Likes: 
Faceplams: Annnnnd reported to the FBI. Thanks allegate.
Active Member
Annnnnd reported to the FBI. Thanks allegate.
Active Member
I'd say that I feel like image goes a little hard on sarcastic/edgy takes in the headlines section sometimes and that I can find it a bit tone-insensitive and grating, but also that I think that kettle over there is a fine shade of onyx.Originally Posted by Harry Seaward
Active Member
It's how I sometimes deal with the feelings of desperate and hopeless anger that this administration and its followers have brought on. (This post not sarcastic.)
I was nobody. Nothing.
dude i've totally been thinking about that song lately.holey crap we are in a sick sick country, any euro ETS's need a roomie? feel like i need to get the F out. the amount of hate voting manipulation. as Bowie said, "this is not America." hard to even look at the news.
-louie
So Beto was speaking this morning in amarillo, 90 miles away from me, but by the time i realized it, it was too fucking late for me to get there.
it really sucks: it was at a small bar and i'm sure i would have been able to meet him and such.
tempus est umbra in mente
The November 6th anticipation is driving me insane with anxiety...
Hierba Gatera
I think I may have you beat. I have a Jewish friend who adores the Cheeto and takes much offense when non-Jews (or anti-Zionists) call out anti-semitism. She was fuming today about all the posts decrying the PA shooter.
What can you do with that? Just what?
Last edited by Baphomette; 10-30-2018 at 03:36 AM.
Add Violins
And now Trump is claiming that he's going to take away birthright citizenship.
Never mind that it's written in our constitution and has been settled by the Supreme Court for well over a century. Trump has decided that he has the power to simply override all of that. He said...
How about that? Trump just waves his hand and there goes one of our constitutional rights."You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order. It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't."
Administrator
The President of the United States cannot alter the Constitution with an EO. This is bullshit designed to fire up his base and nothing more.
Messaging is simple: "The president wishes to take away citizenship from immigrants and wants to take away YOUR healthcare as well after cutting the taxes of the super rich."
Active Member
he cares about one person, lies directly in peoples faces and their still like rah. I don't get it i have yet receive an answer from any of his supporters of why they continue to support this idiot.
-louie
Active Member
Active Member
Trump today: "if you want your stocks to go down, vote Democratic".
Funny...my stocks have been tanking all month. You're at the helm. Your Fed is crushing my investment. My stocks are already going down because of you, so where's the threat here?
Active Member
Are there any depths they won't sink to?
FATUM NOS IUNGET
I so wish that rubber-faced MAGA chud Jacob Wohl hadn't blocked me on Twitter. Would love to toss a few hundred LMAO's at him today haha...this Surefire Intelligence shit is staggeringly hilarious.
Active Member
I was nobody. Nothing.
Ugh.
You guys ever see that movie Carlos, about Carlos the Jackal?
It romanticized his life enough to where I KIND of.thought he cool by the end of it.
I can't say what I'm thinking about him now because I don't want to be put on (another, probably) watch list.
But you know where I'm going with this.
And it's scary, because I know I'm not the only one.
Let's say we get trump voted out. The trump people aren't going anywhere. Furthermore, they will only get more violent. I understand the outrage about, say, Ruby Ridge. And I can put myself in these people's shoes: they LEGITIMATELY believe their way of life is endangered. I fucking hate them but my point is that no one is changing their minds.
Meanwhile we have Antifa and Rednceck Revolt. We have the left slowly becoming militant, too.
I predict Weather Underground style groups before the end of this administration. And I can GODDAMN sure relate to all of those people. I think leftist terrorism is coming. I mean, fuck, MOST of the homegrown terrorism in the eighties was leftist. Why would the eventual reaction to THIS bullshit be any different. In fact, I'd bet my left but that such things are already being planned. Mark my words.
I'm not saying I think it's GOOD, but here's my point: I'm really, seriously scared that we're headed for, AT BEST, piecemeal civil war. I'm afraid that it's inevitable. @allegro once told me I'm like chicken little, but this time, I think the sky IS actually falling.
Active Member
Kansas militia men behind mosque bomb plot blame Trump's rhetoric
And their lawyer is asking for lenient sentencing because of it.
Keep in mind: this was all plotted during the campaign. We've had two more years of this bullshit now. It's only getting worse.
Active Member
Very interesting read.
Has Mueller Subpoenaed the President?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/am...d-trump-222060
But for those of us who have been appellate lawyers, the brief docket entries tell a story. Here’s what we can glean:
The parties and the judges have moved with unusual alacrity. Parties normally have 30 days to appeal a lower court action. The witness here appealed just five days after losing in the district court – and three days later filed a motion before the appellate court to stay the district court’s order. That’s fast.
The appeals court itself responded with remarkable speed, too. One day after getting the witness’s motion, the court gave the special counsel just three days to respond – blindingly short as appellate proceedings go. The special counsel’s papers were filed October 1.
At this point an unspecified procedural flaw seems to have emerged, and on October 3, the appeals court dismissed the appeal. Just two days later, the lower court judge cured the flaw, the witness re-appealed, and by October 10 the witness was once again before appellate court. Thanks to very quick action of all the judges, less than one week was lost due to a flaw that, in other cases, could have taken weeks or months to resolve.
Back before the D.C. Circuit, this case’s very special handling continued. On October 10, the day the case returned to the court, the parties filed a motion for expedited handling, and within two days, the judges had granted their motion and set an accelerated briefing schedule. The witness was given just 11 days to file briefs; the special counsel (presumably) just two weeks to respond; and reply papers one week later, on November 14 (for those paying attention, that’s 8 days after the midterm elections). Oral arguments are set for December 14.
At every level, this matter has commanded the immediate and close attention of the judges involved – suggesting that no ordinary witness and no ordinary issue is involved. But is it the president? The docket sheets give one final – but compelling – clue. When the witness lost the first time in the circuit court (before the quick round-trip to the district court), he unusually petitioned for rehearing en banc – meaning he thought his case was so important that it merited the very unusual action of convening all 10 of the D.C. Circuit judges to review the order. That is itself telling (this witness believes his case demands very special handling), but the order disposing of the petition is even more telling: President Trump’s sole appointee to that court, Gregory Katsas, recused himself
Active Member
racheal on the smear
Active Member
Came here to post the Politico story. See I've been beaten to it.
I hate the clickbait headline, but the actual piece is decent. It's obviously all circumstantial, but they make some pretty reasonable sounding connections. Time will tell.
House Always Wins
I'm not a fan nor a huge Trump hater but his birthright citizenship revocation is absolute trash garbage.
I'm getting tired of this guy.
I was nobody. Nothing.
You mean his "fuck the 14th amendment, I can do whatever I want?" thing?
if this actually happens, we are FUCKED.
Luckily, some constitutionalist republicans aren't feeling it either. A LOT of them aren't feeling it.
Bite me
Weird thing is, even liberal media has been bitching about "Birth Tourism."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-miami-n836121
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...urists-n315996
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b616f5143664
And that site of the stabbing of many babies in NYC was a "birth tourist" site: https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspected...stabbing-spree
So there's bound to be some kind of SCOTUS decision defining this, since nobody saw this coming in 1868.
(The 14th Amendment was written to give slaves and descendants of slaves American citizenship, negating the bad Dred Scott SCOTUS decision.)
This Supreme Court decision attempted to settle the legal status of slaves in free territories to avert a civil war, but it provoked one instead. Dred Scott, who was born a slave in Missouri, traveled with his master to the free territory of Illinois. As a result, Scott later sued his master for freedom, which the lower courts usually granted. However, when the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, it ruled that Scott would remain a slave because as such he was not a citizen and could not legally sue in the federal courts. Moreover, in the words of Chief Justice Roger Taney, black people free or slave could never become U. S. citizens and they “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” The dissenting justices pointed out that in some states people of color were already considered citizens when the Constitution was ratified. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by granting citizenship to all those born in the United States, regardless of color.
Last edited by allegro; 11-01-2018 at 01:00 PM.
Active Member
If we're going to start using the "they weren't thinking about this in 1868" argument to discuss this issue (which is, in my opinion, a fair point), then the same people using that argument had damn better start using it to talk about gun laws.
Add Violins
Yeah, I like how the Republicans are only "originalists" when it's politically convenient for them. Now all of a sudden they're making "living constitution" arguments?
Bite me
They do. The Heller decision talks about the evolution of gun decisions, gun case law, and how it applies to a pretty vague 2nd Amendment, which BEGINS with the words “well regulated” (part of the "prefatory clause") hence why Scalia wrote (in Heller):
”We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
"Common use at the time" was applied to hand guns in Heller, which are in common use today (vs. the long guns of the 18th century, etc.) "Miller" refers to a key gun decision before Heller.
The POINT is that the Constitution and Amendments ARE “Living” documents that even “textualists” like Scalia see as relative to whatever is common “at the time” - then, and now. And each new piece of case law modernizes it, e.g. long guns have moved all the way to Heller’s hand guns and individuals having the right to own handguns (vs. "militia"), which is from case law that originated from the bill of rights in England that created our own bill of rights, etc.
So, yeah, somebody can appear before the SCOTUS armed with a bunch case law, showing that a lot has changed since 1868, and they can request that the SCOTUS reinterpret based on new uses of the 14th Amendment, thereby "modernizing" it only so far as applying use in current times but without undoing the original actions (e.g. making all slaves and descendants of slaves illegal aliens).
Like, see one thing hardly anyone is mentioning, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which MODIFIED the immigration portion of the 14th Amendment (which has been amended by several Acts, including this one in 1965 up through 1997).
Last edited by allegro; 11-01-2018 at 08:11 PM.
Bite me
Also, regarding the 14th Amendment, it's a huge Amendment relative MOSTLY to a LOT of other stuff not having to do with birth rights, but MOSTLY to due with due process and equal protection under the law.
Active Member
immigration is the only thing he can run on. he has passed next to zero legislation and most is unpopular when the dust settles. the repubs thought they were going to run on tax cuts. but when april came around they realized not so much cut. balloons the deficit. look no wall it a silly logistics nightmare, not to mention maintenance. Republicans: fear and loathing in Washington. again my apologies to the late great HST. 90% of everything you hear about the caravan is bullshit. now threatening to fire on those if they throw rocks. his platform consists of hate racism and divisiveness and needs to go. and whenever the trump name is mention people shake the heads and do a facepalm
-louie
Bite me
^ Exactly! AND he’s trying to drum up support ahead of this potential bomb shell that Mueller is about to drop?
”Sure, I’m indicted and blah blah criminal stuff blah blah but I’m protecting you from the CARAVAN OF BABY ANCHOR EVIL!”
Throbbing Member
Donald Trump admitted he has no idea who's in the caravan
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/01/polit...van/index.html
This does not surprise me. Any real information on the significance of the caravan is less important to him than using it to keep his base terrified enough to keep them voting Republican.
Active Member
I'd love your thoughts on this. The Politico piece from yesterday made a very well-reasoned case for Trump having been subpoenaed already. Today, his lawyers didn't just dance around the accusation, they outright said "no, that has not happened". Now, normally I don't buy their denials...but their denials are also usually caked in much more vague "non-answer" types of responses. This seemed different. What's your take?
Posting Permissions
