Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

[houndawg]

Their intent with the 2nd was based on their desire to avoid the expense of "..standing armies and foreign entanglements.." and that no professional army was necessary because we intended to only play defense and should that be necessary the government would assemble a well-regulated militia to deal with the invaders. And back then there weren't "only muskets". There were lots of artillery pieces for land and sea - we didn't win the Revolution with muskets alone - none of which were kept at the private residences of the militia members that constituted the artillery units or naval gun crews.

Today we have a professional military, foreign entanglements, a vanishingly small chance of being activated for some national defense purpose, and, even if that were to happen somehow, they will provide you with the proper tools to do the job. The real stuff. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and I agree with that part - but there have always been limits to what arms can be owned and the same people that are absolutists on the 2nd amendment try to hand out some tired bullshit about the meaning of the "well regulated" part
.

Not entirely true. There are several Federalist Papers (#8, #24, as well as #46, including both Hamilton and Madison) that talk about standing armies and none of those sources say we should not have a standing army nor that the 2A precludes them. In fact, those sources argue for the presence of both a standing army and a floating navy, albeit moderate-sized to do the defensive job as you indicate and not large enough to pose a threat to the individual states. I do agree that 2A absolutists, though, have misinterpreted the amendment.

I didn't say anything about the 2nd amendment precluding anything. I said they wanted to avoid the expense of keeping a standing army and I also mentioned that "keep and bear arms" didn't extend to heavier weapons back then either.

[BDKJMU]

Not entirely true. There are several Federalist Papers (#8, #24, as well as #46, including both Hamilton and Madison) that talk about standing armies and none of those sources say we should not have a standing army nor that the 2A precludes them. In fact, those sources argue for the presence of both a standing army and a floating navy, albeit moderate-sized to do the defensive job as you indicate and not large enough to pose a threat to the individual states. I do agree that 2A absolutists, though, have misinterpreted the amendment.

I didn't say anything about the 2nd amendment precluding anything. I said they wanted to avoid the expense of keeping a standing army and I also mentioned that "keep and bear arms" didn't extend to heavier weapons back then either.

Also you were also wrong. Even the lib Wa Post and Politifact acknowledge that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ownership/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ndment-li/

[houndawg]

I didn't say anything about the 2nd amendment precluding anything. I said they wanted to avoid the expense of keeping a standing army and I also mentioned that "keep and bear arms" didn't extend to heavier weapons back then either.

Also you were also wrong. Even the lib Wa Post and Politifact acknowledge that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ownership/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ndment-li/

But you don't argue with the main point about trying to avoid the expense of having a standing army. Which no longer applies.

[GannonFan]

That's just made up crap. It's best to not look for legal advice, especially Constitutional legal advice, from Trump or anyone associated with Trump.

The 14th amendment, and especially the Citizenship Clause, has been litigated through the courts and it's been overwhelmingly on the side of birthright citizenship. The fact that it's been so overwhelmingly so in favor of birthright citizenship that it's not even been contested for many years now. It only started being talked about more as an issue as certain conservative groups, not happy with the amount of brown people entering the country, started to float it again as a real issue. There are at least 6 SCOTUS level cases that either dealt with this directly, or touched on it, and they all overwhelmingly went to the side saying the 14th amendment, like the English common law that was in place before it, clearly affirms birthplace citizenship.

We can debate all you want if we should have birthplace citizenship and if we should amend the Constitution to overturn what's clearly laid out in the 14th amendment, but there's little to no debate in serious legal circles regarding whether it's currently there. It is.

And in none of those cases has SCOTUS explicitly ruled on whether the Citizenship Clause applies children of illegal immigrants (the most often cited case that dealt with the birthright citizenship, the 1898 case, the Chinese parents were non citizen legal immigrants). And there are some constitutional scholars that argue the intent of the authors of the Citizenship Clause of 14A was not include children born to illegal immigrants.

Of course there are some constitutional scholars who think birthright citizenship doesn't apply to children of illegal immigrants, but for any idea or any debate there are always going to be some people on both sides - that's just human nature. But this only started to be floated as an idea by fairly conservative groups a few decades ago as a way to limit the number of brown babies born in the US that they didn't want to give citizenship to. However, that position flies in the face of the general meaning of multiple SCOTUS cases (granted, didn't specifically deal with illegal immigrants) as well as centuries of English Common Law. No one worth their salt really believes this is an open issue. Like the 2A, it's a case of having to amend the Constitution if you really want to change it.

[UNI88]

This didn't age well ...

[kalm]

This didn't age well ...

Without watching I’m guessing he was adamant about protecting classified documents and improving how they’re handled?

[UNI88]

Mutants?

[UNI88]

Trump Says His Hand-Picked Chief of Staff Was ‘Born With a Very Small Brain’

Donald Trump has said he only hires “the best people,” but he stocked his presidential administration with a historically incompetent collection of fools who have no business working in government.

Just ask Donald Trump.

The former president has thrown countless figures he appointed to critical positions under the bus, deriding them as inherently stupid losers incapable of doing the job. The latest is John Kelly, who served as Homeland Security secretary under Trump before moving into the White House as chief of staff.

“John Kelly pretended to be a ‘tough guy,’ but was actually weak and ineffective, born with a VERY small ‘brain,'” Trump wrote Friday on Truth Social.

Does trump require brain scans of all hires?

[UNI88]

Donald Trump, who said he only hired the best people, was asked why so many key players of his administration do not want him to be president again

This time, your Vice President Mike Pence is running against you. Your ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, she's running against you. Your former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said he's not supporting you.

You mentioned National Security Adviser John Bolton. He's not supporting you, either. You mentioned Attorney General Bill Barr. Says you shouldn't be president again. Calls you 'the consummate narcissist' and 'troubled man.' You recently called Barr a 'gutless pig.'"

Your second defense secretary is not supporting you. Called you irresponsible. This week, you called your White House Chief of Staff John Kelly 'weak and ineffective' and 'born with a very small brain.' You called your acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney a 'born loser.' You called your first Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, 'dumb as a rock,' and your first Defense Secretary, James Mattis, 'the world's most overrated general.' You called your White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany 'milquetoast.'

And multiple times, you've referred to your Transportation secretary, Elaine Chao, as 'Mitch McConnell's China-loving wife.'

[UNI88]

[UNI88]

The dude is unhinged.

[BDKJMU]

Is that what the pedophile group the Lincoln Project, is now calling themselves, the Republican Accountability Project?

[UNI88]

Is that what the pedophile group the Lincoln Project, is now calling themselves, the Republican Accountability Project?

I don't know. Are those notorious pedophiles/groomers Gaetz, Jordan, Lazzaro, Hastert, etc. part of one or both of those groups?

[houndawg]

The dude is unhinged.

but his spelling is vastly improved

[UNI88]

If you voted for this lying old yeller of a tool, you know what to do. Punch yourself in the face.

[kalm]

Is that what the pedophile group the Lincoln Project, is now calling themselves, the Republican Accountability Project?

What about Republicans against Trump? Are you opposed to them as well?

[UNI88]

trump continues to dump on veterans ...

Trump Team Calls Iraq War Veteran Sen. Jeff Reichman ‘Weak-Kneed’ For Pulling Support

One day after Sen. Jeff Reichman (R-Iowa) withdrew his support in favor of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), the Iraq War veteran — who served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 29 years — was impugned by Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung in a statement.

Cheung, who formerly worked in communications for the UFC and Trump’s previous two campaigns, told Politico on Friday, “There is no room for weak-kneed and lily-livered people on Team Trump.” The campaign spokesman also accused DeSantis of buying Reichman off.

I know Jeff Reichmann. I don't always agree with his politics but he isn't "weak-kneed and lily-livered".

Ol' bone spurs is a coward.

[UNI88]

6 days until trump drops this bombshell report ...

[Baldy]

6 days until trump drops this bombshell report ...

Trump's 'bombshell'......

[Winterborn]

Is that what the pedophile group the Lincoln Project, is now calling themselves, the Republican Accountability Project?

I don't know. Are those notorious pedophiles/groomers Gaetz, Jordan, Lazzaro, Hastert, etc. part of one or both of those groups?

You need another name.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is ending its sex trafficking investigation into Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., without charging him with any crimes, his attorneys and congressional office said.

“We have just spoken with the DOJ and have been informed that they have concluded their investigation into Congressman Gaetz and allegations related to sex trafficking and obstruction of justice and they have determined not to bring any charges against him,” Gaetz attorneys Marc Mukasey and Isabelle Kirshner said in a statemen

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... -rcna70839

[UNI88]

I don't know. Are those notorious pedophiles/groomers Gaetz, Jordan, Lazzaro, Hastert, etc. part of one or both of those groups?

You need another name.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is ending its sex trafficking investigation into Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., without charging him with any crimes, his attorneys and congressional office said.

“We have just spoken with the DOJ and have been informed that they have concluded their investigation into Congressman Gaetz and allegations related to sex trafficking and obstruction of justice and they have determined not to bring any charges against him,” Gaetz attorneys Marc Mukasey and Isabelle Kirshner said in a statemen

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... -rcna70839

Not charged does not equal not guilty.

I think he’s a creep who took a near adult but still underaged girl across a state line for sex.

Theres more evidence that he’s a groomer than there is that every trans person is but MAGAt yahoos continue to push that narrative.

He’s staying on the list.

[Winterborn]

You need another name.



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... -rcna70839

Not charged does not equal not guilty.
agly
I think he’s a creep who took a near adult but still underaged girl across a state line for sex.

Theres more evidence that he’s a groomer than there is that every trans person is but MAGAt yahoos continue to push that narrative.

He’s staying on the list.

Don't disagree in the court of public opinion. But legally he is cleared. (And I am not defending him from the public opinion side as I agree.)

That said, arguing which side has more groomers and pedophiles/sexual crimes is a dumb argument as they are basically tied (based on the lists I have seen). Neither side has exclusive right to that title and it goes back and forth depending on the year and who is elected. Scum floats to the top and should be treated equally.

There is also the topic of what is going on in the redefining sexuality movement but that IMHO is a separate topic and should be discussed as a separate topic.

[UNI88]

Not charged does not equal not guilty.

I think he’s a creep who took a near adult but still underaged girl across a state line for sex.

There's more evidence that he’s a groomer than there is that every trans person is but MAGAt yahoos continue to push that narrative.

He’s staying on the list.

Don't disagree in the court of public opinion. But legally he is cleared. (And I am not defending him from the public opinion side as I agree.)

That said, arguing which side has more groomers and pedophiles/sexual crimes is a dumb argument as they are basically tied (based on the lists I have seen). Neither side has exclusive right to that title and it goes back and forth depending on the year and who is elected. Scum floats to the top and should be treated equally.

There is also the topic of what is going on in the redefining sexuality movement but that IMHO is a separate topic and should be discussed as a separate topic.

I like to post these things to tweak posters like BDK who trumpet the MAGAt yahoo line that all trans (or LGBTQ+) people are groomers or pedophiles. Anyone who actually uses their brain rather than believing the misinformation they're fed knows that's BS. A trans person is less likely to be a groomer or pedophile than a clergy person.

Members of both major parties have their issues and I enjoy pointing them out and calling them out for their hypocrisy. Your post to kalm is probably right - I've been doing it for years and have had little to no effect. Why do I bother pissing into the wind?

When it comes to the "redefining sexuality movement" I just try to be a rational and compassionate person.

[Winterborn]

I completely understand and trolling/tweaking posters is what makes the internet community what it is (and fun). Statically speaking when comparing the population as a whole, the likely hood is about the same no matter what group one is discussing. Our brains just remember certain things more so because they stand out (and what makes something stand out varies from person to person).

Certain groups like to bring the discussion down into the weeds for good reasons, as it obfuscates the actual "benefit" that something has, if it has one at all. (The current automobile ignition interlock discussion is a great example, so is unwanted pregnancy from incest and abortion.)

You start from a " rational and compassionate person" and I start out form what provides the "most freedom for all groups or infringes the least", they both lead to the same result, IMHO. In the "redefining sexuality movement", both sides are partially in the wrong and need to compromise, so that one can practice ones beliefs and let kids be kids.

[BDKJMU]

Don't disagree in the court of public opinion. But legally he is cleared. (And I am not defending him from the public opinion side as I agree.)

That said, arguing which side has more groomers and pedophiles/sexual crimes is a dumb argument as they are basically tied (based on the lists I have seen). Neither side has exclusive right to that title and it goes back and forth depending on the year and who is elected. Scum floats to the top and should be treated equally.

There is also the topic of what is going on in the redefining sexuality movement but that IMHO is a separate topic and should be discussed as a separate topic.

I like to post these things to tweak posters like BDK who trumpet the MAGAt yahoo line that all trans (or LGBTQ+) people are groomers or pedophiles. Anyone who actually uses their brain rather than believing the misinformation they're fed knows that's BS. A trans person is less likely to be a groomer or pedophile than a clergy person.

Members of both major parties have their issues and I enjoy pointing them out and calling them out for their hypocrisy. Your post to kalm is probably right - I've been doing it for years and have had little to no effect. Why do I bother pissing into the wind?

When it comes to the "redefining sexuality movement" I just try to be a rational and compassionate person.

Also I never said that all the alphabet people are groomers or pedos. I have said that those who are trying to indoctrinate the youth in woke trans ideology are groomers.