At 6/28/18 08:16 AM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 6/27/18 10:40 PM, EdyKel wrote:

Why don't you tell me how dishonest Trump is first, then I will tell you why I think she is dishonest. I even per-wrote my response for it.

you don't have to answer if you don't want, it's your choice. i asked a simple question, which generally would return a simple answer. responding with tangentially related questions is not how to answer a question.

I don't mind answering it, but I'm not going to give you ammunition to keep your one sided view in play. The fact that I don't like Clinton should be more than enough of an answer to your original question. If you want more details, you have to give up something of equal value.

Congressional Republicans are demanding the DOJ end the Russian investigation. This is kinda rich, considering that the Congressional Republicans held hearing over Benghazi for almost 4 years, and found nothing. It was less than the 9-11 investigation, which faulted no one, and less than the Iraq war investigation, which they faulted no one for. Hmm.. I guess they can't take take the same shit they did against their political opponents, even if it being led by one of there own - Yes, Mueller is a conservative Republican.

At 6/28/18 04:44 AM, DamnedByFate wrote:

At 6/27/18 05:31 PM, Zophar wrote: Trump needs to find a way to take down Hillary... for good.

He really doesn't. Hillary's career is as dead as it gets. Move on, mate.

Well buddy, slow down. Hillary ruined the country by sending emails to the Russians illegally. She's sending them classified information. James Comey should have tried her. It's a good thing Trump fired him after he didn't. But now the Russians know some of our secrets all because of her!

At 6/29/18 06:33 AM, Zophar wrote: Hillary ruined the country by sending emails to the Russians illegally. She's sending them classified information.

I've heard a lot of claims, but this one is new to me. Source or I'll say you pulled it out of your arse.

At 6/29/18 08:31 AM, DamnedByFate wrote:

I've heard a lot of claims, but this one is new to me. Source or I'll say you pulled it out of your arse.

only thing i've heard is that her server, which contained classified documents, was indeed hacked.

her security measures may as well just been her emailing out classified documents, but i do not think she cc'd putin...

not trump related...

putin looks like a meerkat, to me.

At 6/28/18 04:06 PM, EdyKel wrote: Congressional Republicans are demanding the DOJ end the Russian investigation. This is kinda rich, considering that the Congressional Republicans held hearing over Benghazi for almost 4 years, and found nothing. It was less than the 9-11 investigation, which faulted no one, and less than the Iraq war investigation, which they faulted no one for.

Please don't leave out the fact that unlike those investigations, criminal convictions have arisen from this investigation. It has substance, even if Trump isn't the one being convicted (it was, and always had been, about his campaign, not Trump himself, unless evidence arose against him).

There's no grounds to cut the investigation short, and they should know it.

At 6/29/18 09:03 AM, billybobthwarten wrote: not trump related...

putin looks like a meerkat, to me.

It COULD be related, hurr hurr

At 6/29/18 09:00 AM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 6/29/18 08:31 AM, DamnedByFate wrote:

I've heard a lot of claims, but this one is new to me. Source or I'll say you pulled it out of your arse.

only thing i've heard is that her server, which contained classified documents, was indeed hacked.

her security measures may as well just been her emailing out classified documents, but i do not think she cc'd putin...

No. If you read the actual e-mail, they said "we don't have any direct evidence they did". They suggest that some of the e-mails were intercepted by indirect means. The IG report goes further into detail: “Documents provided to the Committees show foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails — including at least one email classified ‘Secret.'”. That could mean that most of them were private, not government related, which meant that they were hacked, or taken, from other non- government severs e-mail accounts.

So many liberals live where I live, that if you talked about Trump in a good way, you would be the most frowned upon person.

At 6/29/18 06:52 PM, FireFoxxy wrote:

At 6/29/18 06:35 PM, Zophar wrote: So many liberals live where I live, that if you talked about Trump in a good way, you would be the most frowned upon person.

Try living in a city crawling with them. The only way I got away talking about Trump was in a remote basement late at night.

I'll try to do that. I'll move to a state like Tennessee if there is a job there. But New York is a beautiful place.

Does anyone in the Trump admin not go out of their way to outright lie: Larry Kudlow, Trump’s economic adviser, claims that the deficit spending is going down, after Trump signed one of the largest spending bills since the financial crisis years.

At 6/29/18 09:41 PM, EdyKel wrote: Does anyone in the Trump admin not go out of their way to outright lie: Larry Kudlow, Trump’s economic adviser, claims that the deficit spending is going down, after Trump signed one of the largest spending bills since the financial crisis years.

Are you a conservative?

At 6/30/18 06:17 AM, Zophar wrote:
Are you a conservative?

What does that have to do with someone in this administration baldface lying about the deficit dropping? That's a textbook ad hominem argument, which is nothing more than distracting. I'm suspecting you get treated like shit in political discussions irl less because of your political affiliations and more because you act like a baffoon when talking politics.

Stop attacking the character of the people talking and start talking about the topics, please.

...

On topic, I found one more thing that I overall agree with Trump on. He's become among those that has deeply praised Ocasio-Cortez and her win, when she won in her district. Can't say Nancy Pelosi is good for the country (he says later in the clip he wants her to stay in Democratic leadership, for purely political reasons), but I'm happy he gave one of my favorite candidates the praise she deserved, and got a crowd of his supporters to cheer for her.

I'm sure he'll dish out those mean tweets toward her later when he realizes she's probably not going to play nice with him (if he hasn't already), but for now I say thanks, Trump! :)

What do you know. I'm not talking about administration baldface lying. If you've read our chats, then you know we talk about Donald Trump and NK.

At 6/30/18 06:17 AM, Zophar wrote:

At 6/29/18 09:41 PM, EdyKel wrote: Does anyone in the Trump admin not go out of their way to outright lie: Larry Kudlow, Trump’s economic adviser, claims that the deficit spending is going down, after Trump signed one of the largest spending bills since the financial crisis years.

Are you a conservative?

Worse, a moderate.

At 6/30/18 06:17 AM, Zophar wrote:

At 6/29/18 09:41 PM, EdyKel wrote:

Are you a conservative?

Worse, a moderate.

I'm just a plain conservative.

At 6/30/18 12:30 PM, Zophar wrote:

At 6/30/18 06:17 AM, Zophar wrote:

At 6/29/18 09:41 PM, EdyKel wrote:

Are you a conservative?

Worse, a moderate.

I'm just a plain conservative.

So was I once. Do You do know what it means?

At 7/2/18 02:37 PM, Sause wrote: OH LOOK A PEOPLE PROTESTING AN ACTUAL REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT FEELING THE NEED TO BURN DOWN ALL OF THE CITY

And this has what to do with the Trump thread? Oh, wait, never mind, this is just part of your SWJ rant where you exaggerate shit over exaggerated shit.

At 7/2/18 02:37 PM, Sause wrote: OH LOOK A PEOPLE PROTESTING AN ACTUAL REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT FEELING THE NEED TO BURN DOWN ALL OF THE CITY

Neat, this is not about Trump though, so it really should be in a more appropriate thread.

Looks like the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee has confirmed what we already knew: Russia meddled in our election to aid Trump.

At 7/3/18 10:16 PM, Sause wrote: The people who constantly tell us that race doesn't matter need to actually act like race doesn't matter, not use academic admission as yet one more platform to demonstrate that it is the only thing about a person that does.

How about, instead of trying to shove people who aren't fit for higher scholastic achievements through a system they're not really cut out for, we start some kind of highschool program to teach the kids who aren't meant for college about different trades and trade schools in their area?

Also I can't believe trump is against pushing minorities to drown in student debt and get college degrees that they didn't even want in the first place

what a bigot

Race doesn't matter, but people make it matter. And it would be kinda stupid to ignore that. It's why racism exists, even now - hell, the openness of White Nationalism, and Neo Nazism, proves it, under Trump. And our dominate race in this country, whether people want to admit it or not, still determines how well other races do.

The problem with racial discrimination, racial stereotypes, is that it's all unproductive to our society and rather expensive to deal with the problems it all creates. If none of this happened anywhere in this country's history then a certain race wouldn't have been slaves, then segregated, then having a quarter of it's population incarcerated at some point due to persistent racial stereotypes, and continued poverty, and lack of trust, then we wouldn't be having this constant cycle of stereotypes, criminal history, poverty, and everything else that have made it more of a struggle for a certain race to overcome than any other.

It's because of all this that government had to intervene to force change on this perpetual cycle through affirmative action, or similar programs for college, otherwise things would stay the same because of the natural nature of people who value race over performance, and qualifications. Trump's actions are nothing more than getting rid of another Obama era rule, and appeasing a base that is comprised of people who are either outright racist, or those who are insecure about their own race that they see any regulation that benefits another race as an unfair advantage against them, even though they will always have better advantages over that other race.

Also, if people didn't want to apply for college then they wouldn't have filed an implication to enter one in the first place. But everyone is told that getting a college degree will lead to a better life, with better paying jobs. The statistics seem to back that up, even though a lifetime of student debt seems to offset those benefits.

EdyKel,

Then why is race important for medical information? Racism probably did grow under Trump, but not because Trump is a racist, he's a nationalist, but not a white nationalist.

The slaves that were brought over, were also brought by some foreign influence. Affirmative action is not changing people's nature, it ultimately just promotes discrimination against the "majority" or the assumed "well-off."

It is an unfair advantage, that is undeniable. So because the majority race has unfair advantages, that means that they should be promoted against so another race can dominate? They are not insecure about their race, they are insecure about the attack on their race.

At 7/4/18 06:42 AM, DragonLimbo wrote: EdyKel,

Then why is race important for medical information? Racism probably did grow under Trump, but not because Trump is a racist, he's a nationalist, but not a white nationalist.

Why indeed. Outside of description, and certain genetic disorders, that's about it when it comes to race.

I never called Trump racist - though Jeff Secession, and Stephen Miller, do come close. No, this goes back to Trump's former advisor, Steven Bannon, who stoked racial tension to get the left to react, with policies aimed at certain groups, and countries, so he could use the left to create racial insecurity among whites, making them feel that they were being attacked, making them withdraw among their own for safety while hating the left. It was a dangerous and destructive, tactic he was using to put Trump in power, and cement his political ideology, but has only divided the country more.

The slaves that were brought over, were also brought by some foreign influence. Affirmative action is not changing people's nature, it ultimately just promotes discrimination against the "majority" or the assumed "well-off."

Don't make excuses. Slavery was very much a part of this country's sorry history over race relationship. It don't matter if other countries did it to, as if that somehow made a difference. It was a terrible institution, no matter how you try to spin it. Since those days, race relationship in this country has been a continuous struggle, from equality to acceptance. Racism is still thriving, and probably has gotten worse with conservative stoking white insecurity during the last 10 years, as it continues to affect one racial group more than the other.

The whole thing with Affirmative Action being seen as reverse discrimination against whites is stupid, and nothing more than an excuse to cover up racial insecurity and outright hatred at the race it was it was intended to help. First of all, AA is very, very limited to certain employment. Secondly, the statistics don't back it up. White job applicants are twice as likely to get a job over black job applicants. Whites have a much higher chance to be promoted and hold executive positions. These basic facts haven't changed much over the last 40 years.

It is an unfair advantage, that is undeniable. So because the majority race has unfair advantages, that means that they should be promoted against so another race can dominate? They are not insecure about their race, they are insecure about the attack on their race.

You don't have anything to back your argument with, statistic wise, to show that it unfair to whites, or gives a huge advantage to minorities. The statistics show it does none of what you say.

At 7/4/18 02:04 PM, Sause wrote: Probably a bad day to issue a declaration of civil war, just saying.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/07/04/democratic-national-committee-july-4th-statement/757585002/

Isn't that how Trump got into office... From the establishment swamp in Washington, to foreign countries taking advantage of us, and on an immigrant invasion.... Only for Trump to create a bigger, and more obvious, swamp surrounding him, to defending Russia involvement in our elections, while still hiring immigrants to work at his resorts and having foreign countries manufacture his products... For a draft dodger, who often put his ego first, above country, and who talks about getting rid of certain constitutional laws, while attacking free speech and the press who doesn't tow his line, it just shows how gullible people are for buying his nationalistic rhetoric.

At 7/4/18 06:48 PM, Sause wrote: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-statue-liberty-climber-20180704-story.html

Good for her; that's what classic civil disobedience looks like, and I can hardly think of a better reason for it.

At 7/4/18 07:58 PM, FireFoxxy wrote:

At 7/4/18 02:16 PM, EdyKel wrote: For a draft dodger, who often put his ego first, above country, and who talks about getting rid of certain constitutional laws, while attacking free speech and the press who doesn't tow his line, it just shows how gullible people are for buying his nationalistic rhetoric.

Which constitutional laws is he trying to get rid of? I hardly recall him attacking free speech as well, if anything its the left that's attacking and exploiting free speech. Isn't it his right also to admonish the press as well? Just my opinion.

That would be due process for immigrants, and gun owners.

And yes, Trump is attacking free speech, no matter how you look at it, by attacking the press, protestors, or his opponents on the left. No other recent president has done that type of unthinkable behavior. You don't call them the enemy of the people, especially for a democratically elected president. Our founder had a love/hate relationship with the press, especially George Washington, but they included the freedom of the press in the 1st amendment, because they feared any one power in control of government, which stemmed from their experience under the British government who often cracked down on views of dissent against them.

Trump has made no law against their freedom of speech, but I actually do agree with you on Trump being anti-second, even if he does not recognize it or admit it.

At 7/4/18 11:51 PM, FireFoxxy wrote:

At 7/4/18 08:14 PM, EdyKel wrote: That would be due process for immigrants, and gun owners.

(I'm going to go out on a limb and avoid using bias news articles and use the constitution to serve as my proof.)

Regardless of due process, illegal crossing is considered a criminal act so they would/should end up getting deported or jailed. Otherwise they, the judges or whoever, wouldn't be upholding the law and should be removed.

Actually, the first incident is considered a misdemeanor, the second time is criminal. And there are exceptions when it comes to asylum seekers or refugees, because there are laws that allow them to apply for citizenship. The ongoing humanitarian crisis deals with the latter, who were stopped at the border, but were allowed to cross a few feet into the country, then rounded up, put in detention centers, separated from their kids, and are now in limbo, because of Trump's zero tolerance policy. You can thank congress for all this, since the Constitution defers to them when it comes to creating laws over immigration, and defining who, and at what point, a person is considered a naturalized citizen, in the process of becoming one - though, it doesn't change the fact that Trump is being a douche when overseeing the enforcement of those confusing, and bureaucratic, laws.

Aside from that, it is highly controversial to claim the illegals are entitled to due process. The constitution while somewhat vague in some parts declares persons as being US citizens, not illegal Invaders.

The courts have always extended due process to non-US citizens, because the Constitution didn't deal with it, since there were no immigration laws at the time of it's written, and most of the people of the time were either immigrants or children of immigrants. It was a very tricky subject, even for our founders, given that there was no real, or standardized, process to becoming a naturalized citizen until decades later. It was up to congress to deal with the laws governing immigration. And this is what today's courts have to go by, which is that non-US citizens, in most cases, have the right to due process because they are in the process of becoming naturalized citizens, even those who have come here illegally.

Can't help but giggle at the articles posted, obvious left wing media willing to cherry pick the constitution to fit their agenda. Probably should have done a little more research when they wrote that article. I'm not even a remote master of the constitution, but it was quite easy to find my proof.

You can giggle away, son, but it doesn't change the fact that you are just throwing out sections of laws without actually understanding any of it, while claiming you found something obvious that the left overlooked. I find that pretty funny.

Second of all, "the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that non-citizens can be stopped, detained, and denied past immigration officials at points of entry (e.g. at a port or airport) without the protection of the Due Process".https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

in a few cases, yes, but not for every case.

As for the guns, really? I thought Democrats where actively against second amendment so it's rich that you bring up guns.

Oh, they are against the 2nd amendment? Or just against your silly interpretation of it? I think the latter. Nice deflection, by the way.

And yes, Trump is attacking free speech, no matter how you look at it, by attacking the press, protestors, or his opponents on the left. No other recent president has done that type of unthinkable behavior. You don't call them the enemy of the people, especially for a democratically elected president. Our founder had a love/hate relationship with the press, especially George Washington, but they included the freedom of the press in the 1st amendment, because they feared any one power in control of government, which stemmed from their experience under the British government who often cracked down on views of dissent against them.

When the press is weaponized like it is today? Heavy liberal bias spreading lies and narritive that's been proven false on multiple accounts? I think he's entitled to defend himself, after all he's protected by the first amendment as well. So using the defense "it's trump he's president" doesn't hold much water.

Son, cut it out. You are weaponized against it because they don't tow yours, or his, biased views. People who think the way you do are nowhere near the center, because the center is always left of you. And that is what it comes down to, excuses that everyone is against you and him, rather than admit you are biased, or don't have any actual shit to backup your argument with.

I actually find it quite amusing watching people try and defend Trump, when he changes his story from one week to another, or outright lies about things that no one can actual back up with facts, while blaming the media who points this shit out as being against him and biased. How silly. It's like watching people who are first in line to support a dictatorship because they want a strong leader, and don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

At 7/4/18 02:04 PM, Sause wrote: Probably a bad day to issue a declaration of civil war, just saying.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/07/04/democratic-national-committee-july-4th-statement/757585002/

Soundin' like Alex Jones with that "Second Civil War" nonsense; that speech sounds like a reiteration of grievances. If anything, it pussyfoots with weasle words way too much, especially since folks like you will cry that they're being too harsh anyway. Perhaps you'd be interested in these second civil war letters
that have been going around and talking about boots on the ground in this civil war.

At 7/4/18 11:51 PM, FireFoxxy wrote:
(I'm going to go out on a limb and avoid using bias news articles and use the constitution to serve as my proof.)

Hey, that's legit respectable. Looks like fun, so I'll butt in the convo for a bit.

Regardless of due process, illegal crossing is considered a criminal act so they would/should end up getting deported or jailed. Otherwise they, the judges or whoever, wouldn't be upholding the law and should be removed.

Illegal crossing is a criminal misdemeanor (felony if it's a repeat offense), so if someone is caught doing it that would be fair to give them a quick trial to evaluate the circumstances; if they're seeking asylum and they were prohibited from going through the normal entry point, for example, it could be seen as "extrenuous circumstance", which there is a legal exception for. After that, jail time or deportation is fair game if they're found guilty.

You literally can't know if what they did was criminal until they had a trial, though - that's the point of a trial.

Aside from that, it is highly controversial to claim the illegals are entitled to due process.

No it's not - it's been resolved in the supreme court many times, each time determining that, yes, non-residences have due process rights. Most often the justification is that the Constitution refers to persons when discussing due process, life, liberty, etc.

I'll italicize it in your quote ahead which applies to citizens and bold which apply to all people, according to precident.

"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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And the fifth amendment, too:

: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No mention of citizen, there; that applies to everyone.

I'm not even a remote master of the constitution, but it was quite easy to find my proof.

Neither am I. That's why we rely on SCOTUS precident so heavily, which has determined criminal immigrants have criminal rights.

Second of all, "the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that non-citizens can be stopped, detained, and denied past immigration officials at points of entry (e.g. at a port or airport) without the protection of the Due Process".

Yes, because technically they haven't entered the country yet. In the same Wiki link, it explains that due process applies to non-citizens literally everywhere else.

As for the guns, really? I thought Democrats where actively against second amendment so it's rich that you bring up guns.

You thought wrong; no Democrat is against the 2nd amendment. That's NRA propoganda, right there. Some do push for a pre-2007 interpretation of the 2nd amendment, though, before the SCOTUS decided to ignore the whole "regulated militia" thing (most prior rulings took that phrase into account), and many argue that "right to bear arms" doesn't at all mean "no regulation of firearms ever".

Discussing that gets us off topic, though. Got a thread for that anyway, if you want to talk guns and gun laws.

I think he's entitled to defend himself, after all he's protected by the first amendment as well. So using the defense "it's trump he's president" doesn't hold much water.

"He's the President so he shouldn't use his platform to suppress and deligitimize journalism" is a very solid argument. The fact that you seem to think every outlet that says bad things about the President is "attacking him relentlessly" rather than "reporting the things Mr. 45 is doing, which happen to be terrible" is evidence on why what he's doing to journalism is terrible - if he's doing wrong and he gets his followers to believe all negative reports on him are lies, how the hell do you hold him accountable as the President?

Legit question, there; if you can think of a way to let Americans know when he is hurting them without journalists let me know.

One of the most corrupt Trump official has resigned from the EPA, Scott Pruite, - which he should have done a year ago. Actually, Trump should have fired him at that point when the charges of corruption, and tax payer waste, started to gush out, instead of allowing him to honorably resigned as if it was his choice.