Trump Dictatorship and All Things Politics

[Red]

Violating his oath to defend the Constitution on day one…

Presidents Can’t End Birthright Citizenship

President Trump's executive order is almost certain to be struck down.

www.brennancenter.org

President Trump claimed to end birthright citizenship on the first day of his second term. Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional, in direct conflict with the plain language of the 14th Amendment and over a century’s worth of Supreme Court case law. It will be litigated immediately and its prospects of surviving those court fights are slim, even before a Supreme Court stacked with conservative justices and Trump appointees.

Before getting into the merits of the constitutional case against Trump’s executive order, it’s worth pausing to stress the brazenness of what he has done. Every new president swears to uphold the Constitution. Only minutes after taking that oath, President Trump violated it — flagrantly.

 

[fishonjazz]

Then why did he do it literally minutes before the inauguration and not at the same time as he gave the same type of pardon to Fauci earlier in the morning. Clearly it was so Trump wouldn’t find out about it before his speech.

Regardless some of these people are still in prison 4 years later with no time table. Its wrong.

A. Why indeed. If you are correct that trump can no longer use his freedom of speech to air Biden dirty laundry then do you really think that the reason trump lost his freedom of speech is because Biden did the pardons today rather than yesterday? You have to realize how stupid you would have to be to think that right?

B. You are wrong. Anyone still in prison 4 years later was given a sentence specifying the length of the sentence.

It's pretty crazy that you believe what your sources are telling you.

 

[fishonjazz]

Kinda like the Democrats Weaponized, the justice system to do everything they could keep Trump from becoming president it was unconstitutional what they did to Trump, when that didn’t work they tried to have them killed

Crazy talk. So exactly how did the Democrats try to kill trump? Let's see your evidence of this.

Do you also think the Democrats are the ones who tried to assassinate the 14 other presidents/presidential candidates who had assassination attempts on them?

The algorithms are working incredibly well on you.

 

[Sardines]

Kinda like the Democrats Weaponized, the justice system to do everything they could keep Trump from becoming president it was unconstitutional what they did to Trump, when that didn’t work they tried to have them killed

Charging people with crimes that they committed is unconstitutional?

Can you point to the part of the constitution that bars that?

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

“Biden and Garland weaponized the DOJ to do everything possible to prevent Trump from becoming president! Why won’t you take us seriously??? Why do you call us morons and trolls? Take me seriously!!!”

I haven’t called you anything.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

A. Why indeed. If you are correct that trump can no longer use his freedom of speech to air Biden dirty laundry then do you really think that the reason trump lost his freedom of speech is because Biden did the pardons today rather than yesterday? You have to realize how stupid you would have to be to think that right?

B. You are wrong. Anyone still in prison 4 years later was given a sentence specifying the length of the sentence.

It's pretty crazy that you believe what your sources are telling you.

I don’t have sources. I wish though.

 

[fishonjazz]

I don’t have sources. I wish though.

So you just decided that there are prisoners with no end date and that trump isn't allowed to air Bidens dirty laundry?

Well I just decided that trump was responsible for the JFK assassination. Don't you think trump should be held accountable for murdering John F Kennedy?

 

[fishonjazz]

Well the gas station by my house gas price was $2.77 per gallon yesterday.
Will be interesting to see how low trump sets the gas prices to now that he is president.

 

[Rubashov]

I don’t have sources. I wish though.

You're a prize winning dickhead.

Crazy talk. So exactly how did the Democrats try to kill trump? Let's see your evidence of this.

Do you also think the Democrats are the ones who tried to assassinate the 14 other presidents/presidential candidates who had assassination attempts on them?

The algorithms are working incredibly well on you.

Yeah you'd kind of think if it was a professional job it would have been effective.

Charging people with crimes that they committed is unconstitutional?

Can you point to the part of the constitution that bars that?

Don't you know you can't send middle class white people to prison? Sorry a large number of Jan 6 rioters are best described as petite bourgeoisie, which probably explains how they are simultaneously ignorant, entitled and completely self obsessed.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

Violating his oath to defend the Constitution on day one…

Presidents Can’t End Birthright Citizenship

President Trump's executive order is almost certain to be struck down.

www.brennancenter.org

President Trump claimed to end birthright citizenship on the first day of his second term. Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional, in direct conflict with the plain language of the 14th Amendment and over a century’s worth of Supreme Court case law. It will be litigated immediately and its prospects of surviving those court fights are slim, even before a Supreme Court stacked with conservative justices and Trump appointees.

Before getting into the merits of the constitutional case against Trump’s executive order, it’s worth pausing to stress the brazenness of what he has done. Every new president swears to uphold the Constitution. Only minutes after taking that oath, President Trump violated it — flagrantly.

Maybe. There was only one key case on this in the late 1800s, involving a boy born to Chinese parents. However, all immigration at the time was legal, so his parents were in the country legally. There has never been a case that discusses whether illegal immigrants children have a constitutional right to citizenship. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment states: "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."

The questions is what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, and if it somehow disqualifies a child born to parents who are in the country illegally from citizenship.

I think the Supreme Court has a lot of wiggle room as this specific issue has never been decided, and they may be able to create a distinction. I tend to agree the order likely won't survive, but I also thought the court would never overturn the right to privacy (even though I think it was flawed judicial activisim in the first place).

I don't have a problem stopping illegal immigration, but only if we put in a more robust process to legal entry, as the pyramid schemes we are running (Social Security, national debt, etc.) need a large increase in population to keep the scam running and more suckers to buy in. And the birth rate has been below the death rate since the late 70s, so we need immigration to fill the void.

 

[Rubashov]

Maybe. There was only one key case on this in the late 1800s, involving a boy born to Chinese parents. However, all immigration at the time was legal, so his parents were in the country legally. There has never been a case that discusses whether illegal immigrants children have a constitutional right to citizenship. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment states: "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."

The questions is what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, and if it somehow disqualifies a child born to parents who are in the country illegally from citizenship.

I think the Supreme Court has a lot of wiggle room as this specific issue has never been decided, and they may be able to create a distinction. I tend to agree the order likely won't survive, but I also thought the court would never overturn the right to privacy (even though I think it was flawed judicial activisim in the first place).

I don't have a problem stopping illegal immigration, but only if we put in a more robust process to legal entry, as the pyramid schemes we are running (Social Security, national debt, etc.) need a large increase in population to keep the scam running and more suckers to buy in. And the birth rate has been below the death rate since the late 70s, so we need immigration to fill the void.

Social security is a pyramid scheme for suckers? lol

 

[Red]

“America First” is, in part at least, born of massive insecurity. These MAGA folks are all fundamentally insecure.

Denali, the name the mountain has always been known as in Alaska, must go back to being named for McKinley.

2015: “For centuries, Alaskans have known this majestic mountain as the 'Great One'. Today we are honored to be able to officially recognize the mountain as Denali. I'd like to thank the President for working with us to achieve this significant change to show honor, respect and gratitude to the Athabascan people of Alaska”.[38][39]

Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trump felt otherwise, while campaigning in 2024: “McKinley was a very good, maybe a great president. They took his name off Mount McKinley. That's what they do to people. President McKinley was the president that was responsible for creating a vast sum of money. That's one of the reasons that we're going to bring back the name of Mount McKinley, because I think he deserves it”.

Of course, lol. Executive order signed first day. Why? Because President McKinley and a vast sum of money, whatever that means.

He said he wants to be “a unifying president”. BS. Alaskans and their desires, don’t count in his unification ethos…Trump actually felt the need to remove the name Denali. Think about that, a day one priority!

Still another executive order reflecting Trump and MAGA’s insecurity and trivial flexing of overweening pride. The childish, immature, emotional fragility of MAGA:

Trump to make good on Gulf of America promise with bonkers executive order

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, is not a fan of the idea

www.independent.co.uk

“The world’s ninth-largest body of water has been called the Gulf of Mexico since 1607. However, as Prof. Jon Taylor of UT-San Antonio told Houston Public Media, Trump "could actually direct federal agencies to use the name Gulf of America.”

Trump acolyte Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican congresswoman from Georgia, has pledged to introduce a bill renaming the Gulf, claiming, “It’s our gulf. The rightful name is the Gulf of America and it’s what the entire world should refer to it as."