Ask Me Help Desk - How Trump Sees Things

Quote:

Unfortunately I doubt you will ever understand the remarks Congressman Waters makes about those riots long ago, nor how it evolved through the decades since that affect us today in profound ways .

Easy for you to say. You were not among the 63 killed. I find it beyond amazing that you feel such sympathy for a group of hoodlums who killed and rampaged, but have nothing to say about the dead, their families, and the thousands who lost much of what they had in this world, most of whom were law-abiding black Americans. You looking for someone to feel sorry for and understand? Try that group. You really believe that the killers and vandals were acting out of some pent-up, justifiable anger over social conditions? Since when do you have to kill someone and burn down their business in order to protest? I think you are greatly mistaken in your sympathies. Ask me to feel sorry for the victims, and you'll find a lot of agreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

The dufus is but a symptom of a greater problem. Hate, born of fear. He didn't create the problem, but he sure ain't the solution. Unfortunately I doubt you will ever understand the remarks Congressman Waters makes about those riots long ago, nor how it evolved through the decades since that affect us today in profound ways . Etc., etc., etc.

Well done, Talaniman. I was writing more or less the same thing, but you said it better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Easy for you to say. You were not among the 63 killed.

You missed tal's point. He was not justifying the riots, he was giving context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Easy for you to say. You were not among the 63 killed. I find it beyond amazing that you feel such sympathy for a group of hoodlums who killed and rampaged, but have nothing to say about the dead, their families, and the thousands who lost much of what they had in this world, most of whom were law-abiding black Americans. You looking for someone to feel sorry for and understand? Try that group. You really believe that the killers and vandals were acting out of some pent-up, justifiable anger over social conditions? Since when do you have to kill someone and burn down their business in order to protest? I think you are greatly mistaken in your sympathies. Ask me to feel sorry for the victims, and you'll find a lot of agreement.

You still cannot see the conditions that makes such events more than possible and highly probable. Let me add more data to this equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_riots

So you see the 1992 riots were not the first in Watts. Similar events have also happened across the country. I think if you step back you would see the same themes and conditions and not just the killers and vandals who jump in during these events. Maybe once you recognize those conditions then maybe you will see that it will and has happened again. The dufus ain't the solution, he is without doubt part of the problem which has little to do with liberals or conservatives.

Don't be so distracted by your own prejudices and resentments. You should be more interested in prevention.

Quote:

You should be more interested in prevention.

I just don't think making excuses for the criminals is helpful with prevention. I don't like much of what is going on in our country, but to date I have not gone out and killed anyone or destroyed their property. There is no excuse for it and no context in which it is acceptable.

Hello A:

How does Trump see himself? Well, he's NOT good at hiding things.. To me, it's CLEAR that he's Putin's puppet, and he's PROUD to be Putin's puppet.

Clearly, he's doing his BEST to DESTROY America from within so he can turn it over to Putin. His efforts are OBVIOUS.. He calls CNN the enemy of the people, and some crazy jerk thinks he's HELPING Trump and BOMBS CNN.. Did that open Trumps eyes? NOO.. He's calling CNN the enemy of the people TODAY again..

To me that GIVES a green light to the NEXT bomber.. Trump KNOWS it and wants the conflagration to begin. In either case, he needs to be REMOVED from office forthwith before he destroys us all..

excon

Quote:

To me that GIVES a green light to the NEXT bomber

So who gave the green light to this guy? North Carolina republican office hit by firebomb. The article notes, " the culprits marked their hate for the party by spray-painting the words 'Nazi Republicans.'" Does that concern you, or is it only the relatively small portion of violent acts committed by Trump supporters that you are worried about?

https://nypost.com/2016/10/16/north-...94RgHWwI5nZTJY

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I just don't think making excuses for the criminals is helpful with prevention. I don't like much of what is going on in our country, but to date I have not gone out and killed anyone or destroyed their property. There is no excuse for it and no context in which it is acceptable.

I made no excuses for criminals, I think that's just you being hardcore entrenched in your opinion, and ignoring the long available data into the causes of violence and civil unrest.

You just got through making excuses for criminals several posts back, excusing the violence in the LA riots. Now I know you don't approve of violence. The difference between us is that I oppose all of it. The crazy man who sent the bombs should be prosecuted. Trump needs to tone it way down, but the loonies on the left who repeatedly call Trump a nazi, compare him to Hitler, and call for violent upheaval are all equally guilty. Don't believe that last one? Check out what the Huff Post had to say.

"Violent resistance matters. Riots can lead to major change (*note the irony of that hyperlink going to a Vox article). It’s not liberal politicians or masses that historians identify as the spark underlying the modern movement for LGBTQ equality. Nor was it a think piece from some smarmy liberal writer. It was the people who took to the streets during the Stonewall Uprising. It was the Watts Rebellion, not the Watts Battle of Ideas, that exposed the enduring systemic neglect, poverty, inequality, and racism faced by that community. Similarly, it was the LA Uprising, not the LA Protests, that led to significant changes in the Los Angeles Police Department."

That is in excess by far of anything Trump has said, but I don't think you pay attention to it because it is liberal propaganda. Read it for yourself.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse..._10316186.html

I'm outside working on a project, and it hits me that Tal probably knows more about this stuff in his little finger than I know all over. I am extending an overhang out to be a screened in porch. You will notice two 2x8 supports under the old overhang. They will eventually come down. There will be, of course, 2x4's around to perimeter for support and to hold the screen. Any suggestions? Please say something nice about the porch railing. I put that in. (<:

Attachment 49078 Attachment 49079 Attachment 49080 Attachment 49081

Ex seriously ? You fell for that Manchurian Candidate stuff too ?

Quote:

His efforts are OBVIOUS.. He calls CNN the enemy of the people,

Well that settles it! Anyone who calls CNN the enemy of the people is plainly out to turn the country over to the Russkies. Glad you caught that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm outside working on a project, and it hits me that Tal probably knows more about this stuff in his little finger than I know all over. I am extending an overhang out to be a screened in porch. You will notice two 2x8 supports under the old overhang. They will eventually come down. There will be, of course, 2x4's around to perimeter for support and to hold the screen. Any suggestions? Please say something nice about the porch railing. I put that in. (<:

Attachment 49078 Attachment 49079 Attachment 49080 Attachment 49081

Attachments didn't work.

I see Trump's latest plan is to abolish the citizenship for those born there, never made sense anyway, but this will bring about a sh'tstorm and challenges in the Supreme Court and he just might succeed, goodbye democratic base and he just might make it retrospective. Now what was he thinking? I'll get those Demorats to play ball on Immigration reform?

Silly season pychobabble. If the racists and psychos stay home, repubs loose really BIG! Even Tom has gone off his rocker a bit with the invasion from the south. I think the Euros resent they had to take a boat trip to get here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Silly season pychobabble. If the racists and psychos stay home, repubs loose really BIG! Even Tom has gone off his rocker a bit with the invasion from the south. I think the Euros resent they had to take a boat trip to get here.

Look I know where you are coming from with unwanted illegal immigrants, we have strong views on it too, but boat people aside. As I have said before these numbers are small bananas, it is just the thought of your border being openly "stormed". This represents wonderful political opportunity with elections days away and that is all it is

Quote:

Attachments didn't work.

There obviously must be some secret to getting pics to work that I don't know. I choose the files and upload them. It worked perfectly the day I did it, but now now. I have no clue. Of course some of you had already arrived at that conclusion in several areas!!

I'll try it again. Maybe just one this time.

Attachment 49085

https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.n...27&oe=5C4D0C26 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

Progress

Quote:

I see Trump's latest plan is to abolish the citizenship for those born there, never made sense anyway,

yep but I don't see around the 14th amendment. The intent was not to allow for anchor babies ;but to naturalize former slaves and their children ; but the wording of the amendment is plain .

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Quote:

Even Tom has gone off his rocker a bit with the invasion from the south.

sure looks like an invasion to me . Why would they be flying their national flag if they need to seek asylum from that nation ?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...e67VGKieVoeK0Q

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...Qct6OS8VYDem3A

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

yep but I don't see around the 14th amendment. The intent was not to allow for anchor babies ;but to naturalize former slaves and their children ; but the wording of the amendment is plain .

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Yes, but the Constitution is an inconvenience for a Dictator, he probably hasn't read it, can he read? Or just write dribble? Anyway let him write his order which will probably say no pregnant woman can cross the border

The 14th amendment clearly was not written with pregnant Mexican women in mind. I think we need to be sure that we don't mistake generosity for stupidity. It is crazy for Mexican women to cross the border to have a baby here for no other purpose than citizenship. That's not a knock on the women, but a knock on our own stupid policies.

The remedy to the law is change the law through the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That's not a knock on the women, but a knock on our own stupid policies.

Hello j:

You SAY the founders didn't have pregnant Mexican women in mind when they wrote it.. But, you have no idea what was in their minds. Clearly, they had SOME pregnant non citizen woman in mind when they wrote the amendment.. Otherwise, why write it? So, it absolutely DOES include Mexican women, and purposefully so.

Be that as it may, the gropenfuhrer cannot change the Constitution with an executive order. It's HARD to change.

Do you know WHY I love the Constitution?? It's because it was written for dummies like me.. It's pretty short, and doesn't use any big words. So, to me, what these words mean is CLEAR: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

I thought right wingers LOVED the Constitution too.. No, huh?

excon

Quote:

You SAY the founders didn't have pregnant Mexican women in mind when they wrote it.. But, you have no idea what was in their minds. Clearly, they had SOME pregnant non citizen woman in mind when they wrote the amendment..

Uhm... actually, we do know what was in their minds. The amendment, passed in 1866, was clearly enacted with former slaves in mind, and was done to counteract the policies enacted in southern states which severely limited the rights of the newly freed slaves. It was considered so essential that southern states had to ratify the amendment in order to regain congressional representation. The idea that pregnant women would cross the border ILLEGALLY, have a child in the U.S. (paid for, of course, by us), and then have automatic citizenship bestowed upon them was never imagined and would have, we can be sure, been considered an insane idea.

https://www.history.com/topics/black...enth-amendment

I think it's a real stretch to imagine that the protections of the Constitution should be extended to those who have broken the law to enter the country and are thus here illegally. It would be somewhat similar to extending Constitutional protections to spies or enemy troops who have invaded. Not as extreme, to be sure, but still the same principle.

I am originalist and textualist. That is the quandary . Original intent was to make sure former slaves and their children would be citizens Textually it supports current interpretation. The only case law is 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark ruling in favor of current interpretation ; and it has not been challenged since . The one thing I'm clear on is that it can't be reversed by EO . The law has to be changed by Congress and then the law has to survive court challenges and all the stare decisis silliness .

Besides illegals there is the issue of Birth tourism. The Chinese are creating a 5th column with that.

So are the Russians potentially.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-miami-n836121

Quote:

The child gets a lifelong right to live and work and collect benefits in the U.S. And when they turn 21 they can sponsor their parents' application for an American green card.

That doesn't seem to be a smart policy either, but seems to be a profit motive involved, since I haven't heard a peep about THOSE anchor babies, but everybody is up in arms about poor brown babies.

I only call em as I see it . My point is that it becomes a national security concern regarding specifically Chinese birth tourism. I also think that if the parents are not here legally then they are NOT 'subject to the jurisdiction therof " ;nor should their children be . That is old English feudal law where a person born in a land is a subject of that land ("Jus Soli"). "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was purposely inserted by Congress to prevent Jus Soli in America. When we have that article 5 convention ,this is one of the subjects that needs to be brought up.

Here legally on a temporary visa for a luxury vacation with the purpose of giving birth to an anchor baby for American benefits later seems to go against everything the dufus campaigned on. Why? Because he profits. Now if you said no pregnant females from anywhere can enter this country LEGALLY then we may have agreement.

Until then... forget about it as far as I'm concerned. My way sound fair enough to me! What Russians with American rights isn't as potential a security threat or something?

Quote:

Here legally on a temporary visa for a luxury vacation with the purpose of giving birth to an anchor baby for American benefits later seems to go against everything the dufus campaigned on. Why? Because he profits. Now if you said no pregnant females from anywhere can enter this country LEGALLY then we may have agreement.

Until then... forget about it as far as I'm concerned. My way sound fair enough to me! What Russians with American rights isn't as potential a security threat or something?

Then we finally agree. No woman can enter the country, legally or otherwise, for the purpose of giving birth on American soil so their child can have American citizenship. Deal!

Unfortunately, we don't make or enforce the law and it's unlikely the dufus or congress will make that change, unless we change the congress and that includes the president.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I think it's a real stretch to imagine that the protections of the Constitution should be extended to those who have broken the law to enter the country.

Hello j:

Nahhh… The NEW citizen didn't break any law.

excon

Quote:

The NEW citizen didn't break any law.

As every fourth grader in America knows, the NEW citizen would not have been in the U.S. if mom had not brought him/her in. It boggles the mind to think that there are people who support those who break the law and profit from it, which then serves to encourage many others to do likewise. Who profits? Democrat politicians, which explains their enthusiastic support for it.

Quote:

Unfortunately, we don't make or enforce the law and it's unlikely the dufus or congress will make that change, unless we change the congress and that includes the president.

That one made me laugh. You can be sure that a democrat president and congress will be sure to tighten up immigration laws in the great tradition of that famous hard-liner on immigration, Barack Obama.

Blather on about liberals but repubs have done NOTHING to solve the problem, and you run the government. Your only claim to fame is a trade war, and making the rich richer, and trying to dismantle the affordable care act, while you run up the debt. While you rail against the brown people you make laws to keep out, you allow for rich foreigners with brighter skin to make this their future retirement homes. What has the dufus done about it? Jack up his rent.

And repubs say and do NOTHING about it. You say and do nothing about it. For you conservatives its all about the brown people staying out, and the southern border, while the east and west are open to ALL with CASH. That's why you will see more troops at the southern border than deployed in the shooting war with the Taliban.

We may agree on NO anchor babies across the board, but we both know it ain't going to happen, because for repubs it's just about the brown people and their kids.

Quote:

While you rail against the brown people you make laws to keep out, you allow for rich foreigners with brighter skin to make this their future retirement homes. What has the dufus done about it? Jack up his rent.

Skin color has nothing to do with it. Illegal entry has EVERYTHING to do with it. Now you are right about deficit spending, but considering you supported Mr. Obama for eight years, you have no grounds for complaining. He is the all time world champ. I would agree, however, that it will eventually ruin us.

Hello again, j:

Way back in 1978, my wife and I took a vacation in Mexico, when all of a sudden, she delivered.. Who expected THAT? My son now has duel citizenship. It's afforded him and his family, many opportunities in Mexico that a tourist doesn't get.

Did I do a bad thing? Would you have a problem if a Mexican couple vacationed here legally and had a kid??

excon

Tal stop the "brown skin" bs. Employers in this country welcome and NEED more workers . You see more and more stories like this all over the country .
https://www.westword.com/restaurants...-hard-10454517

All I ask is that they enter the country legally .

Grant them asylum and give 'em those jobs you say you need filled, I mean that Russian pregnant rich girl sure ain't going to work in a kitchen or wait tables. You only assume they will sneak in when the last batch stood in line for days waiting to get in legally. Sure some got tired of waiting, but sending soldiers instead of processors is how the dufus rolls and you go along with it.

I don't!

Quote:

Did I do a bad thing? Would you have a problem if a Mexican couple vacationed here legally and had a kid??

Ex, I don't know how else to explain a simple concept to you. If I go into a bank and walk out with money I withdrew from my account, then that is a good thing. If I walk out with money I took in a robbery, then it is not a good thing. The difference is in the legality of the act.

Now think about that for two minutes, and you'll pretty much have it. Tal might even get it as well. "

Quote:

Sure some got tired of waiting,

No, they didn't get tired of waiting. They didn't wait at all. It's just incredible to me that you have so little regard for the law. Those who are doing things the right way get to wait, while those who are breaking the law get in ahead of them. What a strange view of things you have. And the only plea you seem to make is to resort to the tired, moth-eaten liberal strategy of crying about race. I wouldn't care if the caravan was made up of Norwegians. They are breaking the law.

One thing I know for sure. If those illegals were taking YOUR job, you'd suddenly become a rock-ribbed conservative supporter of border security.

You speak of the law only when convenient. It's the dufus breaking the law since seeking asylum is LAWFUL.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as...van/ar-BBPbrPM

Quote:

Instead of expanding capacity to process asylum seekers at border crossings, officials have forced them to wait. The method varies from crossing to
crossing
.

Obviously it's you who have NO regard for the law or the process that maintains order.