Trump
- Red_Dragon - Jun 10, 2023 - 12:53pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- oldviolin - Jun 10, 2023 - 12:38pm
Automotive Lust
- R_P - Jun 10, 2023 - 11:54am
The Obituary Page
- rgio - Jun 10, 2023 - 10:44am
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - Jun 10, 2023 - 9:57am
Get the Quote
- oldviolin - Jun 10, 2023 - 9:40am
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- westslope - Jun 10, 2023 - 9:38am
Name My Band
- oldviolin - Jun 10, 2023 - 9:36am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Jun 10, 2023 - 9:10am
Coffee
- islander - Jun 10, 2023 - 8:51am
Wordle - daily game
- maryte - Jun 10, 2023 - 8:49am
Questions.
- rgio - Jun 10, 2023 - 7:45am
What's your favorite quote?
- miamizsun - Jun 10, 2023 - 7:30am
Song of the Day
- miamizsun - Jun 10, 2023 - 7:19am
Stuff you didn't know
- miamizsun - Jun 10, 2023 - 7:08am
Novelty songs
- Proclivities - Jun 10, 2023 - 6:33am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Jun 9, 2023 - 4:24pm
Messages in a bottle.
- oldviolin - Jun 9, 2023 - 4:21pm
China
- R_P - Jun 9, 2023 - 3:31pm
Republican Wingnut Freak of the Day
- R_P - Jun 9, 2023 - 1:31pm
Ukraine
- VV - Jun 9, 2023 - 1:17pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Jun 9, 2023 - 11:32am
Things for which you would sell ManBird's soul
- miamizsun - Jun 9, 2023 - 11:20am
Big Brother is Watching You
- R_P - Jun 9, 2023 - 11:19am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- pilgrim - Jun 9, 2023 - 10:26am
Shall We Dance?
- oldviolin - Jun 9, 2023 - 8:30am
Live Music
- oldviolin - Jun 9, 2023 - 8:29am
Climate Change
- black321 - Jun 9, 2023 - 8:22am
Things You Thought Today
- lily34 - Jun 9, 2023 - 7:44am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Jun 8, 2023 - 6:28pm
2024 Elections!
- Beaker - Jun 8, 2023 - 2:56pm
June 2023 Photo Theme - Lines - parallel, converging, cur...
- Antigone - Jun 8, 2023 - 2:05pm
Canada
- Beaker - Jun 8, 2023 - 12:23pm
ONE WORD
- pilgrim - Jun 8, 2023 - 8:41am
FOUR WORDS
- ColdMiser - Jun 8, 2023 - 7:52am
THREE WORDS
- ColdMiser - Jun 8, 2023 - 7:51am
TWO WORDS
- ColdMiser - Jun 8, 2023 - 7:49am
You're welcome, manbird.
- oldviolin - Jun 8, 2023 - 7:32am
What Makes You Laugh?
- oldviolin - Jun 8, 2023 - 7:28am
Come join us in Eureka!
- bart.sp - Jun 8, 2023 - 4:40am
Russia
- miamizsun - Jun 8, 2023 - 4:18am
Mixtape Culture Club
- Beaker - Jun 7, 2023 - 9:35pm
New Music
- oppositelock - Jun 7, 2023 - 8:51pm
The Great Reset
- thisbody - Jun 7, 2023 - 5:38pm
Simulcast of VR Live?
- thisbody - Jun 7, 2023 - 5:15pm
Guns
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2023 - 10:15am
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today...
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2023 - 10:12am
Artificial Intelligence
- rgio - Jun 7, 2023 - 6:32am
Twitter and democracy
- kurtster - Jun 7, 2023 - 2:15am
Independent Party Candidates
- Lazy8 - Jun 6, 2023 - 10:16pm
A Picture paints a thousand words
- oldviolin - Jun 6, 2023 - 6:00pm
Song information
- Singletrack - Jun 6, 2023 - 4:23pm
Unquiet Minds - Mental Health Forum
- miamizsun - Jun 6, 2023 - 2:06pm
Bad Poetry
- GeneP59 - Jun 6, 2023 - 9:24am
TV shows you watch
- Steely_D - Jun 5, 2023 - 11:45pm
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Jun 5, 2023 - 4:28pm
BRING OUT YOUR DEAD
- oldviolin - Jun 5, 2023 - 7:52am
May 2023 Photo Theme - Buds, Sprouts & Beginnings
- sunybuny - Jun 5, 2023 - 7:22am
Movie Recommendation
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 4, 2023 - 9:59pm
Tindersticks
- oldviolin - Jun 4, 2023 - 8:53pm
just like old rario
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 4, 2023 - 7:41pm
Out the window
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 4, 2023 - 7:34pm
One Partying State - Wyoming News
- geoff_morphini - Jun 4, 2023 - 1:48pm
Skeptix
- R_P - Jun 4, 2023 - 12:04pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Jun 4, 2023 - 10:22am
What Did You Do Today?
- Antigone - Jun 3, 2023 - 4:40pm
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone
- oldviolin - Jun 3, 2023 - 10:56am
Counting with Pictures
- ScottN - Jun 2, 2023 - 8:28pm
Puzzle it
- oldviolin - Jun 2, 2023 - 2:04pm
Fascism In America
- R_P - Jun 2, 2023 - 1:24pm
(Big) Media Watch
- R_P - Jun 2, 2023 - 12:43pm
Musky Mythology
- Proclivities - Jun 2, 2023 - 11:50am
What Makes You Cry :) ?
- Beez - Jun 2, 2023 - 9:00am
Allergies ( aka pollen hell)
- black321 - Jun 2, 2023 - 8:02am
Food Democracy
- Proclivities - Jun 2, 2023 - 6:23am
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Trump
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 999, 1000, 1001 ... 1067, 1068, 1069 Next |
R_P


|
Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 12:39pm |
|
aflanigan wrote: World class gymnastics...
|
|
aflanigan

Location: At Sea Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 12:30pm |
|
rotekz wrote:(Trump apologists scramble in vain to cover his latest BS claims)
Another Trump myth bites the dust . . .
|
|
rotekz


|
Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 12:08pm |
|
R_P wrote: So the media and everybody ripping Trump were wrong again. Nice try. Donald Trump is being roasted in the mainstream media for confusing the convenience store chain 7/11 with the 9/11 tragedy. During a campaign rally earlier this week in Buffalo, Trump said, "Its very close to my heart because I was down there. And I watched our police and our firemen, down at 7-11, down at the World Trade Center, right after it came down." Trump's comment wasn't a slip of the tongue. Nor was he referring to the convenience store chain. Trump was referring to a New York fire station... Engine 7, Ladder 1, Battalion 1. Hat tip to Nels, one of my listeners, who pointed this out to me: "As a former New Yorker, I immediately knew what Donald Trump was referencing. Firestation #711 / Firemen's Legion #711 (Engine 7, Ladder 1, Battalion 1) were the very first responders to the 9/11 attacks. There was even a film made about them that won a Peabody and Emmy, called 9/11. How quickly our heroes are forgotten. Also, the funniest thing is if you assume he mean 9/11, "down on 9/11" makes zero sense!"
|
|
Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 11:01am |
|
kurtster wrote:A differing opinion on United States v. Wong Kim Ark as it applies to our discussion ...Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law." There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review — and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the civil rights bill of 1870. (1866 See below). Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens. You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law afterwards that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US and then turn around and pass a law that would deny automatic citizenship to aliens? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean. (The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens." I cannot find support for this statement.) By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. From the court ... Page 112 U. S. 102 to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. 1866 Enforcement ActCivil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866). Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding. ...... I believe that the language regarding the meaning of jurisdiction is quite clear. And the arguments and explanations presented very sound. You believe it, but you're wrong—at least as far as the courts are concerned. There would be no Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform if the courts had ruled differently. They are trying to overturn United States v. Wong Kim Ark, not reinterpret it. The ruling says exactly the opposite of their position, and it states it very clearly. The precedent they cite for their case (Elk v. Wilkins) was in 1884, 14 years before United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The court was doubtless aware of that precedent and cast it aside, as it pertained to an entirely different set of circumstances: John Elk was a Winnebago Indian suing a Registrar of Voters in Omaha for the right to vote. Indians were excluded from citizenship in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and the allegiance claimed in this case was to the Winnebago tribe. This entire doctrine was discarded in 1924 in the Indian Citizenship Act, but it has nothing to do with United States v. Wong Kim Ark or birthright citizenship (of anyone but Native Americans anyway). The quoted text (allegedly from a 1982 decision) does not appear in any supreme court ruling. You can search for yourself here. It's amusing that every precedent Trump supporters drag out in defense of a clearly indefensible position are from execrable racist actions of the past. Own it.
|
|
rotekz


|
Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 5:10am |
|
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus wants Republicans to unite around the eventual nominee, disregarding the sentiment expressed by the coalition of conservatives who have vowed to never support Donald Trump.“It is essential to victory in November that we all support our candidate,” Priebus said during his address to the RNC’s Spring Meeting in Florida this morning. “Politics is a team sport and we can’t win unless we rally around whoever becomes our nominee.” While Priebus didn’t mention Trump by name, he referred to candidates who “are going to say some things to attract attention,” and urged Republicans to get behind the eventual nominee.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 23, 2016 - 12:45am |
|
kurtster wrote:
Interesting that a Trump supporter would be arguing Ted Cruz' case for him.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 9:11pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote:kurtster wrote:How? Not seeing anything here that contradicts. Again, the 1st has nothing to do with anyone seeking to enter the country who is not already here. The 14th leaves it to Congress to determine how it applies by defining jurisdiction and its application. The 14th does not absolutely guarantee citizenship to those born here. That has been widely documented by the authors of the 14th regarding its purpose and intent. Congress can determine that if it so chooses. That includes anchor babies and those who participate in the birth tourism industry. The first forbids entangling the government with religion or the free exercise thereof. That would include a religious test for citizenship or entry. There are very few exceptions to birthright citizenship as defined in the 14th amendment, as settled by United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. You'd basically have to be the child of a foreign diplomat. There is no such thing as an anchor baby. The whole idea is fake; parents of citizens have no special priority in immigration. And I'm sure this isn't the last time I'll have to refute this; it's a durable lie, evergreen among the anti-immigrant right, but a lie nonetheless. A differing opinion on United States v. Wong Kim Ark as it applies to our discussion ...Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law." There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review — and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the civil rights bill of 1870. (1866 See below). Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens. You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law afterwards that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US and then turn around and pass a law that would deny automatic citizenship to aliens? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean. (The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens." I cannot find support for this statement.) By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. From the court ... Page 112 U. S. 102 to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. 1866 Enforcement ActCivil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866). Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding. ...... I believe that the language regarding the meaning of jurisdiction is quite clear. And the arguments and explanations presented very sound.
|
|
Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 8:27pm |
|
kurtster wrote:How? Not seeing anything here that contradicts. Again, the 1st has nothing to do with anyone seeking to enter the country who is not already here. The 14th leaves it to Congress to determine how it applies by defining jurisdiction and its application. The 14th does not absolutely guarantee citizenship to those born here. That has been widely documented by the authors of the 14th regarding its purpose and intent. Congress can determine that if it so chooses. That includes anchor babies and those who participate in the birth tourism industry. The first forbids entangling the government with religion or the free exercise thereof. That would include a religious test for citizenship or entry. There are very few exceptions to birthright citizenship as defined in the 14th amendment, as settled by United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 . You'd basically have to be the child of a foreign diplomat. There is no such thing as an anchor baby. The whole idea is fake; parents of citizens have no special priority in immigration. And I'm sure this isn't the last time I'll have to refute this; it's a durable lie, evergreen among the anti-immigrant right, but a lie nonetheless.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 7:27pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: kurtster wrote:I do not believe that is correct. Where did you find that ?
Congress sets the criteria IIRC. There is no Constitutional provisions stating who can or cannot be denied consideration. The 1st amendment only applies to those already here. It does not extend past our borders. The US constitution has force and effect only within our borders, but the rights protected by it apply to everyone—not just citizens, and not just legal aliens. There are no exceptions for citizenship in the constitution, and that is by design. The constitution is a document recognizing the rights of humans, not of citizens. Congress has plenary power to set immigration criteria, but that power is not unlimited. The first and 14th amendments restrict what criteria they can apply. Congress has passed laws restricting entry based on ethnicity (the Chinese Exclusion act of 1889) which the courts at the time refused to review. It has since been repealed (and—extraordinarily— apologized for by the congress) but it would doubtless fail to withstand a constitutional challenge today. The president has the power* to suspend "the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens" for as long as s/he likes, for any reason, but all actions of the president and congress are subject to compliance with the constitution and judicial review. *Note to Stephen Molynieux fans—this is statutory, not constitutional power. Here's one statement regarding plenary power that disagrees with your assertion. Again, the 1st has nothing to do with anyone seeking to enter the country who is not already here. The 14th leaves it to Congress to determine how it applies by defining jurisdiction and its application. The 14th does not absolutely guarantee citizenship to those born here. That has been widely documented by the authors of the 14th regarding its purpose and intent. Congress can determine that if it so chooses. That includes anchor babies and those who participate in the birth tourism industry. On the 14th ...Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: 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." . The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship. The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
|
|
Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 6:11pm |
|
kurtster wrote:I do not believe that is correct. Where did you find that ?
Congress sets the criteria IIRC. There is no Constitutional provisions stating who can or cannot be denied consideration. The 1st amendment only applies to those already here. It does not extend past our borders. The US constitution has force and effect only within our borders, but the rights protected by it apply to everyone—not just citizens, and not just legal aliens. There are no exceptions for citizenship in the constitution, and that is by design. The constitution is a document recognizing the rights of humans, not of citizens. Congress has plenary power to set immigration criteria, but that power is not unlimited. The first and 14th amendments restrict what criteria they can apply. Congress has passed laws restricting entry based on ethnicity (the Chinese Exclusion act of 1889) which the courts at the time refused to review. It has since been repealed (and—extraordinarily— apologized for by the congress) but it would doubtless fail to withstand a constitutional challenge today. The president has the power* to suspend "the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens" for as long as s/he likes, for any reason, but all actions of the president and congress are subject to compliance with the constitution and judicial review. *Note to Stephen Molynieux fans—this is statutory, not constitutional power.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 5:25pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: kurtster wrote:Does anyone have a right to be admitted to this country ? Everyone has the right to be considered for entry, and that the criteria for entry have nothing to do with religion. I do not believe that is correct. Where did you find that ? Congress sets the criteria IIRC. There is no Constitutional provisions stating who can or cannot be denied consideration. The 1st amendment only applies to those already here. It does not extend past our borders.
|
|
Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 5:23pm |
|
Jennifer had no idea who set up the account, but this really was the match Ashley Madison had found for her.
|
|
R_P


|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 5:03pm |
|
kurtster wrote:Does anyone have a right to be admitted to this country ? This establishment is currently closed. Please bear with us while we're working hard to make ourselves greater than ever. We're enormously sorry for any inconvenience. The Management.
|
|
rotekz


|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 4:44pm |
|
|
|
Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 4:42pm |
|
kurtster wrote:Does anyone have a right to be admitted to this country ? Everyone has the right to be considered for entry, and that the criteria for entry have nothing to do with religion.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 3:52pm |
|
buddy wrote: Does that include Muslims at the the front door? Who's working the door?
Just wonderin'......
Does anyone have a right to be admitted to this country ?
|
|
rotekz


|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 3:04pm |
|
miamizsun wrote:is the fix in? Donald Trump may be the only Republican presidential candidate who can realistically hit the magic 1,237 number for the majority of delegates, but according to a senior Republican National Committee official that does not mean he will become the GOP presidential nominee. Curly Haugland, a longstanding RNC official and an unbound delegate from North Dakota who will be on the convention rules committee in July, told CNBC that attaining 1,237 during the primaries does not secure the nomination. "Even if Trump reaches the magic number of 1,237 the media and RNC are touting, that does not mean Trump is automatically the nominee," Haugland said. "The votes earned during the primary process are only estimates and are not legal convention votes. The only official votes to nominate a candidate are those that are cast from the convention floor." Trump is the ONLY candidate who will hit 1,237 but then consider this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trumps-real-magic-number-is-less-than-1-237-222184but of course we then must also flush this from our minds... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/20/internal-campaign-memo-projects-trump-will-win-1400-delegates-at-gop-convention/ and then there is this:
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 1:33pm |
|
buddy wrote: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door ! and improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans!
Yeah, kinda has a nice ring to it.
fixed it for ya ...
Yeah, if you come to our front door. Crawl in the back window ? No respect. Respect is a two way street.
|
|
R_P


|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 1:15pm |
|
kurtster wrote:blah, yada ...
3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans. And that obviously targets legal immigration as well. But kudos for being right about low information voters and short attention spans.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 1:09pm |
|
R_P wrote:Except, as pointed out before, that the distinction is superficial (but Politically Convenient to some). He's mostly against immigration, period. Illegals, Muslims, and skilled/temporary workers among others. blah, yada ... 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.
|
|
|