Page 289 of 293 FirstFirst ... 189239279287288289290291 ... LastLast
Results 8,641 to 8,670 of 8776

Thread: President Trump: Making America Great Again...

  1. #8641
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    15,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    Violence is actually down: 56 incidents in 2015, 38 in 2016, and 19 in 2017. Total "incidents" is the number that is up substantially. Harassment and vandalism have doubled since 2015. Also, the shooter was not a Trump lover; he was quoted as saying Trump was a globalist and controlled by Jews. Trump is responsible for a lot of stupid stuff, but pinning anti-semitism on him is a stretch.

    Alternatively, an executive order overturning the constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS is all him. This action probably ranks at the top of the stupidity list, which is quite an accomplishment.
    Thanks for bringing this up. In addition to the wall, taking away birthright citizenship is a hall-of-fame White Nationalist platform piece. Trump is either a White Supremacist or the dumbest pawn the White Supremacist movement has ever manipulated so easily. If the latter is the case, I don't know how you explain the birther movement when he had no political stake in anything. I think he's just a racist POS.
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  2. #8642
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    15,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    I was having a conversation with my wife this morning regarding immigration and the whole caravan thing.

    I guess I'm curious as to what people think the right answer is as far as making immigration easier and accepting folks like those in the caravan into the country.

    I think it's really easy to say that we don't want to bring in criminals. OK. And it's easy to say that anyone who wants to come here to escape violence and other bad things in their homeland and contribute to society here is welcome. OK.

    But what are the limits? Should there be any? What is the capacity of the US to absorb groups like this? Quite frankly, during my time as a missionary in Guatemala I knew of many people who wanted to move to the US. Some had applied and were on waiting lists. Others were saving up money for a coyote. And many others talked about it longingly, though they didn't have the money to apply and weren't willing to take the risks of hiring a coyote. And that was just in one country!

    Many people say we need to accept and process this caravan when they arrive. Who are we to not share what we have and to limit who else can have it based solely on winning the lottery of being born in the right country. And I agree - I really don't believe I deserve what I've got here any more than anyone else.

    But what is our capacity? And if this group is fully accepted in, does that bring other groups - perhaps larger groups? If I was living in Guatemala and learned that by making my way to the US I would be accepted at the border - I'd be packing my backpack for the trek.

    So - should there be limits? And what should those limits be? (I accept that they are likely much higher than the current acceptance rate) - and will the limits EVER be high enough to meet the demand? Or will it just allow more people in, without really reducing the number of people who aren't accepted and aren't going to wait and/or deal with a crazy bureaucracy?
    The standard is actually pretty high for asylum. I have a lot of asylum clients who frankly don't pass muster. But they are in the process and have the right to argue their case because it is viable and not frivolous, so they do. It's not like they just pass a quiz at the border and they're in for life with a roll of food stamps like the anti-immigrant crowd seems to think. The people of Guatemala that make it here specifically are typically indigenous, quiet, fleeing the unanswered horrors of being indigenous in Guatemala. They get around by ass-achingly slow public transport or by bicycle and are very industrious and on top of their responsibilities with me and with the court. You can't fathom my frustration when some redneck racist asshole denigrates one of these people or their character or paints them as a criminal or a danger. I'd rather be neighbors with a Guatemalan than an Idahoan every day of the week without thinking about it.
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  3. #8643
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Commando View Post
    Thanks for bringing this up. In addition to the wall, taking away birthright citizenship is a hall-of-fame White Nationalist platform piece. Trump is either a White Supremacist or the dumbest pawn the White Supremacist movement has ever manipulated so easily. If the latter is the case, I don't know how you explain the birther movement when he had no political stake in anything. I think he's just a racist POS.
    This makes sense why Harry Reid was pushing it... That Fn racist Nazi POS!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  4. #8644
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    15,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    This makes sense why Harry Reid was pushing it... That F’n racist Nazi POS!
    Hey if the shoe fits! I've heard a lot of racist comments in church. He doesn't get a pass from me just b/c he's LDS.
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  5. #8645
    Bald not naked Pelado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The 208
    Posts
    9,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Commando View Post
    I'd rather be neighbors with a Guatemalan than an Idahoan every day of the week without thinking about it.
    Then Guatemalans must be pretty awesome.
    "I think it was King Benjamin who said 'you sorry ass shitbags who have no skills that the market values also have an obligation to have the attitude that if one day you do in fact win the PowerBall Lottery that you will then impart of your substance to those without.'"
    - Goatnapper'96

  6. #8646
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    15,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelado View Post
    Then Guatemalans must be pretty awesome.
    And Idahoans aren't that great. I should know- I'm one of em.
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  7. #8647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    I was having a conversation with my wife this morning regarding immigration and the whole caravan thing.

    I guess I'm curious as to what people think the right answer is as far as making immigration easier and accepting folks like those in the caravan into the country.

    I think it's really easy to say that we don't want to bring in criminals. OK. And it's easy to say that anyone who wants to come here to escape violence and other bad things in their homeland and contribute to society here is welcome. OK.

    But what are the limits? Should there be any? What is the capacity of the US to absorb groups like this? Quite frankly, during my time as a missionary in Guatemala I knew of many people who wanted to move to the US. Some had applied and were on waiting lists. Others were saving up money for a coyote. And many others talked about it longingly, though they didn't have the money to apply and weren't willing to take the risks of hiring a coyote. And that was just in one country!

    Many people say we need to accept and process this caravan when they arrive. Who are we to not share what we have and to limit who else can have it based solely on winning the lottery of being born in the right country. And I agree - I really don't believe I deserve what I've got here any more than anyone else.

    But what is our capacity? And if this group is fully accepted in, does that bring other groups - perhaps larger groups? If I was living in Guatemala and learned that by making my way to the US I would be accepted at the border - I'd be packing my backpack for the trek.

    So - should there be limits? And what should those limits be? (I accept that they are likely much higher than the current acceptance rate) - and will the limits EVER be high enough to meet the demand? Or will it just allow more people in, without really reducing the number of people who aren't accepted and aren't going to wait and/or deal with a crazy bureaucracy?
    The latest numbers I can find set a total annual limit for immigration of unskilled labor (not coming under a family immigration) at 5,000 per year max. The latest limit for asylum seekers from Latin America is at 3,000 per year. We have a system in place to limit legal immigration, it is just set at limits that I believe are way too low. We have a serious labor shortage right now.
    One of the grandest benefits of the enlightenment was the realization that our moral sense must be based on the welfare of living individuals, not on their immortal souls. Honest and passionate folks can strongly disagree regarding spiritual matters, so it's imperative that we not allow such considerations to infringe on the real happiness of real people.

    Woot

    I believe religion has much inherent good and has born many good fruits.
    SU

  8. #8648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snowcat View Post
    The latest numbers I can find set a total annual limit for immigration of unskilled labor (not coming under a family immigration) at 5,000 per year max. The latest limit for asylum seekers from Latin America is at 3,000 per year. We have a system in place to limit legal immigration, it is just set at limits that I believe are way too low. We have a serious labor shortage right now.
    Trump’s understanding of the economy as evidenced by his 3 hour work days and strange and arbitrary trade wars is very limited. His decisions to restrict immigrants is an idealogical one based on race.

    He was never a good business man. He was good at getting attention and branding and that is what he is successfully doing now, branding and getting attention with divisive policies and whining about the media.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  9. #8649
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    6,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Trump’s understanding of the economy as evidenced by his 3 hour work days and strange and arbitrary trade wars is very limited....
    Honestly? I hope he keeps his work days to 3 hours. I'd even be OK with him going to a 3 hour work week.

  10. #8650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Those senators help created the 13th and 14th amendments, as I understand it, so they were asked to give what they meant.
    While that's of interest, it still is only within the jurisdiction of the courts to interpret. In this case it may be that judges will give greater weight to the practice in English common law rather than what the intent of the sponsors/drafters may have been. The intent is obviously of interest, and should be influential, but it isn't the only source (and shouldn't be) that is consulted for interpretation. It's a rather gray area, rife with the possibility of corruption. The claims of legislating from the bench are not completely unfounded.

  11. #8651
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    6,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    While that's of interest, it still is only within the jurisdiction of the courts to interpret. In this case it may be that judges will give greater weight to the practice in English common law rather than what the intent of the sponsors/drafters may have been. The intent is obviously of interest, and should be influential, but it isn't the only source (and shouldn't be) that is consulted for interpretation. It's a rather gray area, rife with the possibility of corruption. The claims of legislating from the bench are not completely unfounded.
    So- Nancy Pelosi wasn't all that far off when she said that Congress has to pass a law before we can see what's in it. I mean - intent of the law isn't all that relevant. What's important is how it is interpreted by the courts. And they won't be interpreting it until it becomes law.

  12. #8652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    So- Nancy Pelosi wasn't all that far off when she said that Congress has to pass a law before we can see what's in it. I mean - intent of the law isn't all that relevant. What's important is how it is interpreted by the courts. And they won't be interpreting it until it becomes law.
    Any judge or justice who would give Trump a pass should he try to sign the order Stephen Miller is going to write for him on this should be impeached. The language of the constitution is clear enough, along with precedents already set on the matter.

  13. #8653
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    While that's of interest, it still is only within the jurisdiction of the courts to interpret. In this case it may be that judges will give greater weight to the practice in English common law rather than what the intent of the sponsors/drafters may have been. The intent is obviously of interest, and should be influential, but it isn't the only source (and shouldn't be) that is consulted for interpretation. It's a rather gray area, rife with the possibility of corruption. The claims of legislating from the bench are not completely unfounded.
    LOL... The English don't recognized the children of born of non-British parents in England as citizens (or subjects of the crown). Just kidding.

    Has the supreme court ruled on children born of illegal immigrates in the US being given automatic citizenship? I have search but can't find such a case.

    Here is another quote from another author (Sen. Jacob M. Howard, MI) of the 14th amendment:
    The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.
    https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:...dc30867/m1/12/
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  14. #8654
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    So- Nancy Pelosi wasn't all that far off when she said that Congress has to pass a law before we can see what's in it. I mean - intent of the law isn't all that relevant. What's important is how it is interpreted by the courts. And they won't be interpreting it until it becomes law.
    Apparently Drumpf is doing the same thing... making an executive order so we can all see what's in it.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  15. #8655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    So- Nancy Pelosi wasn't all that far off when she said that Congress has to pass a law before we can see what's in it. I mean - intent of the law isn't all that relevant. What's important is how it is interpreted by the courts. And they won't be interpreting it until it becomes law.
    I'm pretty sure that's the way it was purposefully designed. Congress does the best it can (which lately hasn't set the bar very high) to commit to writing its intent. When something is brought before the court, a judge decides whether the law as written applies or not--and if the law violates constitutional directives. Allowing a drafter to influence policy outside of what a law specifically states in writing is a disaster waiting to happen. A single drafter (or committee) does not have the right to create law, only the full body of Congress signed by the executive branch. The vote was on what was written, not on the intent of the original drafters. It's often a compromise position, regardless of the intent or desires of the original promoters. Maybe that's not interpret, could be there's a better word.

    That Congress seems to continue to abdicate its position as lawmakers in recent years is a separate problem. Often resulting in the courts being forced to interpret ambiguous language.

  16. #8656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Has the supreme court ruled on children born of illegal immigrates in the US being given automatic citizenship? I have search but can't find such a case.
    I already cited the case.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...R_0169_0649_ZO

    From 1898 no less.

    I guess that isn't illegal immigrants. Don't know about that one, I'll reread to see if any statement was made with regard to legality of the parents.
    Last edited by swampfrog; 10-30-2018 at 02:32 PM. Reason: clarity

  17. #8657
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    I already cited the case.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...R_0169_0649_ZO

    From 1898 no less.

    I guess that isn't illegal immigrants. Don't know about that one, I'll reread to see if any statement was made with regard to legality of the parents.
    Yeah, it sounds like the parents were permanent residents of the US with some kind of work permit.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  18. #8658

    Default

    Paul Ryan doesn’t think birthright citizenship can be ended with an executive order:


    https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/30/pol...www.cnn.com%2F
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  19. #8659
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    I already cited the case.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...R_0169_0649_ZO

    From 1898 no less.

    I guess that isn't illegal immigrants. Don't know about that one, I'll reread to see if any statement was made with regard to legality of the parents.

    I am no expert (the few times immigration law issues have popped up in my cases I have hired specialists to help) and have not even read the entire opinion you linked, but I don't think this authority says what you assert. There is no analysis of whether the 14th amendment language applies to children of illegal aliens. The parents in the cited opinion were domiciliaries of the US at the time in question which, as I understand the law applicable at the time, was another way of saying that they were legal residents but not citizens. In addition, it looks like this case provides implicit support for the interpretation of the 14th amendment urged by Trump.

    Again, no expert here and this is just based on a quick perusal of the case.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  20. #8660
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Paul Ryan doesn’t think birthright citizenship can be ended with an executive order:


    https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/30/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

    More importantly I think he should not do it. While this sort of executive order is not the same as some of the more recent abuses from prior presidents, arguably, with respect to delegating executive authority or usurping congressional authority, it is such a questionable move on such an important issue as to economic, social and constitutional issues, that he should not even be considering it. I don't think Trump will find much support for this approach, nor should he.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  21. #8661
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    6,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    I'm pretty sure that's the way it was purposefully designed. Congress does the best it can (which lately hasn't set the bar very high) to commit to writing its intent. When something is brought before the court, a judge decides whether the law as written applies or not--and if the law violates constitutional directives. Allowing a drafter to influence policy outside of what a law specifically states in writing is a disaster waiting to happen. A single drafter (or committee) does not have the right to create law, only the full body of Congress signed by the executive branch. The vote was on what was written, not on the intent of the original drafters. It's often a compromise position, regardless of the intent or desires of the original promoters. Maybe that's not interpret, could be there's a better word.

    That Congress seems to continue to abdicate its position as lawmakers in recent years is a separate problem. Often resulting in the courts being forced to interpret ambiguous language.
    Sure - that's true, and I get it completely.

    I've also written and reviewed enough policy to know that it is pretty common to have a policy that is intending to address one specific issue, only to run into situations later in which that same policy results in unintended consequences.

    I get that once the law is in place, you have to rely on the law. But to completely ignore unintended consequences (if there are any) and simply say "Well darn it, I didn't see that happening. I guess we'll just have to live with it" is pretty silly too.

    Obviously this is something that we've all lived with for a long time. Personally - I can see how there is some value in changing things. Particularly as a cottage industry springs up for "birth tourism". And I'm not sure how excited we as Americans should be about that.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-miami-n836121

    That said - I'm also in disagreement with the idea of deporting the DACA kids - or suddenly denying kids who were born in the US and grew up here, but now don't get automatic citizenship due to some change in the 14th amendment.

    I know immigration and citizenship seems so black and white to many here - but it's a much more complex and difficult issue to wrap my head around for me.

  22. #8662
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Paul Ryan doesn’t think birthright citizenship can be ended with an executive order:


    https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/30/pol...www.cnn.com%2F
    Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, likes it:

    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  23. #8663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Trump’s understanding of the economy as evidenced by his 3 hour work days and strange and arbitrary trade wars is very limited. His decisions to restrict immigrants is an idealogical one based on race.

    He was never a good business man. He was good at getting attention and branding and that is what he is successfully doing now, branding and getting attention with divisive policies and whining about the media.
    Trump was a good businessman, as defined by success. The average entrepreneur goes bankrupt several times before finding success. He was perhaps not ethical, and certainly not moral, but he was shrewd and successful. I agree, however, that his economic knowledge has some major shortcomings, though I think that's pretty standard for most presidents. We've only had three presidents since WWII who understood the economy reasonably well, Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton, and even they all made their share of mistakes.

    We're due for a recession, but Trump has not been bad for the economy overall. The expectation of efficiency through less regulation has given the economy a huge boost. His trade decisions drive me bonkers, and I'm with Commando on immigration, so don't interpret me as thinking he's done a good job. In fact, those two things alone have the potential to make the next recession steep and deep, given the money supply in circulation after quantitative easing.

    What this country, and our economy, needs is a cheerleader that let's criticism roll off his back while he cheers the American workers on. Reagan got that better than anyone, but Clinton was a close second. I didn't agree with Clinton on much, but the guy at least understood that the economy needs more optimism and less divisiveness. In reality, Clinton had the good fortune of benefitting from a huge tech boom, but he could have easily screwed it up like Obama did with pretty much every industry he meddled in.

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  24. #8664
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, likes it:

    That's different. There are some pretty reasonable arguments about birthright citizenship, but not by executive order.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  25. #8665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    Trump was a good businessman, as defined by success. The average entrepreneur goes bankrupt several times before finding success. He was perhaps not ethical, and certainly not moral, but he was shrewd and successful.
    huh? his net worth has at best barely outpaced broad based index funds.
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  26. #8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    huh? his net worth has at best barely outpaced broad based index funds.
    You beat me to it!

    Look at how much money his father gifted him (largely thru tax fraud). If Trump is a genius at anything, it is convincing people that he's a business genius.

  27. #8667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    I get that once the law is in place, you have to rely on the law. But to completely ignore unintended consequences (if there are any) and simply say "Well darn it, I didn't see that happening. I guess we'll just have to live with it" is pretty silly too.

    Obviously this is something that we've all lived with for a long time. Personally - I can see how there is some value in changing things. Particularly as a cottage industry springs up for "birth tourism". And I'm not sure how excited we as Americans should be about that.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-miami-n836121

    That said - I'm also in disagreement with the idea of deporting the DACA kids - or suddenly denying kids who were born in the US and grew up here, but now don't get automatic citizenship due to some change in the 14th amendment.

    I know immigration and citizenship seems so black and white to many here - but it's a much more complex and difficult issue to wrap my head around for me.
    The question is where should this debate be happening? It needs resolution, there is room for interpretation. However, Congress is so dysfunctional that both the executive and judicial branches are usurping authority that congress is voluntarily abdicating through extreme polarization.

    If laws are suffering from the results of the law of unintended consequences (which the founders fully understood--that's why there's an amendment process), then why is Congress not meeting to shore up the laws when the consequences arise? It was designed to be iterative to handle both the inadequacy of human language and future unknowns. Precedence has weight, but can be overridden by Congress. If immigration policy needs to change, then let Congress change it.

  28. #8668
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    You beat me to it!

    Look at how much money his father gifted him (largely thru tax fraud). If Trump is a genius at anything, it is convincing people that he's a business genius.
    Given that he is not in jail that has to count for something, doesn't it?

    Drumpf is a master of the tweeter. He knows how to get people talking. In fact, I don't think CNN can stop talking about Drumpf.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  29. #8669
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    15,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    huh? his net worth has at best barely outpaced broad based index funds.
    If he had taken all that money he borrowed from his dad and put it in a Wells Fargo savings account he would probably have more money than he does now.
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  30. #8670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    You beat me to it!

    Look at how much money his father gifted him (largely thru tax fraud). If Trump is a genius at anything, it is convincing people that he's a business genius.
    Ding ding ding! The truth right there. Trump has messed up thriving business operation he’s touched. He’s a tax cheat and a flimflam man who lies about his wealth to get on Forbes’ lists. This business mastermind stuff is a myth.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •