Donald Trump: The Softening.

[AlbqOwl]

Okay, a link. It's a start but hardly a pristine legal article (why always Fox, fercrissakes?). I had to sift through the BS of a FoxNews online (even more fact-free than on TV) to try to get some facts but at least this is a start. I wonder if you just read the headline or the entire story because this comes about half way into it:


Other than that one fairly brief inclusion of some facts, the rest of the piece is some guy's opinion about the process.

Like it or not, everyone--citizen or not--in this country is entitled to due process, a guarantee of the Constitution which you claim this article is shows it being skirted. So tell me how this example ignores, defies, "dishonors" or in any way violates any constitutional principle.

And just for the record, deportations over the past 8 years, Obama has the dubious honor of all time high deportation numbers:U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013 | Pew Research Center

I have no problem with Obama's record on deportations. I do have a problem with his refusal to stop the flow of illegals who are then, by law, subject to deportation and his illegal by law selective decisions of who will and won't be deported. I have a problem with court rulings requiring free education, healthcare, and other benefits to people who are in the country illegally. And there should be little 'due process' involved with that. You follow the law. It requires very little effort, even for a homeless person, to provide sufficient information for officials to verify that they were born in the USA or born to U.S. parents. Those who cannot do so, out they are supposed to go according to law.

I can see a change in the law to allow officials to not deport those who are in the country illegally but who have been here as contributors to society instead of a drain on it for many years, most especially those brought here as children. But the law should be changed by Congress, not by the courts.

And I would be happy to use other sources than Fox News and the underground press, but unfortunately the MSM will not competently cover any issue or problem that casts any doubt on illegality on the part of Obama or any other prominent Democrat. They bury such things or give them such short shrift that the coverage is pretty useless for information.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Can we get back to the Constitution, which you claimed is being "violated" wholesale by the courts? I responded to that link which really didn't have anything to do with a constitutional case (unless there's one pending that is challenging these immigration court rulings--but you didn't cite one). If you're going to claim there are all these violations, don't you feel the slightest obligation to actually come up with one? Judging by your first sentence up there and the fact you didn't cite one, I guess the answer is no until proven otherwise. (BTW, I started this thread so if there's any moving on to do, you'd be the one to do it.)

The Constitution states that laws will be made by Congress and will be signed into law or vetoed by the President of the United States. No authority is given to the courts to make or change laws.

 

[radcen]

I'm always amused when people who hardly know what's in or not in the constitution talk about "adhering strictly" or "honoring" (what the hell does that even mean?) it. The SCOTUS determines what the Constitution means, not the President (and definitely not some guy in his barcalounger out in suburbia). If a President or any other elected body or official does something that violates the Constitution there's a process for determining that.

It means, "I want it interpreted MY way."

 

[radcen]

There he is, Trumpsters: The Soft One. He's gone completely limp on you. Campaignus Interruptus. If you want to see a precision surgical evisceration of what he calls a "mega flip-flop" go here and scroll down to the Charlie Sykes interview clip. It's only 50 sec long but it will be a painful 50 sec.

The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC

A lot of people like Trump because "he means what he says", only now it appears he didn't mean what he said. He was either lying then, or he's lying now.

 

[blaxshep]

A lot of people like Trump because "he means what he says", only now it appears he didn't mean what he said. He was either lying then, or he's lying now.

It means he changed his stance. A lie is when someone says there were no classified documents on her e-mail server when in fact there was and she knew there was.

Quite Frankly it makes little difference what he says on immigration in the real world, he's not going to get a Mexican financed wall, he's not going to be able to deport 12million illegals and he's not going to be able to ban Muslims from coming into the country.

 

[digitusmedius]

The Constitution states that laws will be made by Congress and will be signed into law or vetoed by the President of the United States. No authority is given to the courts to make or change laws.

That's a complete diversion/deflection. Federal courts are where constitutional issues are argued and decided. No one suggested that these or any other courts "make or change laws." Lower courts are "regulated" by higher ones and the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. You claimed "the courts" are violating the Constitution which doesn't really make sense in the first place since the way it works is that a lower court may, in the opinion of a higher court, err in its ruling on a constitutional matter but that does really violate the Constitution. Laws can violate the Constitution. Government and private entities may violate it but courts can only rule on constitutional issues. When lower courts "err" the higher courts will correct that. The end point is the SCOTUS. The only remedy for disagreement on the unconstitutionality of a law by a SCOTUS ruling would be legislative: Congress can try to rewrite the law to meet judicial muster. I am really not trying to be sarcastic or demeaning here, but your comment indicates an incomplete understanding for how our entire legislative and judicial branches operate. Back to your claim of courts "violating" the Constitution: I believe what you're really saying is that you don't like the way courts have decided certain cases. Believe me, I hear you. I think the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United was an abomination in the interpretation of the Constitution by a slim conservative majority of the justices. Do I think that "violated" the Constitution? No. It means there's a big difference of opinion on what the Constitution means to various people. I have to accept the ruling, like it or not, and try to get a legislative fix to the problem of unlimited corporate money polluting our politics. That may or may not happen. I'd hope that you'd understand that's the way you'd have to remedy the rulings you don't like rather than just baselessly ranting about the constitutional violations by the courts. The other way to affect court decisions politically is electing a President who will appoint justices and federal judges who might reflect that President's values. The Senate gets to have a say in that process. That's the way it's been done since the beginning of this republic. It's the constitutionally prescribed process for trying to maintain independence of the three branches of government. It's slow, cumbersome and often inefficient. It's even been antithetical to our stated founding values as when the court system propped up the political case for slavery for that institution's entire existence but that's the way it seems the founders wanted it.

 

[radcen]

It means he changed his stance. A lie is when someone says there were no classified documents on her e-mail server when in fact there was and she knew there was.

Quite Frankly it makes little difference what he says on immigration in the real world, he's not going to get a Mexican financed wall, he's not going to be able to deport 12million illegals and he's not going to be able to ban Muslims from coming into the country.

Sorry, but I don't buy that for a second.

I should note that it is very common for a politician to "move to the right/left" in a primary to gain the base, then "move to the center" in the general election to woo the swing voter. This is time tested strategy... and I've never liked it. Because I have an attention span longer than a week, it always makes me feel that I cannot trust the candidate because I don't know which one they really are. But, it works.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That's a complete diversion/deflection. Federal courts are where constitutional issues are argued and decided. No one suggested that these or any other courts "make or change laws." Lower courts are "regulated" by higher ones and the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. You claimed "the courts" are violating the Constitution which doesn't really make sense in the first place since the way it works is that a lower court may, in the opinion of a higher court, err in its ruling on a constitutional matter but that does really violate the Constitution. Laws can violate the Constitution. Government and private entities may violate the it but courts can only rule on constitutional issues. When lower courts "err" the higher courts will correct that. The end point is the SCOTUS. The only remedy for disagreement on the unconstitutionality of a law by a SCOTUS ruling would be legislative: Congress can try to rewrite the law to meet judicial muster. I am really not trying to be sarcastic or demeaning here, but your comment indicates an incomplete understanding for how our entire legislative and judicial branches operate. Back to your claim of courts "violating" the Constitution: I believe what you're really saying is that you don't like the way courts have decided certain cases. Believe me, I hear you. I think the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United was an abomination in the interpretation of the Constitution by a slim conservative majority of the justices. Do I think that "violated" the Constitution? No. It means there's a big difference of opinion on what the Constitution means to various people. I have to accept the ruling, like it or not, and try to get a legislative fix to the problem of unlimited corporate money polluting our politics. That may or may not happen. I'd hope that you'd understand that's the way you'd have to remedy the rulings you don't like rather than just baselessly ranting about the constitutional violations by the courts.

And I think you don't understand the original purpose of the courts at all. But oh well. Have a nice day.

 

[blaxshep]

That's a complete diversion/deflection. Federal courts are where constitutional issues are argued and decided. No one suggested that these or any other courts "make or change laws." Lower courts are "regulated" by higher ones and the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. You claimed "the courts" are violating the Constitution which doesn't really make sense in the first place since the way it works is that a lower court may, in the opinion of a higher court, err in its ruling on a constitutional matter but that does really violate the Constitution. Laws can violate the Constitution. Government and private entities may violate it but courts can only rule on constitutional issues. When lower courts "err" the higher courts will correct that. The end point is the SCOTUS. The only remedy for disagreement on the unconstitutionality of a law by a SCOTUS ruling would be legislative: Congress can try to rewrite the law to meet judicial muster. I am really not trying to be sarcastic or demeaning here, but your comment indicates an incomplete understanding for how our entire legislative and judicial branches operate. Back to your claim of courts "violating" the Constitution: I believe what you're really saying is that you don't like the way courts have decided certain cases. Believe me, I hear you. I think the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United was an abomination in the interpretation of the Constitution by a slim conservative majority of the justices. Do I think that "violated" the Constitution? No. It means there's a big difference of opinion on what the Constitution means to various people. I have to accept the ruling, like it or not, and try to get a legislative fix to the problem of unlimited corporate money polluting our politics. That may or may not happen. I'd hope that you'd understand that's the way you'd have to remedy the rulings you don't like rather than just baselessly ranting about the constitutional violations by the courts.

Thank you for proving what I said about debating you on this topic. You said exactly what I knew you would, whatever the SC rules is a valid interpretation and that makes it constitutional.

 

[digitusmedius]

It means, "I want it interpreted MY way."

Yep. We all do it to some extent when a ruling goes against what we'd have liked politically. The right seems to think they're the only ones who seem to think it should always go they're way.

 

[MaggieD]

Oh, c'mon. You can't really be that naive or gullible. The only thing Trump may be "learning" (and I use that word guardedly) is that if he doesn't change his rhetoric he's going to get his ass stomped in November. He's now reduced his "they all gotta go" to "well, maybe it's too hard for some and maybe amnesty and maybe dreamers." I recommend you try to find the video of the "town hall" mess he did yesterday with his media stooge, Hannity, yesterday. If you can't see the desperate moves of a politician whose waffling back and forth with nearly every other sentence then you are a pure Trump worshiper and don't care what he says or means. Fergawdsakes, even Ann Coulter, up to now his most slavish devotee (so much so that she released a book of adoration yesterday) began burning him on Twitter (on the same day!!!) for it.

I don't care. You think HC believes in everything she spouts? Of COURSE not. She has carefully HONED her rhetoric. Trumps just getting started which is what makes him very attractive. You want the same old **** from the same old mold? I don't.

 

[blaxshep]

I don't care. You think HC believes in everything she spouts? Of COURSE not. She has carefully HONED her rhetoric. Trumps just getting started which is what makes him very attractive. You want the same old **** from the same old mold? I don't.

The worst part is Trump just runs his mouth because he's a spoiled brat millionaire turned billionaire, he doesn't know any better. Hillary is an evil conniving calculated liar, yet liberal's are all fooled or they just don't care.

 

[digitusmedius]

Thank you for proving what I said about debating you on this topic. You said exactly what I knew you would, whatever the SC rules is a valid interpretation and that makes it constitutional.

Yes. That is exactly right. What other authority on constitutionality do you think exists? Reason magazine? Christamighty, did you never take even a middle school subject on civics?

 

[digitusmedius]

I don't care. You think HC believes in everything she spouts? Of COURSE not. She has carefully HONED her rhetoric. Trumps just getting started which is what makes him very attractive. You want the same old **** from the same old mold? I don't.

Tranlation: HRC actually has policies and sticks to them. Damn her for that.


Your basis of support for that jackass is that he doesn't know ****, doesn't have a clue what his own rhetoric involves and will turn on a dime every other minute?
Moderate, my ass.

 

[blaxshep]

Yes. That is exactly right. What other authority on constitutionality do you think exists? Reason magazine? Christamighty, did you never take even a middle school subject on civics?

So you're doubling down on the reason why I said debating this with you was pointless. :applaud

 

[radcen]

The worst part is Trump just runs his mouth because he's a spoiled brat millionaire turned billionaire, he doesn't know any better. Hillary is an evil conniving calculated liar, yet liberal's are all fooled or they just don't care.

Don't disagree on Hillary one bit.

While I don't see Trump as an "evil conniving calculated liar", I do see him as a "cold-hearted selfish conniving calculated liar".

The only aspect that puts one above the other... in a relative sense, they're both horrid overall... is that Hillary at least understands world politics and knows what not to do to screw ourselves regarding foreign relations.

 

[digitusmedius]

So you're doubling down on the reason why I said debating this with you was pointless. :applaud

You really can't even answer that question...well, of course you can't. You don't even have a clue how our government works. No wonder you refuse to discuss. This is why I love engaging libertarians even more than republicans. At least most republicans have a slight clue about this but libertarians have gorged themselves on pure fantasies.

 

[blaxshep]

Tranlation: HRC actually has policies and sticks to them.

No she doesn't, not by a long shot.

https://gop.com/hillary-vs-clinton/

 

[digitusmedius]

No she doesn't, not by a long shot.

https://gop.com/hillary-vs-clinton/

You actually link to a republican lie-site and expect to be taken seriously. That's just hilarious. You remind me of KellyAnne Conway during the delicate eviscerating she received in her interview with Rachel Maddow. About 2/3 the way in she just stopped trying to defend Trump and started deflecting to HRC...."yeah, but Hillary this and Clinton that." She could no longer come up with any excuses for her boss's stupidity, ineptitude, dishonesty and loutishness.

 

[blaxshep]

Hillary at least understands world politics and knows what not to do to screw ourselves regarding foreign relations.

Actually that is the problem with Hillary, she is a cog in the liberal globalist machine. I'd rather have Trump piss off some people that we should have pissed off long ago then have Hillary selling our Sovereignty.

 

[blaxshep]

You actually link to a republican lie-site and expect to be taken seriously. That's just hilarious.

I see there is no point in debating anything with you, you're on ignore from now on.

 

[radcen]

Actually that is the problem with Hillary, she is a cog in the liberal globalist machine. I'd rather have Trump piss off some people that we should have pissed off long ago then have Hillary selling our Sovereignty.

We would do well to send some packing, and I doubt seriously Hillary would do that. No disagreement there at all. I think Trump would not know which ones are necessary to keep and which ones aren't important.

 

[digitusmedius]

I see there is no point in debating anything with you, you're on ignore from now on.

Yes, you've made it more than clear that you're not up to it. Not sure why you're still here when it's obvious, and by your own admission, you can't hang in.

 

[blaxshep]

I think Trump would not know which ones are necessary to keep and which ones aren't important.

You're probably right there. It may seem wrong but I think Putin would be a good ally to have. I see the enemy now as the globalists. Europe is a nightmare.

 

[digitusmedius]

You're probably right there. It may seem wrong but I think Putin would be a good ally to have. I see the enemy now as the globalists. Europe is a nightmare.

Weren't you the one yesterday who said he'd rather vote for Hitler than Hillary? And now this? It's beginning to seem like you're really hoping for a totalitarian state solution to your grievances.