Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The idea of not running an incumbent president because pknopp doesn't like him makes no sense at all. Evidence that it was a good idea? Oh yeah, the guy handily won re-election.
Indeed. What I don't understand is why those he lied to still liked him. Someone that does the opposite of what the left has stood for, for years winning is the example of a good idea?
The wars still rage and have expanded. Gitmo is still open. Not a single banker was prosecuted. The wealth gap is at record levels. Obamacare is a failure (A sell out to the insurance companies). The big banks are even bigger. The spying on citizens have increased. He's targeted citizens for assassination.
Obama has specific policy positions that were workable. Trump has vague platitudes (e.g. make America Great Again) and the only specifics are either unworkable, unrealistic or unconstitutional.
three examples:
Banning Muslims from entering the country is unconstitutional and morally wrong.
His tax-plan slashes taxes on people in his income bracket and adds a trillion a year to deficits.
his wall is not practical from an engineering standpoint.
Obama's policy positions before the election consisted of "hope and change". Not exactly a selling point...or any different than make America great again.
What is unconstitutional about vetting Islamists before they enter the country, as Trump proposed?
Exactly what is wrong with "trump's wall" from an engineering standpoint? Footing too small? Structurally unsound? Do tell.
As a matter of law, anyone who thinks that the Constitution applies ONLY to citizens is wrong. Example: Soviet spies have been arrested in the U.S. who were not citizens. They are afforded all of the rights of the 4th and 5th Amendments, as well as the 14th Amendment.
When the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law..." It isn't saying, "Congress shall make no law except for those who aren't citizens..." That claim is just an inane, false, discredited proposition that no responsible person would ever make.
Now, the highbrow stuff:
The 14th Amendment, declares “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.”
Moreover, under the Boumediene ruling (Boumediene v. Bushheld), the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008, issued a highly publicized ruling that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen (indeed, the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.). If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible. What’s more, although the decision was 5-4, none of the 9 Justices, and, indeed, not even the Bush administration, argued that the Constitution applies only to American citizens.
Like I said, at the least it applies to people who are in the country. The hypothetical immigrants Trump is talking about and thus we are talking about do not apply. The first amendment does not apply to would be immigrants who haven't even gotten on a plane or gotten their papers sorted out yet. That was my point. It applies to people who are at the least IN the United States.
Obama has specific policy positions that were workable.
no they werent, remember when ACA was going to create surpluses, insure everyone, he was going to cut the deficits cause debt is unpatriotic etc.. nothing he said made a dam bit of sense...
its as bad as Sanders promising to go after businesses who move employees overseas, as if the US Government has the jurisdiction to go after businesses, who are no longer within the US border...
Obama has specific policy positions that were workable. Trump has vague platitudes (e.g. make America Great Again) and the only specifics are either unworkable, unrealistic or unconstitutional.
three examples:
Banning Muslims from entering the country is unconstitutional and morally wrong.
His tax-plan slashes taxes on people in his income bracket and adds a trillion a year to deficits.
his wall is not practical from an engineering standpoint.
you cant add a dam trillion dollar a year to the deficits by cutting taxes because the income brackets dont even pay a trillion dollars a year in taxes..
Why dont you stop just babbling everything you read as if its the truth, because it embarrassing reading the same old crap over and over again from you.
no they werent, remember when ACA was going to create surpluses, insure everyone, he was going to cut the deficits cause debt is unpatriotic etc.. nothing he said made a dam bit of sense...
its as bad as Sanders promising to go after businesses who move employees overseas, as if the US Government has the jurisdiction to go after businesses, who are no longer within the US border...
idiots everywhere..
As far as taxes go the government does have jurisdiction.
Where? How about the First Amendment -- Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion.
Clearly someone doesnt understand the definition of the word "abridging"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
