Posts Made By: Gerald Miller

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I believe Trump is an unpredictable and uncontrollable actor who causes real harm with his incessant dishonesty. It's impossible to know if all of it is on purpose or not; I think it's just a core part of his personality and it's impossible for him to act any other way. We can't assume his intentions are honest or simply misunderstood though, given the sheer density and volume of his dishonesty. Just last night for example, at the Florida rally, Trump said, "illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." This comment should make any constitution loving conservative's skin crawl, but instead, the crowd cheered. Granted, it was a political rally, but imagine the howls of indignation from the right if Obama had ever said such a thing, much less spent most of his Presidency playing golf and using Air Force One to attend an endless litany of campaign rallies. 

Electing a President that doesn't go to church, been divorced numerous times, paid off porn stars or other women he's alleged to have affairs with, won't release his tax returns, makes divisive and at least what appears to some to be racist remarks and actions, is caught on tape encouraging the sexual assault of women, makes completely false statements almost in every breath he takes, alienates our allies, plays golf more than he works, watches FoxNews for his updates, hires cabinet members or campaign staffers that have plead guilty to federal crimes, created false conspiracy theories and spread them about the former President's origin of his birth, and never held an elected position before, is not good for the country in my opinion.

God help us. How did we get to the point of ignoring our core values? What happened to our decency and morality? How can anyone look up to such a person or excuse his conduct? It has me truly baffled.

I voted for Reagan. He must be turning over in his grave.

Originally Posted by James Brown

HI Gerald:

No, it is not.  But the election results does say a lot about the alternative choice.  Also, things are not so bad in the country right now.  A whole lot of noise from the partisans while the country chugs along pretty well.

Jim

Thank God for that.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Gerald:

Wow, you are really finessing this.  Sure  Julie Swetnick and her attorney presented a "first person account."  She had a signed affidavit and everything.  It was also an account quickly demonstrated to be a complete fabrication.   Wouldn't this lie qualify as a "false rumor" according to your first post?  I'm thinking that Julie Swetnick and Avenatti qualify for the full "People that spread false rumors and conspiracy theories are a despicable lot, as are the people who believe them"  treatment.   I guess I'm having a hard time grasping the distinction you are trying to make between the unsubstantiated Mueller smear and the unsubstantiated Swetnick smear.  

Jim

If she is a liar, and signed an affidavit that was false, she should be charged with perjury.

But the difference, to me, are theories that are completing unfounded by any person's sworn testimony, such as the one where the poor young man was murdered in DC, and one of the two guys mentioned in the story used that to push a theory, completely without any evidence or sworn testimony or first person account that he was murdered by a democratic operative to cover something up. No, he was murdered by a creep walking down through a not very safe part of town early in the morning. It's sad to me that such a tragedy is used for political purposes. He was someone's son, for God's sake.

The difference in the first is that the story carries a bit more weight because most people aren't willing to commit a felony to push a false narrative.  She was, apparently.

But the conspiracy theories I am talking about have no basis in fact and no one willing to do even that.

But with that being said, those that would peddle false facts by signing a false affidavit are a despicable lot, too. 

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

Yes Gerald, I kind of thought so. I was too.

Sometimes, I'm a bit dense. Sorry, I thought you actually were serious. LOL.

Originally Posted by James Brown

What a great speech.  I personally think Reagan's sentiments reflects the values of 80-90% or so of the R's and the D's.  But there are relatively small bigot populations on the left and on the right and those folks get the franchise too.  It is disgusting that Trump would pander to them.  But the BDS movement that is motivated by thinly veiled anti-semitism and loudly advocated by some political leaders on the left is comparably disgusting.

There was a recent study on political tribalism, did you see it?  I'll try to find a link.  One finding was that "rank and file" Rs are no more racist than rank and file D's.  You wouldn't know this from the NYT or course, or from the D political leadership. 

J

You are absolutely right on this point.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Since the most likely outcome on November 6th is a Democratic House and a Republican Senate, then I guess it makes sense for Ross to see it in a positive light. Will a Democratic House cause Trump to moderate and lurch back to the middle? Or will Trump instead go on a conspiratorial bender and insist everyone is out to get him? All I know is the next two years are not likely to be any less eventful than the previous two.

I would never try to predict that this guy will do. It's all about him.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Well Gerald you're making assumption that Paul Ryan knows what he is talking about.  Paul Ryan didn't have the vaguest idea what Trump was talking when he made his idiotic remarks the other day.  He stated Trump can't change an amendment by EO.  Trump never stated that.  If Trump makes an EO, it is to simply bring the 14th amendment back to its original intent, which is that Diplomats and Aliens were excluded which is what Jacob Howard, the author of the 14th stated categorically in front of Congress when he offered up the amendment.

As such Paul Ryan should probably keep his mouth shut as to what Trump was going to do.

Richard, it may not be quite that simple. Note I have no problem if the law required citizen's to born here to be the offspring of US Citizen's so I don't have an agenda about this issue. But overruling clear and unambiguous laws by Executive Order is beyond the scope of Presidential power. His options are quite limited. He cannot by order require the 14th Amendment to be interpreted in a certain way that would be in violation of a clear and unambiguous provision of the Constitution or any other law. He can only enter an order that is within the scope of his executive powers, and entering an order on immigration is simply beyond that scope. He can choose legally not to enforce a law, however, as Obama did with those who parents illegally entered this country when they were children. It's one thing to choose not enforce the law; it's altogether another to enter an order that violates the rights of those created by a clear and unambiguous existing law or that is beyond executive powers as set forth in the Constitution, as bizarre at that sounds. It's a slippery slope.

The Constitution expressly vests the naturalization power in Congress, not the President, which is limited by those powers set forth in Art. II.  Determining the meaning of the 14th Amendment and how it is applied is not one of them.  The Supreme Court stated: "[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete."

On the question of birthright citizenship, Congress has not delegated the question to the president, but rather set the rule itself by passing 8 U.S. Code § 1401 that states:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth;

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Trump, or any President, may not overrule a provision of the Constitution as clear as Sec. 1, of the 14th Amendment, or as clear by 8 U.S. Code § 1401(a) by Executive Order. To do so would be beyond the scope of his authority and would almost immediately be found as such.  His advisors, and I suspect, he himself, knows that as well.

Now I realize some conservatives have argued that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that both the founders of the Constitution and Congress hadn't meant to include children born of parents that were non-citizens. But that's a really long stretch to get there, legally, and requires overruling or at least re-interpreting what the clause meant in previous cases.

But in any event, it never will be, at least successfully, accomplished by an executive order.

And that why I think his pronouncement is nothing more than BS to stir up his base before the election. 

But it sure sounds good! 

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

A few years ago I was given pointers on the constitution when I said our elections would be much better if we eliminated political ads on tv. Most of the money goes to those ads. It would make a huge difference.

Or, if people would turn off the TV!

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

It's not a travesty, its called Freedom of Speech.  

And it isn't the Republicans solely who don't want campaign finance reform.

The left is full of it, because they want to have their cake and eat it too.

The left doesn't want to offer up right to work, where  shop workers don't have to pay into the Union coffers.

Reason is that they are perfectly happy forcing a worker to have no choice in whether or not they pay into unions, which just funnel the money into the Democrat Political Machine.  

No, they just have their little secret methods of getting financed.

Not to mention the GIANT one, Planned parenthood, that big CON that the left LOVES. 

The taxpayers get to pay 1/2 a BILLION Taxpayer dollars into PP, which then funnels that money back to the DNC.  98% of their political contribution goes to the Democrat party.  2% goes to Republicans.  

Neat little trick there.   

So it really ISN'T the way you characterize it now is it?  Its not just that the Repubs are against Campaign Finance Reform.

The Dems model would exempt unions and PP.  

Pretty slick.  Guess you didn't know that eh?  

Now then, since you are so concerned about Campaign Finance Reform, you are ready to eliminate the taxpayer funding of PP, Correct?  

After all, you are honest aren't you?  

Since the year 2000, PP has donated $25 Million to the Democrat party.

Glad to see they are NON-partisan as they claim..   

https://jtf.org/follow-the-money-planned-parenthood-donated-25m-to-democrats-since-2000/

P.S.  Let's not forget the Teacher's union which contributes mightily to the DNC and candidates.

https://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134203177/why-unions-matter-to-democrats-its-not-just-money

You're ready right, no more union money, no more PP money to the DNC.  

Well, maybe you are, but your party leadership sure isn't, 

So your statement singling out Repubs as being against campaign finance reform, is just slightly Disingenuous, don't you agree?  

100%. Well, let me say, not disingenuous, but probably flat out wrong. I'm not one to never admit when I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Well that statement above indicates both your ignorance and your inability to distinguish between heritage and citizenry. 

First of all, I didn't use the FACT that BETO O'Rourke has not an ounce of Latino heritage in himself as an invective, I provided it as a FACT. You can continue to show your ignorance but it doesn't surprise me that you are so confused.  

Ted Cruz's father is a direct descendant of Cuba, and he is fully of Cuban Descent, which makes Ted Cruz 1/2 Cuban and 1/2 White, the same exact amount that your hero Barack Hussein Obama is of white and black.  If I recall Barack Obama Always considered himself and put himself out there as the first Black President.  Hmm...  I guess you have a problem with Obama not considering himself white, correct?  

Ted Cruz is 1/2 Latino.  BETO O'Rourke is not.  

BTW, what the hell does Ted Cruz being 1/2 Latino have to do with the fact that Robert O'Rourke is using the name BETO to appeal to the Latino members of his voting constituency?  

Answer: Absolutely nothing.  

I guess I could say that BETO O'Rourke is guilty of Culturally Appropriating the Latino heritage that he doesn't possess, and isn't that one of the worst crimes these days in the world of the left??     

Just for the record as well, "Beto" O'Rourke claims that he took the nickname BETO when he was a little child because according to him, his parents called him, and he went by the name BETO since his childhood.

Really?  Then why did he sign his DUI arrest tag when he was 27 with the name Robert?

No, BETO O'Rourke most likely has chosen the name Beto recently to appeal to those of Spanish heritage down in Texas.

This indicates to me that he's really nothing more than a race hustling opportunist.

In all fairness, he's not the only one on both sides.