Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 31st Oct 2018, 15:46
  #16361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 604
It seems the Democrats are now suddenly in love with their version of Literal Constitutionality.

At least when it comes to Amendment 14, but not Amendment 2. (Or 1, for that matter.)
obgraham is online now  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 16:34
  #16362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
On birthright: If this will ever get through (highly unlikely) it will never be made retroactive. Otherwise his three eldest kids would have to be included.

Do the trumpsters realize for how stupid their Dear Leader thinks they are:
"We will pass a tax cut for the middle class next week." At the time of the tweet Congress was not in session and would not be for another two weeks.
" Republicans will protect people with pre-existing conditions far better than the Dems! " The GOP has voted against this at least 50 times.
He sends 5000+ troops to the border against a 'caravan' which is about a 1000 miles away from it and will not get there for some time come. The Army is by law not allowed to make arrests. What will they do? Build a human wall (and Mexico will pay for it?)? And who pays for the troop deployment? You, the tax payer.
Brakes on is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 16:55
  #16363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Yes, WC, but ... one (1) lie. Yer man passed four thousand (4,000) lies in August, with his rate increasing and the plausibility of his lies decreasing. He's getting close to escape velocity, I think, when he's going to punch right through the Bozone Layer and keep going right out of sight. "Up in the sky, look: It's a bird. It's a plane. Nah, that's just Donald Trump on another flight of fancy."

That Trump seems to believe his own lies ... does that make them not-lies? The man is living in a fantasy world so that it's going to be damned interesting if and when he loses his audience.

We recently were on a short visit to the States when we spent a few nights in an AirBnB in Jersey City, New Jersey. That's the town where Trump claimed first to have seen a thousand people celebrating 9/11 as it happened, and then "thousands" of "Arabs," Muslims presumably, doing that up on the rooftops.

Why Jersey City? Probably because it's right across the Hudson from the WTC. On the other hand, this event Trump claimed to have seen on television was never broadcast on television, quite aside from the fact that it only occurred in the imagination of Trump anyway. Well, Trump and Alex Jones too; he also claimed to have seen it. So, who are you going to believe, Donald Trump and Alex Jones, or the Mayor and the Chief of Police of Jersey City?
chuks is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 17:57
  #16364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 604
On birthright: If this will ever get through (highly unlikely) it will never be made retroactive.
Where did anyone suggest making it retroactive? That would be unconstitutional.
obgraham is online now  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 18:46
  #16365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
Where did anyone suggest making it retroactive? That would be unconstitutional.
It's has been discussed. Anyway, changing the constitution through an EO is constitutional? If that would be possible, what else would Trump, who has sworn to 'uphold the Constitution ...' come up with next? He is already infringing on the first amendment with his constant hate utterings about the media.

It's obvious, he is getting desperate. His lies get more blatant, he is increasing his rhetoric on all subjects he thinks will influence the trumpsters. I wonder when they will finally see the light. Some may already be suffering from his tarrifs, the reduced healthcare etc.
Brakes on is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 19:09
  #16366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 604
Brakes, you don't seem to understand what Trump is doing here. He wishes to enforce the Constitution. Including the word "and" in Amendment 14. He can do that with an EO, or Congress can pass a bill to that effect (See Amendment XIV, Section 5). Then it will be challenged, probably by that Hawaiian judge the Democrats are so fond of. Then it will go to the USSC for an interpretation.

We can sling back and forth here all we want to about wouldacouldashoulda, but in the end the newly configured USSC will have its say. And there, Trump may or may not get his way.

Then there is this:
He is already infringing on the first amendment with his constant hate utterings about the media
Say whaaat? This is not Germany, and it is not the UK.
obgraham is online now  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 19:17
  #16367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,472
Originally Posted by chuks View Post
I Ever heard of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), Lonewolf?
Yeah, since about seventh grade. Get over yourself, chuks, your bias is blinding you. Or do we now blame the Agent Orange for your mental sharpness losing its edge? Surely it can't be your age or your drinking habits.

On topic regarding the retroactive and birth thing:
For one I don't think this attempt at an EO will withstand judicial review
For two, I seem to recall something about an ex post facto law not being kosher in the Constitution.
This one appears to be a check Trump is writing that he will not be able to cash.
Is George Zimmerman Latino?
That isn't what I said. George is of mixed ancestry (as are many of us). Interestingly, you seem to only care about part of it. So too did a variety of spin doctors. Your bias is still showing. So too is your selective reading, and selective listening.
What you have is a very common disease called confirmation bias; look it up, I think you need to refresh the old education.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 20:18
  #16368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,153
Changing The US Constitution

Personally, I think this idea Trump has amounts to nothing more than a ploy to satisfy his base and keep them motivated.

I think Trump knows:
  • The House of Representatives is going to switch to Democrats and he wants his base to know he is still fighting for them.
  • The caravan of Central American people may have short positive legs depending on the Trump response when they reach the border.
  • The so-called Southern fixed wall is really a stupid $20B idea given the electronic surveillance and detection capabilities today, only 500 plus miles when the border is 1300 miles long.
  • If the tariff/trade issues aren't resolved soon, it will become a real drag on economic growth, job creation and will create a rise in unemployment levels.
  • Trump's tax cut for the middle-class may not materialize along with the desired increase spending level for defense.
  • The US treasury will issue bonds (debt) in the amount of one trillion dollars this year due to lagging incoming revenue and higher spending.
Trump is working hard to getting himself reelected in 2020 and not impeached. It has been a claim that if the Democrats won the House, one of the first things they will do is to impeach Trump. So he has thrown his lure into the DC waters. Trump's failure to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" might be one of the articles of impeachment thrown out on the table. So by taking on this impeachment issue early, Trump thinks it can be debated and defused before the 2020 election actually happens. The Democrats should ignore his lure.

As far as the Fourteenth Amendment repeal is concerned, repeal would also end the due process clause as pertaining to the States. The due process clause pertaining to the Federal Government resides in the Fifth Amendment using the exact same wording.
Repealing an Amendment requires the exact same methods as adding Amendments:
  • Congress proposes an Amendment (new or repeal of an existing one), States ratify the Amendment
  • The States demand a Constitutional Convention to discuss what should/shouldn't be changed in the Constitution
Either way, the road is long and rocky and takes a two thirds super majority vote in the House and Senate and the same in the State's ratification. The President has no direct say in adding or repealing any Amendment, new Amendments never pass over his Oval Office desk.
Turbine D is online now  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 20:19
  #16369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Sorry, wrong question!

Lonewolf, okay, you have heard of the ADL, so wrong question. I should have asked you why you do not seem to have been informed by much of what the ADL has to say about such things as Posse Comitatus, such that you claimed never to have heard of it in its current meaning, as a movement rather than as a somewhat obscure Act. I knew about it, and I don't even live in Texas, one state where the Posse has been notably active. "Selective reading," indeed.

As to Zimmerman, weren't you complaining about the media going quiet about his mixed ancestry? I think you brought that up, not me. As far as I am concerned he could have been an Eskimo. What mattered there was whether he was justified or not in shooting Trayvon, not his mixed ancestry, so why were you bitching about that going overlooked? Better put, why were you bitching about it going overlooked when it actually has not been overlooked? (Google "Zimmerman" and the first entry that comes up includes this: "Zimmerman identifies as Hispanic on voter registration forms." Some cover-up!)

When you go looking for bias, have a look in the mirror for starters, Lonewolf.

Agent Orange ... I worked right around the corner from where some of those "Ranch Hand" C-123s were parked at Tan Son Nhut. My God, but you could smell those things a hundred feet off! The crews must have been bathing in that stuff, and God help those peasants on the ground. Anyway, if you really do find me dull of mind, there's my excuse: exposure to Agent Orange. Now, how do you account for Trump, since he never came within thousands of miles of the stuff? Bone spurs ....

Turbine D, final ratification needs 75%, not 66%, I think.

I am surprised nobody has brought up the way that FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court in order to win passage of some of his New Deal measures. "The central provision of the [court-packing] bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months." (Wikipedia)

There is no Constitutional limit to the size of the Supreme Court, although the Judiciary Act of 1859 by Congress sets a limit of 8 Justices and 1 Chief Justice.

As it happened, resistance from members of FDR's own Democratic Party defeated the bill. FDR lasted long enough in power to succeed in appointing 7 Justices so that he was said to have lost the battle but to have won the war.

Last edited by chuks; 31st Oct 2018 at 20:37.
chuks is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 20:51
  #16370 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,890
A number of people posting here (and in the US generally it seems) wouldn't really mind if DJT did a Kashoggi on all Democrats and declared himself President for Life (just so long as they were ok, naturally).

And Trump, somewhat to his own surprise, is coming to that interesting realization.

Mac
Mac the Knife is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 21:07
  #16371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,516
Originally Posted by chuks View Post
Yes, WC, but ... one (1) lie. Yer man passed four thousand (4,000) lies in August, with his rate increasing and the plausibility of his lies decreasing. He's getting close to escape velocity, I think, when he's going to punch right through the Bozone Layer and keep going right out of sight. "Up in the sky, look: It's a bird. It's a plane. Nah, that's just Donald Trump on another flight of fancy."

That Trump seems to believe his own lies ... does that make them not-lies? The man is living in a fantasy world so that it's going to be damned interesting if and when he loses his audience.

We recently were on a short visit to the States when we spent a few nights in an AirBnB in Jersey City, New Jersey. That's the town where Trump claimed first to have seen a thousand people celebrating 9/11 as it happened, and then "thousands" of "Arabs," Muslims presumably, doing that up on the rooftops.

Why Jersey City? Probably because it's right across the Hudson from the WTC. On the other hand, this event Trump claimed to have seen on television was never broadcast on television, quite aside from the fact that it only occurred in the imagination of Trump anyway. Well, Trump and Alex Jones too; he also claimed to have seen it. So, who are you going to believe, Donald Trump and Alex Jones, or the Mayor and the Chief of Police of Jersey City?

You're right about your President fibbing frequently. Whataboutery aside, so has she. On her own merits she shouldn't be in office given her body of lies.

Make you a deal, you dont vote for her, I won't vote for him
I didn't two years as go, should be an easy promise to keep.
West Coast is online now  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 21:36
  #16372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,472
Originally Posted by chuks View Post
Lonewolf, okay, you have heard of the ADL, so wrong question. I should have asked you why you do not seem to have been informed by much of what the ADL has to say about such things as Posse Comitatus, such that you claimed never to have heard of it in its current meaning,
The current meaning? WTF are you talking about? The Posse Comitatus Act is a matter of the historical record, and was a reaction to the Radical Reconstruction. You don't get to change what it means. That a bunch of yahoos chose to call themselves after that (for what I will guess is some standard anti-establishment, anti-Federal Government reasons) doesn't change why the actual thing matters to me, and to every governor in the US; and to every military officer (I spent some years as such) who was required to plan and execute Operations Other Than War on US soil. That's new in the US military since you got out, chuks. It became all the rage after the cold war ended, during the Clinton Administration. It is now hard coded in our doctrine. Example: Hurricane Andrew relief. Example: Hurricane Katrina relief. I have seen a variety of opinions (some reasonable and some not) on whether or not the Waco disaster with Koresh and his loonies included in it a violation of that law by the US Army (Fort Hood/Third Corps) in what units were assigned to assist the federal agents in that mess. My read is "eh, not."
(For the record, I was onside with Janet Reno's approach in the Elian Gonzales case).
Agent Orange
Got it, you are using the excuse. Noted, for posterity.
Since you have chosen to continue to insult me on that topic, I'll will repay you in change with the same reichsmarks (well, pfennigs on the reichsmark) that you are offering to me. Yes, before you ask, I know the difference between a reichsmark and a deutschmark, have since the mid 60's.

On a humorous note, I read in the news today that the (censored) who shot the Jewish people in Pittsburgh hates Jews, and hates Trump for being controlled by the Jews. I think you can call that guy a Nazi without pulling a Godwin.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 31st Oct 2018 at 21:49.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 21:43
  #16373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,472
Time for Fun With Acronyms
Originally Posted by Mac the Knife View Post
A number of people posting here (and in the US generally it seems) wouldn't really mind if DJT did a Kashoggi on all Democrats and declared himself President for Life (just so long as they were ok, naturally).
TACOS: acronym; stands for That's A Crock of Sh!t. Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, beyond being clueless, unless ... you done as I have now and again done, and indulged in PWP.
Posting Whilst Pissed.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 22:36
  #16374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 604
Turbine, for FFS:
As far as the Fourteenth Amendment repeal is concerned, repeal would also end the due process clause as pertaining to the States.
Nobody is proposing repealing the 14th Amendment. What Trump wants to do is simply to declare that children of illegal immigrants do not automatically gain citizenship at birth, as the 14th does not apply to them. Over the past 150 years determinations have been made several times who is or is not included. Slaves. Natives. Women. Diplomats. All he needs to have is an EO or Congressional Act stating this, and adjudicated as constitutional by the USSC.

Of course the Left will scream and stomp their feet about it, but in the end it will be up to 9 Justices to vote Yea or Nay. Have we forgotten so soon how important the USSC appointments are?
obgraham is online now  
Old 1st Nov 2018, 00:26
  #16375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,153
obgraham,
What Trump wants to do is simply to declare that children of illegal immigrants do not automatically gain citizenship at birth, as the 14th does not apply to them.
The Fourteenth Amendment makes no distinction as to the legality or illegality of immigrants and if they give birth to a son or daughter on US soil. The son or daughter are US citizens.Therefore, if Trump wants to change the wording to make it not apply to them, it requires repeal of the current amendment and replacement of a reworded version. Trump has no direct power to do that by means of an EO. It is only accomplished by one of two available procedures as I outlined in my Changing The US Constitution post. The founding fathers must have considered there would be rogue people come along (including Trump) that would like to change wording in the Constitution to match their whim of the day, so they made it difficult, Good! Trump has no power to change the wording of the US Constitution, period. He must be once again getting bad advise from Rudy or his other young off the wall advisor...
Of course the Left will scream and stomp their feet about it, but in the end it will be up to 9 Justices to vote Yea or Nay. Have we forgotten so soon how important the USSC appointments are?
The USSC only rules on what their interpretation of the applicable written word of the Constitution is. The current wording is clear. In plain English, it will wind up in Congress to decide what will change if anything, the USSC doesn't draft new wording,

Last edited by Turbine D; 1st Nov 2018 at 00:34. Reason: added wording
Turbine D is online now  
Old 1st Nov 2018, 00:33
  #16376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
So now Dear Leader is talking about "up to 15,000 troops"
According to Wikipedia the USA-Mexico border is 1,954 miles (3,145 kilometers) long. This translates as a soldier every 229 yards (210 meters) and is not even counting ICE and the national guard already there.
Can troops vote when deployed?

Do the Trumpsters realize/know that he is not only president of the USA, but also expected to be a major player and influence in the world, furthering the standing of the USA? Oh, I nearly forgot, it's "America first".
If this goes on any further it's going to be 'America Alone' through getting out of all kinds of international treaties. And China is already taking over. Look at how they are constantly increasing their power bases in Asia and Africa.
Brakes on is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2018, 00:46
  #16377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
Brakes, you don't seem to understand what Trump is doing here. He wishes to enforce the Constitution. Including the word "and" in Amendment 14. He can do that with an EO, or Congress can pass a bill to that effect (See Amendment XIV, Section 5). Then it will be challenged, probably by that Hawaiian judge the Democrats are so fond of. Then it will go to the USSC for an interpretation.

We can sling back and forth here all we want to about wouldacouldashoulda, but in the end the newly configured USSC will have its say. And there, Trump may or may not get his way.

Then there is this:Say whaaat? This is not Germany, and it is not the UK.
Can't comment on the UK, but, yes, there was somebody in Germany who called the press "the lying press" His name was Adolf Hitler
Brakes on is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2018, 01:24
  #16378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 27
Trump has four children from foreign born wives. Ivana and Melania were here illegally. It gets interesting.

No, trump doesn’t “fib”. He lies. Huge, bold, bare-faced Lying. Let’s call it what it is.
Dea Certe is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2018, 02:50
  #16379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,472
Originally Posted by Dea Certe View Post
No, trump doesn’t “fib”. He lies. Huge, bold, bare-faced Lying. Let’s call it what it is.
Yeah, no half measures on that score. Go big, or go home, I guess, seems to be the attitude taken when it comes to that facet of being a politician. For someone who promised to drain the swamp, seems to be wandering off message rather badly.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 1st Nov 2018, 02:56
  #16380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,472
Originally Posted by Brakes on View Post
So now Dear Leader is talking about "up to 15,000 troops"
According to Wikipedia the USA-Mexico border is 1,954 miles (3,145 kilometers) long. This translates as a soldier every 229 yards (210 meters) and is not even counting ICE and the national guard already there.
.
You have to be pretty stupid to post that. The year is 2018. There is a lot of tech available to defend a border like that, and most of it does not involve stationing soldiers in even spaces from one end to the other.
This whole thing is political symbolism.
If there were a permissive RoE for engaging anyone crossing the border at other than the authorized and very public check points in the four border states (CA, AZ, NM, TX) then all you need is airborne assets (armed and unarmed), some artillery units, and some mobile units on the ground to cover the entire border with fires.
That would defend the border. Any second week student at the infantry officer's school in Fort Benning could give you the template on how to do that.
(PS, the Customs service has been flying P-3's and then Predators along the border for years already. The "how" of the surveillance piece is very old hat).

So no, you are being obtuse. This has bloody **** all to do with "defending a border."
This is political theater.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.