Today in Trump's new term as President

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

bbhack
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 52
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:34 pm
Location: San Antonio Area

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2671

Post by bbhack » Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:44 pm

dale blanker wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:44 pm
Wolverine wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:08 pm
Since you asked nicely, you can pick two.
...
C? C? See???
We don't know much at this point, so I'm waiting to hear the story. Probably take at least 24-48 hours.

Edit: Excellent analysis from him as usual.

https://gab.com/Thomas_Wictor/posts/39952464

After reading how the press and leftists are responding to the stripper-bomber, here's what I predict:

More people will vote for Republicans.

This is another huge backfire. There are two factors:

The deranged piling on and the bad-faith claims that this guy represents all Trump supporters.

You can see that the man is insane, and he has a VERY long criminal history. There was a brief moment in which the Democrats could have benefited, but as usual, they overreached and blew it.
...
No Trespassing Violators Will Be Prosecuted

User avatar

dale blanker
Banned
Posts in topic: 156
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 1:49 am

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2672

Post by dale blanker » Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:30 am

bbhack wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:44 pm
We don't know much at this point, so I'm waiting to hear the story. Probably take at least 24-48 hours.

Edit: Excellent analysis from him as usual.

https://gab.com/Thomas_Wictor/posts/39952464
bbhack, do you really believe this guy, Thomas Wictor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5FD5cr ... Chris Wary

instead of FBI Director Chris Wray?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/explos ... -continues

Good luck.
"Fellowship, Leadership, Scholarship, Service." Anyone?

User avatar

bbhack
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 52
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:34 pm
Location: San Antonio Area

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2673

Post by bbhack » Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:47 am

dale blanker wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:30 am
bbhack, do you really believe this guy, Thomas Wictor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5FD5cr ... Chris Wary

instead of FBI Director Chris Wray?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/explos ... -continues

Good luck.
Why? Nothing Wictor said contradicts what the director said. Do you need help with reading or comprehension? Or was it the part where Wictor said they had no chance of detonating? They had a very low chance based on empirical evidence, because zero did. Your turn.
No Trespassing Violators Will Be Prosecuted


Topic author
philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 897
Posts: 9662
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2674

Post by philip964 » Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:53 pm

https://mashable.com/article/donald-tru ... force-one/

Trump failing to figure out how to close an umbrella and then just dropping it, called a metopher for his presidency.

Critized for having a political rally on same day as Synogue massacre.

Critized for suggesting congregations provide some sort of security for these nut cases. Blaming the victim.

Critized for second guessing pitching change in World Series on a day that 11 died in a mass shooting by an anti Trump Nazi.

Normal slow news day for Trump.

If he wins the midterms, it was because he was fear mongering the Dems.

If he loses, it’s is an indictment of his failed presidency.

Please vote.


philbo
Banned
Posts in topic: 149
Posts: 555
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:36 am

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2675

Post by philbo » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:18 pm

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:


philbo
Banned
Posts in topic: 149
Posts: 555
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:36 am

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2676

Post by philbo » Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:49 pm

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


rotor
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 68
Posts: 3326
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2677

Post by rotor » Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:05 pm

philbo wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:49 pm
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
He has a pen and a phone. Wasn't that what Obama said when he authorized some unconstitutional dreamer stuff?


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 4169
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2678

Post by srothstein » Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:30 pm

philbo wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:49 pm
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
I just wanted to point out that any president can issue any executive order he wants. It has no bearing on law, just as directives to how the agencies he is responsible for will act. What this president might due is issue an executive order telling the immigration services how to interpret the clause in the 14th Amendment that says that birthright citizenship applies to people who are under the jurisdiction of the US. For example, he can point out that a person who entered the country illegally is not under our jurisdiction and therefore their children are not citizens.

Obviously, as with many other executive orders in recent years, people with opposing political issues will file a lawsuit to hold up the implementation of the order. While I do not necessarily agree with the president on this issue, I have to admit that I like the strategy of forcing the courts to decide exactly what that phrase does mean. My question is if the Democrats will be willing to take this chance with the SCOTUS or if they will compromise with the president on some other issue. I don't know what other issues he may want to deal on, but given his faith in his negotiating skills this seems like his type of an opening gambit. Always negotiate from a position of strength.
Steve Rothstein

User avatar

TXHawk
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:58 pm

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2679

Post by TXHawk » Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:00 am

philbo wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:49 pm
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

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. 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. The citation if the 14th has been a fairly recent construct and frankly a misuse of the amendment. Much like the 2nd Amendment a quick reading of the historical background and writings of the authors can clearly establish intent and meaning. The 14th is no different and I offer you below the words of its' author. I hope that you will agree by both authors intent and SCOTUS ruling birthright citizenship has been a graceful concession but not Constitutionally protected. If you want to argue it should be that is an entirely different topic and would require an additional amendment or a revision of the 14th.

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."
The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government.
Thomas Jefferson


Redneck_Buddha
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 27
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:35 pm
Location: Little Elm, TX

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2680

Post by Redneck_Buddha » Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:49 am

philbo wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:49 pm
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

LOL! Obama said in a speech "I changed the law" when he tried to give amnesty to the parents of the Dreamers. The courts held it against him and said he had no power to change the law and magically legalize parents of Dreamers. The left has just incredibly selective memory and are the worst of the worst hypocrites.

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 146
Posts: 5060
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2681

Post by Jusme » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:58 am

TXHawk wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:00 am
philbo wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:49 pm
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

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. 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. The citation if the 14th has been a fairly recent construct and frankly a misuse of the amendment. Much like the 2nd Amendment a quick reading of the historical background and writings of the authors can clearly establish intent and meaning. The 14th is no different and I offer you below the words of its' author. I hope that you will agree by both authors intent and SCOTUS ruling birthright citizenship has been a graceful concession but not Constitutionally protected. If you want to argue it should be that is an entirely different topic and would require an additional amendment or a revision of the 14th.

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."
I can already tell I'm going to like you. :thumbs2: Unfortunately, we have a very small minority, of members, who will from time to time, show up, only to throw dispersions, upon our current POTUS. You will also find, that they then disappear, and very rarely, provide, reasoned, arguments for their postings.
Welcome to the forum, :tiphat:

With you're well informed argument, I doubt we will hear anything from our left wing poster for a while.
I don't know if you have been informed, but we have a few meetups across the State, with our members. There are two in the Houston area, and two in the DFW area. Check under the off topic board, to confirm their Meetup days, the one I try to attend is the DFW Southwest on the third Saturday of each month and, for breakfast. We would really enjoy meeting you, there are several other "transplants" among our members.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

User avatar

TXHawk
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:58 pm

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2682

Post by TXHawk » Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:08 am

Thank you for the kind welcome and invite! I look forward to being a part of the community.
The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government.
Thomas Jefferson


jason812
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 35
Posts: 1249
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:41 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2683

Post by jason812 » Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:13 am

Jusme wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:58 am
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. 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. The citation if the 14th has been a fairly recent construct and frankly a misuse of the amendment. Much like the 2nd Amendment a quick reading of the historical background and writings of the authors can clearly establish intent and meaning. The 14th is no different and I offer you below the words of its' author. I hope that you will agree by both authors intent and SCOTUS ruling birthright citizenship has been a graceful concession but not Constitutionally protected. If you want to argue it should be that is an entirely different topic and would require an additional amendment or a revision of the 14th.

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."
I can already tell I'm going to like you. :thumbs2: Unfortunately, we have a very small minority, of members, who will from time to time, show up, only to throw dispersions, upon our current POTUS. You will also find, that they then disappear, and very rarely, provide, reasoned, arguments for their postings.
Welcome to the forum, :tiphat:

With you're well informed argument, I doubt we will hear anything from our left wing poster for a while.
I don't know if you have been informed, but we have a few meetups across the State, with our members. There are two in the Houston area, and two in the DFW area. Check under the off topic board, to confirm their Meetup days, the one I try to attend is the DFW Southwest on the third Saturday of each month and, for breakfast. We would really enjoy meeting you, there are several other "transplants" among our members.
TXHawk, you are the type of foreigner we need immigrating to Texas. :biggrinjester:

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 146
Posts: 5060
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2684

Post by Jusme » Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:44 pm

What I find funny, is that Trump announced his Executive Order plans, and it barely got a ripple in the MSM. They are still working on blaming him for the Pittsburgh shooting, and the mail bomber. He really makes them work for their outrage. By the time they get heated up about the EO, he will be on to something else.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:


flechero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 60
Posts: 2692
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2685

Post by flechero » Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:09 pm

I am a bit perplexed by the timing of the birthright citizenship talk... it seems like it would fire up the left more than the right. I'm all for eliminating the BRC of those born to illegals, but see it as something that would motivate more left voters then right voters.

Maybe I'm in the minority on this? I'd be pushing the [additional 10%] middle class tax cuts loud and proud, and holding the 14th amendment talk until 11/7.

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”