Fake News thread

[Mega Hertz]

This bug still drives me nuts. I miss all those threads and the style I had my display on.

[Deleted User 8570]

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?

Anyone need more proof that liberalism is a mental illness? Keep reading TCT...

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.

She is a conservative just not a Trumper... you CAN be one or the other...

Wrong: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4098 ... re-someone

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...

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.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest about revising ones opinion... it’s actually as honest as it gets... revising ones opinion based on new information like “good god almighty they call themselves the GOP but this isn’t any GOP I’ve ever been a member of” is exactly what people who evaluate evidence and then base their opinions on it are supposed to do. People who are intellectually dishonest bend over backwards for and are willing to walk off a cliff for an ideology in the face of new evidence...

[Bryce]

Birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens did NOT start in 1868 and there is no such SCOTUS ruling.

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.

BINGO! No need to prosecute, just deport.

[Deleted User 8570]

Birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens did NOT start in 1868 and there is no such SCOTUS ruling.

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.

BINGO! No need to prosecute, just deport.

And well regulated militia means police and military and not any country Joe that comes along... do you really want to go down the road of clarifying amendments with executive orders? Because my 2nd amendment suggestion is pretty damn airtight. And don’t think for a second that a Democrat wouldn’t try to make that work, kill the NRA with a stroke of a pen.

If they aren’t under the U.S’s jurisdiction then that means the U.S. cant do anything to them including deporting... again do you want to open up that can of worms?

Nobody seems to have given much thought to the repercussions of these actions and the precedents set...

[Bryce]

No need to. Look to original intent. Why was the 14th written and passed? The answer to that question really settled the matter.

It la further eexplained by the Senator from MI at the time:

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

And yes a sovereign nation has a right to deport and deny entry.

[Deleted User 8570]

No need to. Look to original intent. Why was the 14th written and passed? The answer to that question really settled the matter.

It la further eexplained by the Senator from MI at the time:

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

And yes a sovereign nation has a right to deport and deny entry.

And the Supreme Court said otherwise in 1898 and while it did not settle the illegal alien question it did settle the ambassador question... and the court said those children foreign born to citizens are citizens which directly contradicts the good senator quoted above...

Then the people being deported are under the jurisdiction of that nation at that point. Jurisdiction would be why we can’t deport a Mexican in Mexico to Canada let’s say just because we want to... it isn’t our jurisdiction to do so...

You are arguing something that almost no constitutional law professor is willing to argue with a 10 foot pole... the president cannot simply change this stuff by fiat or declare that his interpretation is the right one...

[Bryce]

Again, the SCOTUS ruling you cite pertained to foreign citizen's that are here legally. Like the former slaves were.

Of course, if he does sign a Executive Order, It will be put on hold while there is a ruling made. But, then, this challenge may make it all the way up the ladder for the nine people currently in Black robes to weigh in on.

It will be fun to watch nonetheless. You can bet your ass that the Landmark Legal Foundation will file briefs if it does.

Let me ask you, do you personally think if a woman sneaks across the border with the sole intent to have a baby born here, that baby should be a U.S. citizen?

[Deleted User 8570]

Again, the SCOTUS ruling you cite pertained to foreign citizen's that are here legally. Like the former slaves were.

Of course, if he does sign a Executive Order, It will be put on hold while there is a ruling made. But, then, this challenge may make it all the way up the ladder for the nine people currently in Black robes to weigh in on.

It will be fun to watch nonetheless. You can bet your ass that the Landmark Legal Foundation will file briefs if it does.

Let me ask you, do you personally think if a woman sneaks across the border with the sole intent to have a baby born here, that baby should be a U.S. citizen?

Personally I do not... however I don’t believe it’s as common as it’s made out to be but also I do not like executive orders that circumvent courts and congress especially when a constitutional amendment or any other part is in question... there is a procedure for this sort of thing and we are not a dictatorship and do not have a monarch so I find the whole concept of unilaterally doing such a thing to be rather odious...

As for entertainment value... like him or not Trump has provided no shortage of that...

[Deleted User 12047]

Just because I'm in the mood to be a troll today...

Again, the SCOTUS ruling you cite pertained to foreign citizen's that are here legally. Like the former slaves were.

True - the ruling and the amendment were to solve problems with freed slaves. However, the 14th Amendment also states, and I quote - "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Executive orders be damned!

This will be fun to watch.

[screen glare]

Go ahead and sign another one of your dime-a-dozen executive orders, Mad King Trump. This one - on a whim - to willy-nilly re-write the US Constitution! And make sure you don’t walk out of the room - again FORGETTING to sign - as you’ve done before - in front of the entire white house press corps! In which instances your non-angelic evangelic lap-dog Pence dutifully retrieves your papers and follows behind - without a reminder to shut up, sit your gas ass down, and write your name. W-I-N-D B-A-G. Then hold it up - like first grade show and tell.

When are all Americans going to stop falling for this oaf’s manipulative antics? The fake size of his inagural crowd; fake fear about rampant voter fraud; a fake dangerous “invasion” at US boarder requiring 15,000 soldiers. And these are only three of a humongous number of fake-outs from his court in the swamp kingdom since he captured the throne.

[Bryce]

Just because I'm in the mood to be a troll today...

Again, the SCOTUS ruling you cite pertained to foreign citizen's that are here legally. Like the former slaves were.

True - the ruling and the amendment were to solve problems with freed slaves. However, the 14th Amendment also states, and I quote - "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Executive orders be damned!

This will be fun to watch.

At first I said, "There is no SCOTUS ruling that grants birthright citizenship upon children of illegal aliens." I stand by that.

As far as enforcement, I point you to the ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores.

Congress may not enact legislation under Section 5 that substantively defines or interprets Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Does it not make sense that one look to the original intent of the author of the Citizenship Clause when examining the 14th Amendment and citizenship? U.S. Senator from Michigan Jacob M. Howard (The Author), wrote:

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

I further contend that being as enforcement of immigration law falls squarely on the Executive Branch and as such has plenary power, an Executive Order on this matter is certainly justifiable.

[bmw]

CNN is at it again today with more fake news:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/31/politics ... index.html

Headline: Trump shocks with racist new ad days before midterms

Ok, first of all, nothing, and I mean NOTHING Trump does "shocks" anybody. So there's fake news #1.

#2, I watched the ad. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 5386539008

Absolutely nothing racist about it. The fact that it features somebody who isn't white doesn't make it racist.

Per CNN -

In the most racially charged national political ad in 30 years, President Donald Trump and the Republican Party accuse Democrats of plotting to help people they depict as Central American invaders overrun the nation with cop killers.

The new web video, tweeted by the President five days before the midterm elections, is the most extreme step yet in the most inflammatory closing argument of any campaign in recent memory.

Give me a break. The people over at CNN are deranged.

[Bryce]

The people over at CNN are deranged.

Don Lemon seems to think that white men are the biggest terrorist threat to American today.

[Deleted User 8570]

Just because I'm in the mood to be a troll today...

Again, the SCOTUS ruling you cite pertained to foreign citizen's that are here legally. Like the former slaves were.

True - the ruling and the amendment were to solve problems with freed slaves. However, the 14th Amendment also states, and I quote - "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Executive orders be damned!

This will be fun to watch.

At first I said, "There is no SCOTUS ruling that grants birthright citizenship upon children of illegal aliens." I stand by that.

As far as enforcement, I point you to the ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores.

Congress may not enact legislation under Section 5 that substantively defines or interprets Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Does it not make sense that one look to the original intent of the author of the Citizenship Clause when examining the 14th Amendment and citizenship? U.S. Senator from Michigan Jacob M. Howard (The Author), wrote:

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

I further contend that being as enforcement of immigration law falls squarely on the Executive Branch and as such has plenary power, an Executive Order on this matter is certainly justifiable.

The part about ambassadors and such was tossed out in 1898... nobody cares what the guy meant and that was 30 years after he meant it... if you want to go to original intent then you must use a gun made in 1790 in order to qualify for the second amendment protections you hold dear. No weapon made after that was intended for protection as it didn’t exist yet... do you really want to travel down this road and be obliterated with logic?

These things change and evolve... that’s why the constitution is amendable at all... the founders knew that but apparently originalists called in sick or something... so in short no it does not make a lick of sense to go by something written 150 years ago by the mans intent... he isn’t here and we have to decide in the context of 2018 what’s going to happen not in the context of somebody who couldn’t comprehend the automobile or computers or planes or tanks or any of a million other things that are commonplace now... he’s outdated, outmoded and unfortunately pretty irrelevant now...

[Bryce]

Just because I'm in the mood to be a troll today...

Again, the SCOTUS ruling you cite pertained to foreign citizen's that are here legally. Like the former slaves were.

True - the ruling and the amendment were to solve problems with freed slaves. However, the 14th Amendment also states, and I quote - "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Executive orders be damned!

This will be fun to watch.

At first I said, "There is no SCOTUS ruling that grants birthright citizenship upon children of illegal aliens." I stand by that.

As far as enforcement, I point you to the ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores.

Congress may not enact legislation under Section 5 that substantively defines or interprets Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Does it not make sense that one look to the original intent of the author of the Citizenship Clause when examining the 14th Amendment and citizenship? U.S. Senator from Michigan Jacob M. Howard (The Author), wrote:

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

I further contend that being as enforcement of immigration law falls squarely on the Executive Branch and as such has plenary power, an Executive Order on this matter is certainly justifiable.

The part about ambassadors and such was tossed out in 1898... nobody cares what the guy meant and that was 30 years after he meant it... if you want to go to original intent then you must use a gun made in 1790 in order to qualify for the second amendment protections you hold dear. No weapon made after that was intended for protection as it didn’t exist yet... do you really want to travel down this road and be obliterated with logic?

These things change and evolve... that’s why the constitution is amendable at all... the founders knew that but apparently originalists called in sick or something... so in short no it does not make a lick of sense to go by something written 150 years ago by the mans intent... he isn’t here and we have to decide in the context of 2018 what’s going to happen not in the context of somebody who couldn’t comprehend the automobile or computers or planes or tanks or any of a million other things that are commonplace now... he’s outdated, outmoded and unfortunately pretty irrelevant now...

Your ramblings are constitutionally illiterate.