How's that Constitution thing working out for you?

sushilover

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:46 pm

marina wrote:

Say I wanted to burn a flag. No one who introduces legislation, like Hillary in your example, could do anything about it. Trump, however, can do whatever he wants. He can declare me an enemy of the state and throw me in gitmo. See the difference?

Would that be constitutional?

marina

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:47 pm

Quote:

And would you be okay if he said that anyone who burns the gay rainbow flag be charged with a hate crime? How about the Mexican flag? And if it would be a hate crime to burn the gay rainbow flag or the Mexican flag, then why would it not be a hate crime to burn the American flag?

Burning any flag is protected by free speech. If someone was imprisoned for burning any flag, American, rainbow, Mexican, Camp Gan Izzy, - that would be A HORRIFIC VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, one which everyone should protest.

marina

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:49 pm

sushilover wrote:

Would that be constitutional?

No I don't think it would be constitutional to throw me in Gitmo for burning a flag. By the time Scotus has ruled on that, my kids will have grown up and gone to college. So, not taking any chances.

marina

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:51 pm

Squishy wrote:

The illegals cost us $113 BILLION each year!!!! If I could spend $400 and save $113 each year, I would be overjoyed with such an investment. What a rate of return!!!

Find a neutral source for this. And I hope your source also considers how much benefit illegal immigrants bring to the country, like all the taxes that they pay. So yes, I'd love to see a neutral source that says our net loss from illegals is 113 billion a year. Go for it!

sushilover

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:53 pm

marina wrote:

How do you decide when to take him figuratively or literally? Like when he says he will deport illegals and build a wall and destroy ISIS and protect Israel and drain the swamp and make America great again- was that all something we should have taken figuratively?

I don't take much of what he says too literally, and honestly you shouldn't either.
His words tell me where is heart is and the spirit of his intentions.
For example, I believe that he will take illegal immigration seriously, but I do not literally think he will build a wall that will get ten feet higher every time Mexico refuses to pay for it.

I would have loved to have a president who I could take seriously, but then again, I'd rather have Trump and his figurative language than have a Clinton who I trust would do what she says. (at least more than Trump)

marina

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:57 pm

sushilover wrote:

Trump's latest estimate of how many illegals he will deport is lower than what Obama did through 2015... but sure.

Fox

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:58 pm

marina wrote:

I, personally, would never post anything under my name publicly criticizing him. He can easily take action and it will take the supreme court years to sort it out. I can't imagine how journalists get up every day and do their job.

Well, they seem remarkably sanguine about it. MSM seems to have no trouble printing articles critical of Trump, and no one at places like HuffPo, Salon, Slate, Mic, Daily Beast, etc., seems to be muzzled by fear.

marina wrote:

Trump, however, can do whatever he wants. He can declare me an enemy of the state and throw me in gitmo.

What is happening between November 8 and January 20 that significantly changes the parameters of executive privilege?

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:58 pm

marina wrote:

Its from the Heritage Foundation. Widely discredited, but that's the source.

marina

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:59 pm

Speaking of illegal immigrants, here is a clip of two more famous crazy liberals who pushed their leftist open-borders agenda on the poor American people:

sushilover

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 6:01 pm

marina wrote:

No I don't think it would be constitutional to throw me in Gitmo for burning a flag. By the time Scotus has ruled on that, my kids will have grown up and gone to college. So, not taking any chances.

Reminds me of a Captain Hindsight meme saying something like; If you didn't want someone like Trump to have so much power, you shouldn't have spent so many years giving so much power to the executive branch.

Also this wikileaks tweet : https://twitter.com/wikileaks/.....5Etfw

marina

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 6:05 pm

Fox wrote:

What is happening between November 8 and January 20 that significantly changes the parameters of executive privilege?

A president is categorically allowed to detain enemy combatants pursuant to his status as Commander in Chief

marina

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 6:07 pm

sushilover wrote:

Valid point in general, but not in specific bc Obama's not the one who opened Gitmo or began declaring citizens to be enemy combatants.

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 6:07 pm

sushilover wrote:

So, let's get this straight. You don't want Trump to do the things he said he's going to do. But you still like him because you think that he lied about all that stuff.

Fox

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 6:09 pm

sushilover wrote:

Also this wikileaks tweet : https://twitter.com/wikileaks/.....5Etfw

The comments and responses are better than any comedian could imagine.

WikiLeaks: Don't give more power to an elected office than you're wiling to live with when it's in your adversaries' hands.

Response: Trump is a white nationalist and you enabled him!

Okie dokie. And that would be an F in Logic 101.

Fox

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 6:10 pm

marina wrote:

A president is categorically allowed to detain enemy combatants pursuant to his status as Commander in Chief

Right, but that's not something new. Why is this a crisis today but not a year ago?

sushilover

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 6:16 pm

There's also valid reason to believe that congress will give Trump less power than they gave Obama. Yes, even the Republican congress.

Trump claims (yes, claims. But don't take his word for it Speechless

) to be a supporter of this bill https://www.congress.gov/114/b.....s.pdf which would diminish his executive power and authority.

Again, I hope, something we can all support.
I just wish the esteemed liberal posters here supported this idea when we had a liberal in power.

sarahleah88

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 6:16 pm

We, collectively, have elected a person who has serious, serious impulse control problems compounded by a narcissistic personality, and a myriad of other psychological abnormalities that are staggeringly frightening. Yes, I voted for Hillary because I feared the world to come under Trump. Now it is here. Get used to it. It will become even more bizarre. Then, with luck and good fortune, he will be impeached at some point and Mike Pence, the lesser of two substantial evils, will take over the presidency. This is not between Republicans and Democrats, this is between those who failed to recognized and/or acknowledge severe psychological problems and those who pragmatically chose the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils lost. So the "big evil" is in charge now. Sit back and watch the movie.

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 6:20 pm

marina wrote:

Valid point in general, but not in specific bc Obama's not the one who opened Gitmo or began declaring citizens to be enemy combatants.

Bush ordered the formation of a CIA kill squad after 9/11. When Leon Panetta told legislators about it in 2009, he stated that the CIA hired Blackwater, a private security firm, to help run it. Think about that one!

How many times did the US attempt to assassinate Castro?

While Obama extended the Patriot Act, it was passed by Bush.

So let's not pretend its all Obama.

Oh, and Obama hasn't pursued journalists or their sources. He has pursued Julian Assange, who has been accused of rape, and who publishes illegally hacked emails, and uses them to [successfully] influence US elections.

marina

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 6:23 pm

Fox wrote:

Right, but that's not something new. Why is this a crisis today but not a year ago?

bc today our president elect is threatening jail /loss of citizenship for exercising free speech?