Today in Trump's 1st term as President

[dale blanker]

Since you asked nicely, you can pick two.

Ok, how about...
Pick one:

A Not designed to detonate
B Designed to not detonate
C None of the above

Pick one:

A Perp is an insane leftist
B Perp is a deranged leftist
C None of the above

C? C? See???

[bbhack]

Since you asked nicely, you can pick two.

...
C? C? See???

We don't know much at this point, so I'm waiting to hear the story. Probably take at least 24-48 hours.

Edit: Excellent analysis from him as usual.

https://gab.com/Thomas_Wictor/posts/39952464

After reading how the press and leftists are responding to the stripper-bomber, here's what I predict:

More people will vote for Republicans.

This is another huge backfire. There are two factors:

The deranged piling on and the bad-faith claims that this guy represents all Trump supporters.

You can see that the man is insane, and he has a VERY long criminal history. There was a brief moment in which the Democrats could have benefited, but as usual, they overreached and blew it.
...

[dale blanker]

We don't know much at this point, so I'm waiting to hear the story. Probably take at least 24-48 hours.

Edit: Excellent analysis from him as usual.

https://gab.com/Thomas_Wictor/posts/39952464

bbhack, do you really believe this guy, Thomas Wictor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5FD5cr ... Chris Wary

instead of FBI Director Chris Wray?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/explos ... -continues

Good luck.

[bbhack]

bbhack, do you really believe this guy, Thomas Wictor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5FD5cr ... Chris Wary

instead of FBI Director Chris Wray?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/explos ... -continues

Good luck.

Why? Nothing Wictor said contradicts what the director said. Do you need help with reading or comprehension? Or was it the part where Wictor said they had no chance of detonating? They had a very low chance based on empirical evidence, because zero did. Your turn.

[philip964]

https://mashable.com/article/donald-tru ... force-one/

Trump failing to figure out how to close an umbrella and then just dropping it, called a metopher for his presidency.

Critized for having a political rally on same day as Synogue massacre.

Critized for suggesting congregations provide some sort of security for these nut cases. Blaming the victim.

Critized for second guessing pitching change in World Series on a day that 11 died in a mass shooting by an anti Trump Nazi.

Normal slow news day for Trump.

If he wins the midterms, it was because he was fear mongering the Dems.

If he loses, it’s is an indictment of his failed presidency.

Please vote.

[philbo]

Dow Jones Reverses Lower As Trump Tariffs Threatened On All Chinese Imports
Could this just be a winning strategy by Trump to finally force Beijing to make big concessions at the November meeting? That seems unlikely given that Beijing has said the trade conflict is a matter of national honor. China has refused to negotiate under threat and has demanded to be treated as an equal.
https://www.investors.com/news/economy/ ... tockfalls/

Hang on to your 401k's, could get more bumpy than expected.

[philbo]

In either the most arrogant display of ignorance concerning the US Constitution, or the newest in a long line of absurd pronouncements to distract the populace just days before the mid-term elections, tRump proposes to end birthright citizenship protected in the 14th Amendment with an executive order... Yep, winning as only tRump knows how.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1N41MD

[rotor]

In either the most arrogant display of ignorance concerning the US Constitution, or the newest in a long line of absurd pronouncements to distract the populace just days before the mid-term elections, tRump proposes to end birthright citizenship protected in the 14th Amendment with an executive order... Yep, winning as only tRump knows how.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1N41MD

He has a pen and a phone. Wasn't that what Obama said when he authorized some unconstitutional dreamer stuff?

[srothstein]

In either the most arrogant display of ignorance concerning the US Constitution, or the newest in a long line of absurd pronouncements to distract the populace just days before the mid-term elections, tRump proposes to end birthright citizenship protected in the 14th Amendment with an executive order... Yep, winning as only tRump knows how.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1N41MD

I just wanted to point out that any president can issue any executive order he wants. It has no bearing on law, just as directives to how the agencies he is responsible for will act. What this president might due is issue an executive order telling the immigration services how to interpret the clause in the 14th Amendment that says that birthright citizenship applies to people who are under the jurisdiction of the US. For example, he can point out that a person who entered the country illegally is not under our jurisdiction and therefore their children are not citizens.

Obviously, as with many other executive orders in recent years, people with opposing political issues will file a lawsuit to hold up the implementation of the order. While I do not necessarily agree with the president on this issue, I have to admit that I like the strategy of forcing the courts to decide exactly what that phrase does mean. My question is if the Democrats will be willing to take this chance with the SCOTUS or if they will compromise with the president on some other issue. I don't know what other issues he may want to deal on, but given his faith in his negotiating skills this seems like his type of an opening gambit. Always negotiate from a position of strength.

[TXHawk]

In either the most arrogant display of ignorance concerning the US Constitution, or the newest in a long line of absurd pronouncements to distract the populace just days before the mid-term elections, tRump proposes to end birthright citizenship protected in the 14th Amendment with an executive order... Yep, winning as only tRump knows how.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1N41MD

I am not sure how name calling of The President bolsters your case but civil discourse is an altogether different topic. So to the topic at hand. The 14th Amendment does not establish in Constitutional verbiage birthright citizenship nor was it intended to. The only Supreme Court Ruling on the matter I am aware of is Elk vs Wilkins circa 1884 which clearly affirmed the status of the parents did in fact determine the citizenship or eligibility of the child. Keeping in mind when the 14th amendment was passed there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant established by legal language in the Federal Statutes. The citation if the 14th has been a fairly recent construct and frankly a misuse of the amendment. Much like the 2nd Amendment a quick reading of the historical background and writings of the authors can clearly establish intent and meaning. The 14th is no different and I offer you below the words of its' author. I hope that you will agree by both authors intent and SCOTUS ruling birthright citizenship has been a graceful concession but not Constitutionally protected. If you want to argue it should be that is an entirely different topic and would require an additional amendment or a revision of the 14th.

Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated:

"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."

[Redneck_Buddha]

In either the most arrogant display of ignorance concerning the US Constitution, or the newest in a long line of absurd pronouncements to distract the populace just days before the mid-term elections, tRump proposes to end birthright citizenship protected in the 14th Amendment with an executive order... Yep, winning as only tRump knows how.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1N41MD

LOL! Obama said in a speech "I changed the law" when he tried to give amnesty to the parents of the Dreamers. The courts held it against him and said he had no power to change the law and magically legalize parents of Dreamers. The left has just incredibly selective memory and are the worst of the worst hypocrites.

[Jusme]

In either the most arrogant display of ignorance concerning the US Constitution, or the newest in a long line of absurd pronouncements to distract the populace just days before the mid-term elections, tRump proposes to end birthright citizenship protected in the 14th Amendment with an executive order... Yep, winning as only tRump knows how.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1N41MD

I am not sure how name calling of The President bolsters your case but civil discourse is an altogether different topic. So to the topic at hand. The 14th Amendment does not establish in Constitutional verbiage birthright citizenship nor was it intended to. The only Supreme Court Ruling on the matter I am aware of is Elk vs Wilkins circa 1884 which clearly affirmed the status of the parents did in fact determine the citizenship or eligibility of the child. Keeping in mind when the 14th amendment was passed there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant established by legal language in the Federal Statutes. The citation if the 14th has been a fairly recent construct and frankly a misuse of the amendment. Much like the 2nd Amendment a quick reading of the historical background and writings of the authors can clearly establish intent and meaning. The 14th is no different and I offer you below the words of its' author. I hope that you will agree by both authors intent and SCOTUS ruling birthright citizenship has been a graceful concession but not Constitutionally protected. If you want to argue it should be that is an entirely different topic and would require an additional amendment or a revision of the 14th.

Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated:

"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."

I can already tell I'm going to like you. Unfortunately, we have a very small minority, of members, who will from time to time, show up, only to throw dispersions, upon our current POTUS. You will also find, that they then disappear, and very rarely, provide, reasoned, arguments for their postings.
Welcome to the forum,

With you're well informed argument, I doubt we will hear anything from our left wing poster for a while.
I don't know if you have been informed, but we have a few meetups across the State, with our members. There are two in the Houston area, and two in the DFW area. Check under the off topic board, to confirm their Meetup days, the one I try to attend is the DFW Southwest on the third Saturday of each month and, for breakfast. We would really enjoy meeting you, there are several other "transplants" among our members.

[TXHawk]

Thank you for the kind welcome and invite! I look forward to being a part of the community.

[jason812]

I am not sure how name calling of The President bolsters your case but civil discourse is an altogether different topic. So to the topic at hand. The 14th Amendment does not establish in Constitutional verbiage birthright citizenship nor was it intended to. The only Supreme Court Ruling on the matter I am aware of is Elk vs Wilkins circa 1884 which clearly affirmed the status of the parents did in fact determine the citizenship or eligibility of the child. Keeping in mind when the 14th amendment was passed there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant established by legal language in the Federal Statutes. The citation if the 14th has been a fairly recent construct and frankly a misuse of the amendment. Much like the 2nd Amendment a quick reading of the historical background and writings of the authors can clearly establish intent and meaning. The 14th is no different and I offer you below the words of its' author. I hope that you will agree by both authors intent and SCOTUS ruling birthright citizenship has been a graceful concession but not Constitutionally protected. If you want to argue it should be that is an entirely different topic and would require an additional amendment or a revision of the 14th.

Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated:

"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."

I can already tell I'm going to like you. Unfortunately, we have a very small minority, of members, who will from time to time, show up, only to throw dispersions, upon our current POTUS. You will also find, that they then disappear, and very rarely, provide, reasoned, arguments for their postings.
Welcome to the forum,

With you're well informed argument, I doubt we will hear anything from our left wing poster for a while.
I don't know if you have been informed, but we have a few meetups across the State, with our members. There are two in the Houston area, and two in the DFW area. Check under the off topic board, to confirm their Meetup days, the one I try to attend is the DFW Southwest on the third Saturday of each month and, for breakfast. We would really enjoy meeting you, there are several other "transplants" among our members.

TXHawk, you are the type of foreigner we need immigrating to Texas.

[Jusme]

What I find funny, is that Trump announced his Executive Order plans, and it barely got a ripple in the MSM. They are still working on blaming him for the Pittsburgh shooting, and the mail bomber. He really makes them work for their outrage. By the time they get heated up about the EO, he will be on to something else.