T1B

Derron wrote:

Kierland wrote:BY what matrix do you base your opinion dummy?

You talking to me bitch ??

BSmack wrote:I'm just here to Rack all Paul Revere and the Raiders resets.

Kierland wrote: I knew you were never going to answer the question.

You are too dumb to do anything but talk shit.

Left Seater wrote: You really aren't smart.

Tina Nguyen wrote:
Trump’s Lies Are Becoming Exponentially More Brazen

Holding court on the White House lawn Monday, Trump revealed new depths of contempt for objective reality—and offered a master class in how the most obvious lies destroy the very notion of truth, itself.

In the middle of an interview last week with 60 Minutes, Donald Trump seemed to take a perverse joy in baiting anchor Lesley Stahl as she attempted to wrangle him into submission. “Lesley, it’s O.K.,” he said, as they clashed over the narrative surrounding his administration’s migrant-family separation policy. “I’m president—and you’re not.” A week later, still riding high on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh and, perhaps, taking inspiration from the Saudis, Trump sounded less concerned than ever with trivialities like objective truth. Holding court before a gaggle of reporters outside the White House as Marine One idled on the South Lawn, Trump unleashed a dizzying sequence of half-truths and fairy tales, because he is the president, and the reporters in front of him were not.

“They have a lot of everybody in that group, it’s a horrible thing. And it’s a lot bigger than 5,000 people,” he said Monday afternoon, referring to a massive caravan of Central American refugees currently plowing through Mexico en route to the U.S. (In fact, the migrant caravan is a lot smaller than 5,000 people.) But rather than be content with a heaven-sent midterm talking point, Trump escalated. “Go into the middle of the caravan, take your cameras, and search. . . . You’re going to find MS-13, you’re going to find Middle Eastern, you’re going to find everything.” Criminals, knife-wielding murderers, potential Islamic extremists—that completes Trump-midterm bingo.

There is, of course, no reason to believe that “Middle Easterners” are mixed up in the caravan of refugees fleeing violence from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, beyond the fact that it would be convenient for Trump if it were true. A former senior intelligence official told NBC News that there is no evidence of any Middle Eastern terrorists hiding in the caravan. The White House has not responded to requests for comment regarding any of Trump’s claims.

Nevertheless, Trump continued his jazz riff of lies, doubling down on his false claim that Californians are “rioting” against “sanctuary cities,” which he first tossed out at a campaign rally over the weekend. “Take a look, they want to get out of sanctuary cities. Many places in California want to get out of sanctuary cities,” he told a reporter, who then asked exactly where the riots were. “Yeah, it is rioting in some cases,” he replied, and moved on, ignoring additional questions on the topic.

Trump could not avoid questions about Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi exile and former Washington Post columnist who was killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul earlier this month—but he could inflate the potential consequences of placing sanctions on his new friends in Riyadh. “I don't want to lose a million jobs, I don’t want to lose $110 billion,” he said, referring to an arms deal that has actually only earned $14.5 billion so far. “But it’s really $450 billion if you include other than military. So that’s very important. But we’re going to get to the bottom of it,” he added.

It’s not clear how the money at stake quadrupled in Trump’s mind, but then again, the president has a habit of inflating numbers when the mood strikes. On March 20, when the Saudi crown prince visited Washington, Trump claimed the arms deal would generate “over 40,000 jobs in the United States.” Last Saturday, that number jumped to 450,000 jobs, then to 500,000 jobs, then 600,000 jobs on Friday, and finally “over one million jobs” a few hours later, while visiting Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.

Arguably his most brazen falsehood, however, came in response to a question about Ted Cruz, who Trump was flying out to Texas to support. “He’s not Lyin’ Ted anymore, he’s Beautiful Ted. I call him Texas Ted,” he said over the roar of helicopter blades, extolling the virtues of a man whose wife he’d insulted in the past. A reporter reminded him that he’d once accused Cruz’s father of being involved in the J.F.K. assassination, to which Trump replied: “I don’t regret anything, honestly. It all worked out very nicely.”

Trump, at the very, very least, appeared to walk back an earlier fairy tale from Sunday, when he had baselessly asserted that he was “studying very deeply, around the clock, a major tax cut for middle-income people” that would come in “sometime around the first of November, maybe a little before that.” The one problem: Congress is not in session until after the election, and indeed, media outlets quickly reported that nobody in Washington had any idea what Trump was talking about. “I’m going through Congress. We won’t have time to do the vote,” he said Monday, barreling through the sort of quotidian, blatant falsehood that might have been a major, years-long scandal for another president. The full conversation needs to be seen to be believed, or not, as the case may be:

Reporter: You said “lower tax cuts.” You said that you wanted tax cuts by November 1. Congress isn’t even in session. How is that possible?

Trump: No, we’re going to be passing—no, no. We’re putting in a resolution sometime in the next week, or week and a half, two weeks.

Reporter: A resolution where?

Trump: “We’re going to put in—we’re giving a middle-income tax reduction of about 10 percent. We’re doing it now for middle-income people. This is not for business; this is for middle. That’s on top of the tax decrease that we’ve already given them.

Reporter: Are you signing an executive order for that?

Trump: No, no, no. I’m going through Congress.

Reporter: But Congress isn’t in session, though.

Trump: We won’t have time to do the vote. We’ll do the vote later.

Reporter: Congress is out.

Running out of room to maneuver, Trump concedes there was never going to be a new tax-cut bill before November 6. Still, he concludes, “We’ll do the vote after the election.”

Kierland wrote:The mouth breathers don’t care. They are too stupid to care about facts and whatnot.

President Donald Trump offered a dramatic, if legally dubious, promise in a new interview to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, ratcheting up his hardline immigration rhetoric with a week to go before critical midterm elections.

Trump's vow to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil came in an interview with Axios released Tuesday. Such a step would be regarded as an affront to the US Constitution, which was amended 150 years ago to include the words: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Trump did not say when he would sign the order, and some of his past promises to use executive action have gone unfulfilled. But whether the President follows through on his threat or not, the issue joins a string of actions intended to thrust the matter of immigration into the front of voters' minds as they head to polls next week.

A day earlier, the President vowed in an interview on Fox News to construct tent cities to house migrants traveling through Mexico to the US southern border. His administration announced the deployment of 5,200 troops to protect the frontier as the "caravan" continues to advance -- though it is still weeks, if not months, from reaching the US border. And the President has warned of an "invasion" of undocumented immigrants if the border isn't sealed with a wall.

Still, the threat of ending birthright citizenship amounts to another escalation in Trump's hardline approach to immigration, which has become his signature issue.

"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits," Trump said in an interview for "Axios on HBO."

Several other countries, including Canada, have a policy of birthright citizenship, according to an analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for reducing immigration.

"It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end," he continued.

Already, even some of the President's defenders downplayed the prospects of successfully ending birthright citizenship by executive order.

"Well, you obviously cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order," House Speaker Paul Ryan told a Kentucky radio station.

Ryan said it would involve a "very, very lengthy" constitutional process to change the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868 to protect citizenship rights for freed slaves.

The step would immediately be challenged in court. Some of Trump's previous immigration executive orders, including an attempt to bar entry to citizens from some Muslim-majority countries, came under legal scrutiny after a chaotic drafting process. At the same time, the President has derided his predecessor Barack Obama for taking executive actions to block some young undocumented immigrants from deportation, a step Trump said was a presidential overstep.

The American Civil Liberties Union slammed Trump's proposal Tuesday morning.

"The President cannot erase the Constitution with an executive order, and the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee is clear," said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "This is a transparent and blatantly unconstitutional attempt to sow division and fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms."

Asked about Trump's promise on Tuesday, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, said the President has the "right to raise that debate" if he wants but "this notion that he can simply violate the Constitution by executive order, let's face it, no serious legal scholar thinks that's real."

"This is simply an attempt for Donald Trump, who wants to do anything possible to bring back fears around immigration, to use that as a political tool in this last week before the election," Warner said. "This is again, where a President's words matter. The Constitution is quite clear that no one, including the President of the United States, is above the law."

The White House did not provide additional details of the planned executive order on Tuesday morning.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," he said, adding that he has run it by his counsel. "You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order," Trump said.

The President didn't provide any details of his plan, but said that "it's in the process. It'll happen."

The interview is a part of "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary series debuting on HBO this Sunday, according to the news site.

"But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order," Trump said.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Did you quit drinking?

Kierland wrote:I’m other words the same thing President Bone Spurs is doing.

88 wrote: When did the people ever agree to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born here?

88 wrote:

Left Seater wrote:The Constitution says he can’t. Period. Full stop. Stupid statement.

Actually, the Constitution sets forth two criteria: (1) born or naturalized in the United States; and (2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The latter has been interpreted in a few cases, but not in the context of illegal immigrants or pregnant visitors, both of which are citizens of other nations and not the United States (because they have not yet been granted citizenship). The President does not have the power to rewrite the Constitution or to violate it. But he is the Chief Executive of the nation, and has the power to order his executive branch agencies and deputies to enforce the laws as he interprets them. Obama instructed his executive branch agencies not to enforce certain laws and imposed interpretations that seem contrary to the laws as written. And he lost some court cases due to his bad interpretation of US law.

Trump's interpretation of the 14th Amendment would obviously lead to lawsuits, and a lawsuit would likely find its way to the Supreme Court. The Court is empowered to determine whether the President's interpretation of the Constitution and the nation's laws complies with the Constitution or is inconsistent with it. And, Congress can, of course, enact legislation to impose additional law at any time it feels so compelled. Congress's power to enact immigration laws is essentially limitless. The Supreme Court has stated that "[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete." see Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977). I would like to see how the case is decided. We are a self-governing nation. When did the people ever agree to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born here?

schmick wrote:
Illegal Immigrants are citizens of other countries and under the jurisdiction of those countries, not under the US jurisdiction.

88 wrote: I care as much about what you think of me as you care about the Constitution.

88 wrote:your fascist buddies

Screw_Michigan wrote:

88 wrote:your fascist buddies

I laffed. When did you become an overtly racist scumbag?

88 wrote:

Kierland wrote:Calvin’s Case is a good place to start.

You are funny. Perhaps a good place to start would be for you to try to explain how Calvin's Case, a Kings Bench case decided on the basis of English common law in 1608, explains what the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified 260 years later. Pretty sad if that is the best you've got.

88 wrote:
Swing and miss. But at least it was an attempt.

Dinsdale wrote:

88 wrote:
Swing and miss. But at least it was an attempt.

And next up to bat, is Wong Kim Ark.

Gee, two lawyers flailing at legal shit... shocker.

Kierland wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

88 wrote:your fascist buddies

I laffed. When did you become an overtly racist scumbag?

When his Daddy, Don the Con, gave him permission.

caravan

schmick wrote:If the invading force of foreigners assaults our people charged with protecting the border, they should shoot back at them.

LS wrote:I don’t plan to cash out for at least another two decades. Why would I worry about a fall today, tomorrow, next week or next month?

President Trump and CNN's Jim Acosta just had a tense exchange during the President's morning-after midterms press conference.

Acosta, a frequent target of Trump's attacks on the media, questioned if the President thinks he demonized immigrants when he called the migrant caravan an "invasion."

When a White House staffer tried to end Acosta's questions, Trump called Acosta a "rude, terrible person" -- then called an NBC News reporter "fake news" when he came to Acosta's defense.

Here's a portion of their exchange:

Acosta: Do you think you demonized immigrants to try to keep...

Trump: No, I want them to come into the country. But they have to come in legally. Through a process. I want it to be a process. And I want people to come in. And we need the people. Wait, wait. You know why we need the people? Because we have hundreds of companies move in. We need to people.

Acosta: Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on...

Trump: That's true. They were not actors. It is true. Do you think that they were actors? They did not come from Hollywood. These were people, this was an actual -- it happened a few days ago and...

Acosta: They are hundreds of miles away. That is not an invasion.

Trump: Honestly I think that you should let me run the country. You run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings will be much higher.

Acosta: If I may ask one other question.

Trump: That's enough.

Acosta: The other folks asked, pardon me, ma'am...

An unidentified woman attempted to reach for the mic from Acosta.

Trump: That's enough.

Acosta: If I can ask on the Russian investigation. Are you concerned that you may have...

Trump: I am not concerned about anything with the Russian investigation because it is a hoax. That is enough, put down the mic.

Acosta: Mr. President.

Trump: I tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of themselves having you working for them. You are rude, terrible person. You should not be working for CNN. Go ahead. You are a very rude person, the way that you treat Sarah Huckabee Sanders is horrible. The way that you treat other people is horrible. You should not treat people that way.

Trump then called on another reporter, Peter Alexander

Alexander: In Jim's defense I've traveled with him and watched him, he is a diligent reporter who busts his butt...

Trump: I'm not a big fan of yours either, to be honest ... You are not the best ... Just sit down, please. When you report fake news — no. When you report fake news, which CNN does a lot, you're the enemy of the people.

President Petulant Narcissistic Asshole and CNN's Petulant Narcissistic Asshole just had a tense exchange during the President's morning-after midterms press conference.

PNA#2, a frequent target of PNA#1's attacks on the media, questioned if the President thinks he demonized immigrants when he called the migrant caravan an "invasion."

When a White House staffer tried to end PNA#2's questions, PNA#1 called PNA#2 a "rude, terrible person" -- then called an NBC News reporter "fake news" when he came to PNA#1's defense.

Here's a portion of their exchange:

PNA#2: Do you think you demonized immigrants to try to keep...

PNA#1: No, I want them to come into the country. But they have to come in legally. Through a process. I want it to be a process. And I want people to come in. And we need the people. Wait, wait. You know why we need the people? Because we have hundreds of companies move in. We need to people.

PNA#2: Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on...

PNA#1: That's true. They were not actors. It is true. Do you think that they were actors? They did not come from Hollywood. These were people, this was an actual -- it happened a few days ago and...

PNA#2: They are hundreds of miles away. That is not an invasion.

PNA#1: Honestly I think that you should let me run the country. You run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings will be much higher.

PNA#2: If I may ask one other question.

PNA#1: That's enough.

PNA#2: The other folks asked, pardon me, ma'am...

An unidentified woman attempted to reach for the mic from PNA#2.

PNA#1: That's enough.

PNA#2: If I can ask on the Russian investigation. Are you concerned that you may have...

PNA#1: I am not concerned about anything with the Russian investigation because it is a hoax. That is enough, put down the mic.

PNA#2: Mr. President.

PNA#1: I tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of themselves having you working for them. You are rude, terrible person. You should not be working for CNN. Go ahead. You are a very rude person, the way that you treat Sarah Huckabee Sanders is horrible. The way that you treat other people is horrible. You should not treat people that way.

PNA#1 then called on another reporter, Peter Alexander

Alexander: In PNA#2 defense I've traveled with him and watched him, he is a diligent reporter who busts his butt...

PNA#1: I'm not a big fan of yours either, to be honest ... You are not the best ... Just sit down, please. When you report fake news — no. When you report fake news, which CNN does a lot, you're the enemy of the people.