Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
Fake News thread
Fake News thread
Time for a new long-running thread - the "fake news" thread. When you find fake news, post it here.
I'll start with this one:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics ... index.html
And here is a perfect example of why CNN's ratings are in the tank and why I say that virtually no journalistic standards exist there.
Let's break down this headline grammatically. The word "and" allows it to be read as follows:
Trump claims he can defy Constitution.
Trump claims he can end birthright citizenship.
While the latter is correct, the first part is patently false. Trump did NOT claim that he can defy the Constitution. The author of the article may believe that Trump taking such an action would be unconstitutional, but to attribute your own legal opinion to the actual spoken words of another person when that person made no such statement is...
....wait for it....
FAKE NEWS.
NPR does a much better job of explaining the legal complexities of such an action:
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/30/66204390 ... tive-order
I'll start with this one:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics ... index.html
And here is a perfect example of why CNN's ratings are in the tank and why I say that virtually no journalistic standards exist there.
Let's break down this headline grammatically. The word "and" allows it to be read as follows:
Trump claims he can defy Constitution.
Trump claims he can end birthright citizenship.
While the latter is correct, the first part is patently false. Trump did NOT claim that he can defy the Constitution. The author of the article may believe that Trump taking such an action would be unconstitutional, but to attribute your own legal opinion to the actual spoken words of another person when that person made no such statement is...
....wait for it....
FAKE NEWS.
NPR does a much better job of explaining the legal complexities of such an action:
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/30/66204390 ... tive-order
Re: Fake News thread
He implies it strongly... there is no way they’ll let him void part of the constitution with an executive order... if they did then where exactly would that end? Free press stripped from the first amendment? Voting rights for women voided... the possibilities are limitless and the thought is rather frightening actually... I don’t know how they figure they can do this...bmw wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:37 am Time for a new long-running thread - the "fake news" thread. When you find fake news, post it here.
I'll start with this one:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics ... index.html
And here is a perfect example of why CNN's ratings are in the tank and why I say that virtually no journalistic standards exist there.
Let's break down this headline grammatically. The word "and" allows it to be read as follows:
Trump claims he can defy Constitution.
Trump claims he can end birthright citizenship.
While the latter is correct, the first part is patently false. Trump did NOT claim that he can defy the Constitution. The author of the article may believe that Trump taking such an action would be unconstitutional, but to attribute your own legal opinion to the actual spoken words of another person when that person made no such statement is...
....wait for it....
FAKE NEWS.
NPR does a much better job of explaining the legal complexities of such an action:
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/30/66204390 ... tive-order
Re: Fake News thread
Amazon is discontinuing the daily WaPo headline push, which is probably good for my sanity. I've never seen more poorly written headlines than the clickbait nonsense they come up with. Also, it's very dishonest for them to label Jennifer Rubin as a conservative.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
Re: Fake News thread
Amazon is discontinuing the daily WaPo headline push, which is probably good for my sanity. I've never seen more poorly written headlines than the clickbait nonsense they come up with. Also, it's very dishonest for them to label Jennifer Rubin as a conservative.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
Re: Fake News thread
Oh I'm not suggesting he won't have a difficult time in Court. I'm just pointing out that it is factually false to claim that Trump is out there saying "hey, I'm going to knowingly and intentionally void part of the Constitution." Trump claims that his counsel has advised him that such an executive order would be legal. An accurate headline would be along the lines of "Trump claims he can legally end birthright citizenship by executive order."
There does appear to be at least some uncertainty in the 14th Amendment as it does not outright grant citizenship to people born here. The full language is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Keyword here is AND followed by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This means that simply being born or naturalized in the US isn't enough - you must also be subject to the US's jurisdiction. There are indeed people who meet the first part but not the second part, such as children of foreign diplomats. The legal question becomes whether those born here to parents who are here illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Apparently Supreme Court precedent suggests that they are. If Trump issues his executive order, he will undoubtedly be sued and it will end up at the SCOTUS, and the Court may re-visit that very question.
Trump apparently believes that being born here to illegal parents does not (or at least should not) subject you to the jurisdiction of the United States.
There does appear to be at least some uncertainty in the 14th Amendment as it does not outright grant citizenship to people born here. The full language is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Keyword here is AND followed by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This means that simply being born or naturalized in the US isn't enough - you must also be subject to the US's jurisdiction. There are indeed people who meet the first part but not the second part, such as children of foreign diplomats. The legal question becomes whether those born here to parents who are here illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Apparently Supreme Court precedent suggests that they are. If Trump issues his executive order, he will undoubtedly be sued and it will end up at the SCOTUS, and the Court may re-visit that very question.
Trump apparently believes that being born here to illegal parents does not (or at least should not) subject you to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Re: Fake News thread
She is a conservative just not a Trumper... you CAN be one or the other...Matt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:00 pm Amazon is discontinuing the daily WaPo headline push, which is probably good for my sanity. I've never seen more poorly written headlines than the clickbait nonsense they come up with. Also, it's very dishonest for them to label Jennifer Rubin as a conservative.
Re: Fake News thread
Wrong: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4098 ... re-someoneNS8401 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:21 pmShe is a conservative just not a Trumper... you CAN be one or the other...Matt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:00 pm Amazon is discontinuing the daily WaPo headline push, which is probably good for my sanity. I've never seen more poorly written headlines than the clickbait nonsense they come up with. Also, it's very dishonest for them to label Jennifer Rubin as a conservative.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
Re: Fake News thread
So you decided this based on the "American Principles Project"?
The "American Bathroom Grafitti Institute" calls you a cum guzzling moron. How do you live with the shame?
The "American Bathroom Grafitti Institute" calls you a cum guzzling moron. How do you live with the shame?
For Kristian Trumpers are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.
-Romans 16:18
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
-Romans 16:18
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
Re: Fake News thread
Just which part of the constitution would he be voiding by ending the practice of bestowing citizenship on children born here after their parents entered the country illegally?
First, tell me exactly when the birthright citizenship practice first started. Was it an act of Congress? Did the Supreme Court make a ruling? No. It started by policy of the Executive Branch back in the early 60's. If the Executive Branch can enact a policy, the Executive Branch can certainly undo it.
Second, the 14th Amendment, which was written and passed to confer citizenship, and all the rights and duties that come with it, to freed slaves to counter the piss poor Dred Scott ruling, clearly states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
People that enter the country illegally, and their offspring, are still subject to the jurisdiction of the country they were born and owe no allegiance to the United States.
The People who wrote and passed the 14th had NO intention to extend birthright to people here illegally.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Fake News thread
Birthright citizenship started in 1868 and was affirmed by the Supreme Court In 1898... nice try. Anyhow the courts and congress do this sort of clarifying and not an executive order. If such precedent were set up then the next Democrat could “clarify” well regulated militia. Just think about this for a second... just like with the unlimited subpoena powers the GOP gave themselves in the house causing endless investigations of Trump if the Democrats get the House, be careful what you wish for...Bryce wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:11 amJust which part of the constitution would he be voiding by ending the practice of bestowing citizenship on children born here after their parents entered the country illegally?
First, tell me exactly when the birthright citizenship practice first started. Was it an act of Congress? Did the Supreme Court make a ruling? No. It started by policy of the Executive Branch back in the early 60's. If the Executive Branch can enact a policy, the Executive Branch can certainly undo it.
Second, the 14th Amendment, which was written and passed to confer citizenship, and all the rights and duties that come with it, to freed slaves to counter the piss poor Dred Scott ruling, clearly states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
People that enter the country illegally, and their offspring, are still subject to the jurisdiction of the country they were born and owe no allegiance to the United States.
The People who wrote and passed the 14th had NO intention to extend birthright to people here illegally.
Re: Fake News thread
Says a bunch of far right folks about a moderate... what about George Will? You gonna argue he’s a socialist or something? Give me a break...Matt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:24 amWrong: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4098 ... re-someoneNS8401 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:21 pmShe is a conservative just not a Trumper... you CAN be one or the other...Matt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:00 pm Amazon is discontinuing the daily WaPo headline push, which is probably good for my sanity. I've never seen more poorly written headlines than the clickbait nonsense they come up with. Also, it's very dishonest for them to label Jennifer Rubin as a conservative.
Re: Fake News thread
Birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens did NOT start in 1868 and there is no such SCOTUS ruling.NS8401 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:48 amBirthright citizenship started in 1868 and was affirmed by the Supreme Court In 1898... nice try. Anyhow the courts and congress do this sort of clarifying and not an executive order. If such precedent were set up then the next Democrat could “clarify” well regulated militia. Just think about this for a second... just like with the unlimited subpoena powers the GOP gave themselves in the house causing endless investigations of Trump if the Democrats get the House, be careful what you wish for...Bryce wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:11 amJust which part of the constitution would he be voiding by ending the practice of bestowing citizenship on children born here after their parents entered the country illegally?
First, tell me exactly when the birthright citizenship practice first started. Was it an act of Congress? Did the Supreme Court make a ruling? No. It started by policy of the Executive Branch back in the early 60's. If the Executive Branch can enact a policy, the Executive Branch can certainly undo it.
Second, the 14th Amendment, which was written and passed to confer citizenship, and all the rights and duties that come with it, to freed slaves to counter the piss poor Dred Scott ruling, clearly states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
People that enter the country illegally, and their offspring, are still subject to the jurisdiction of the country they were born and owe no allegiance to the United States.
The People who wrote and passed the 14th had NO intention to extend birthright to people here illegally.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Fake News thread
Anyone need more proof that liberalism is a mental illness? Keep reading TCT...
It's not that she's anti-Trump that bothers me, it's that she's so rabidly anti-Trump that she abandons any facade of intellectual honesty by changing prior opinions based on Trump. It's embarrassing.NS8401 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:51 amSays a bunch of far right folks about a moderate... what about George Will? You gonna argue he’s a socialist or something? Give me a break...Matt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:24 amWrong: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4098 ... re-someoneNS8401 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:21 pmShe is a conservative just not a Trumper... you CAN be one or the other...Matt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:00 pm Amazon is discontinuing the daily WaPo headline push, which is probably good for my sanity. I've never seen more poorly written headlines than the clickbait nonsense they come up with. Also, it's very dishonest for them to label Jennifer Rubin as a conservative.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
Re: Fake News thread
Sorry, Sparky, but yes it did and yes there was.Someone who wishes that posting it makes it true lied when they wrote:Birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens did NOT start in 1868 and there is no such SCOTUS ruling.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
is born in the United States
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a legal permanent domicile and legal residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power
to which they are subject becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
I'll grant you that the SCOTUS ruling refers to "legal residence" so you may be able to apply the exemption to those who've entered the country illegally.
But then the argument comes over the words "under the jurisdiction of" the US. If the parents are not considered "under the jurisdiction of" the US, that means they cannot be prosecuted for being here illegally. It's a Catch 22 the size of a certain someone's ego.
-
- Posts: 4509
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:09 pm
- Location: Brighton
Re: Fake News thread
I never thought I'd see the day where we'd be discussing amendments and the COTUS. Whatever happened to "THAT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN THAT'S THE WAY IT STAYS!!!"?
"Internet is no more like radio than intravenous feeding is like fine dining."
-TurkeyTop
-TurkeyTop