion that you were unaware of any other case on the matter. My reply provided not just a rebuttal to Elk, but pointed to a series of cases including the seminal case Wong Kim Ark which is recognized as the controlling case by all authorities. I agreed that one might argue that case differently for a different result to be put to SCOTUS, but you have yet to address this case and explain how it does not apply. In addition, you cherry picked a quote from the original debates without reading the arguments by the original drafters in context, even after the original copies of the debates were provided. Further, you failed to even examine Wong Kim Ark and it's treatment of the original debates, common law, or the how SCOTUS in that case interpreted the salughterhouse cases of which Elk is just one. I can only surmise that you consider reading the original texts and competing case law is not worthy of your time. Such an attitude is indicative of the confirmation bias in your argument and common among armchair lawyers who don't want to do the hard work of digging thru the data to organize their argument in a manner even a high school debate team would find acceptable. Last, you never addressed the underlying question from the original post, which is not can birthright citizenship be overturned, but how one might do so with a presidential directive. That's ok, I'll leave you to your armchair hermeneutics and move on to arguing real cases.
by philbo
Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:57 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

TXHawk wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pm
Again, your ad homenim is unnecessary. Frankly it weakens your argument because it clearly points out a means to an end bias rather than an objective look at the issue from an honest position of scholarship. However, I will address the case you cited. I was actually waiting for it as it is the case most cited by those arguing the 14th addresses this issue although they as you have connect it erroneously. In short the Sing case addressed his citizenship as he was born from parents who were LEGALLY residing here even though they themselves were not eligible for citizenship. It really should not need to be pointed out there is a vast difference between legal residency and illegal residency. So in his case the 14th amendment correctly addressed his citizenship eligibility.
If you have taken that the position that the Look Tin Sing case was the best case on point, then you have mistaken the point of the entire post. Look Tin Sing was one of a series of appellate cases dealing with the birthright citizenship issue. Followed by Ex parte Chin King , Ex parte Chan San Hee and Gee Fook Sing v. U.S. The case directly on point to the issue is the one SCOTUS heard interpreting the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment. The one case you failed to address in either your original post or rebuttal is United States v. Wong Kim Ark . It was this case which directly dealt with the interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof in both the 14th Amendment and the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866.Your failure to reposnd to this case and it's holding which is directly on point. This case cannot be ignored, unless of course one is remaining willfully obtuse to the entirety of the available scholarship. One of the passages most directly on point follows:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42. United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 682. (and if you've read much law, you'll recognize the legal cite provided.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
TXHawk wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pm
You are correct in pointing out the Elk case dealt with a Native American. The connection you failed to make was while the SCOTUS ruling in that case rules on the exclusivity of Natives, meaning they were already here prior to the rule of law currently followed, it and that is a vastly different scenario that currently being discussed but none the less still set precedent.

Wong Kim Ark directly referenced not just Elk, but all of the slaughterhouse cases in reaching it's conclusion. An educated legal analysis needs to refer to this case or an argument on this issue is in vain by you or any other talking head on Fox news.
TXHawk wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pm
Although you did address in mostly correct fashion the background of racism surrounding these cases you completely either failed or chose to ignore what the author of the 14th amendment very specifically stated as of the intent, inclusions, and exclusions. That cannot be ignored unless of course one is remaining willfully obtuse to the entirety of the available scholarship.
As stated previously the phrase inserted by Mr. Howrd is where the debate should be centered. To conclude without supporting argument that only one interpretation of that phrase must now be considered, in the face of previous SCOTUS decisions which were directly on point and ignored in your response, offers nothing to your argument. To take them out of the context of the congressional debates is definitely not helpful to your argument. A careful reading of the original debates will reveal a pattern from Howard, as well from Senator Trumball who worked on the 14th, and drafted the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866 from which Howrd paraphrased the indicated passage in the 14th amendment. In each case these men repeatedly talked about all immigrants, not just some, having citizenship at birth despite the standing of their parents. If you can come to a different conclusion from the original transcript provided below, I'll be interested in reading it.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=603
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... &recNum=11
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=605

The biggest issue with your response is the total lack of reference to the underlying issue, which is whether previous holdings of SCOTUS, laws passed by Congress, and the 14th Amendment can be overturned by a presidential directive. Congress may be able to pass legislation for SCOTUS to subsequently review, but not likely any other way. A failure to address the underlying issue is not the sign of a serious scholar.
by philbo
Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:30 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

President Trump has made 6,420 false or misleading claims over 649 days... In the seven weeks leading up the midterm elections, the president made 1,419 false or misleading claims — an average of 30 a day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 47a79e7f90

And then there is the most recent ethically challenged tRump appointee, Ryan Zinke, facing several claims of self dealing:
White House concerned Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke violated federal rules
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 952ca8a07c

And on top of that is the most recent immigration dog whistle from tRump himself... after pushing the ad, he failed to note that it wasn't democrats who let this guy back in, but republicans. But, why let a few facts get in the way of perfectly drafted fear mongering ad?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... e397b01b2d

But wait, there's more. Now tRump is wanting more troops to the border (where they are legally prohibited from engaging in police activites) and suggesting they have the authority to shoot anyone throwing rocks at them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 5ad5878e58
by philbo
Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:33 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

TXHawk wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:00 am
I am not sure how name calling of The President bolsters your case but civil discourse is an altogether different topic. So to the topic at hand. The 14th Amendment does not establish in Constitutional verbiage birthright citizenship nor was it intended to. The only Supreme Court Ruling on the matter I am aware of is Elk vs Wilkins circa 1884 which clearly affirmed the status of the parents did in fact determine the citizenship or eligibility of the child.
Elk v. Wilkens is not the only case dealing with this issue, nor is your case as on point as your conclusion states.

The Elk case dealt specifically with native americans present within the US borders in the 19th century. Elk brought suit stating that he should be granted the privilege of citizenship based on the 14th amendment and his being born within the US. The holding in this case did not rest on who Elks parents were, but rather the fact that he had been born into a tribe that was recognized as an alien nation by the US. Congress that previously concluded that the "Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states"; but "they were alien nations, distinct political communities", with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 Thus, the members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States. The ruling in Elk supported the previous Civil Rights Act of 1866 which specifically stated "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." Again, the ruling in Elk relied on the earlier Civil Rights Act to uphold it finding, not the status of Elks parents. Elk remained law in it's application to Native Americans until it was overturned by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
TXHawk wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:00 am
Keeping in mind when the 14th amendment was passed there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant established by legal language in the Federal Statutes.
I agree that it did not exist as a legal term in the 19th century, but all the hall marks of racism, prejudice, nationalism and xenophobia directed against present day illegal immigrants were being levied against the immigrants of their times and justified to deny them the right to vote. Political Parties thrived on fear of immigrants, especially those from Ireland and China. This is best reserved for a separate discussion, but fear and paranoia of immigrants did play a part in 19th century law, as much as it does today.

The cases directly related to the concept of jus soli grew out a series of appellate cases that was eventually decided by SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1889. These cases directly commented on the status of parents as related to birthright citizenship, not Elk. as you previously concluded.

The anti-immigrant attitude towards Chinese immigrants in the 19th and 20th century can not be understated. This hostility towards immigrants of Asian descent was codified in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which severely restricted the rights of Chinese immigrants to enter the country, and made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from obtaining US citizenship.

The question of whether the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment applied to persons born in the United States to Chinese immigrants first came before the courts in an 1884 case, In re Look Tin Sing. Mr. Sing was born in California in 1870 to Chinese immigrants who were not US citizens. As an adult Look Tin Sing was barred from rentry to the US in California because he did not have the documentation required for immigrants. Look's case was taken to the appeals court in 1884. After inviting comment from all lawyers, the judges focused on the meaning of the subject to the jurisdiction thereof phrase of the Citizenship Clause, and subsequently held that Look was indeed subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his birth despite the alien status of his parents, and on this basis ordered U.S. officials to recognize Look as a citizen and allow him to enter the United States. This case was not appealed. A similar conclusion was reached by the federal circuit court for Oregon in the 1888 cases of Ex parte Chin King and Ex parte Chan San Hee. In an 1892 case, Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., the federal appeals court in California (relying on the above cases) concluded that a Chinese man would have been recognized as a United States citizen if he could have presented satisfactory evidence that he had in fact been born in the U.S. None of these cases were appealed to SCOTUS, but each directly dealt with Birthright Citizenship under the 14th amendment.

The case that is directly on point, and of which you presume to be ignorant of, followed the fact patterns of the above cases and was heard by SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898. In a 6–2 decision the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."
TXHawk wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:00 am
Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
While Howard did state the above it has been hashed to pieces by proponents on both sides without fully answering the question. "Is that a list of three different categories (foreigners, aliens, and people from the families of ambassadors and ministers), in which case all kids of foreigners and aliens would be excluded from birthright citizenship? Or is “aliens” used simply as a synonym for “foreigners” and meant to be read in apposition, in which case the exclusion is limited to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers? (“Foreigners—that is, aliens—who belong to the families . . .” For a very good discussion of BOTH sides of this issue, read here:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/ ... quirement/

But back to the original point.... if tRump believes he can legally upend the 14th amendment, federal law, and the previous holdings of SCOTUS with an executive order, he doesn't understand what he is talking about. A law passed by congress, and all the appeals that would necessarily follow, may lead to an opinion different from the holding in Wong, but not an executive order by itself.
by philbo
Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:49 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

In either the most arrogant display of ignorance concerning the US Constitution, or the newest in a long line of absurd pronouncements to distract the populace just days before the mid-term elections, tRump proposes to end birthright citizenship protected in the 14th Amendment with an executive order... Yep, winning as only tRump knows how.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1N41MD
by philbo
Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:18 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Today in Trump's new term as President
Replies: 3455
Views: 180313

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

Dow Jones Reverses Lower As Trump Tariffs Threatened On All Chinese Imports
Could this just be a winning strategy by Trump to finally force Beijing to make big concessions at the November meeting? That seems unlikely given that Beijing has said the trade conflict is a matter of national honor. China has refused to negotiate under threat and has demanded to be treated as an equal.

https://www.investors.com/news/economy/ ... tockfalls/

Hang on to your 401k's, could get more bumpy than expected. :tiphat:

Return to “Today in Trump's new term as President”