Trump 48: Nobody Likes Me

[fraurosena]

Sweet Rufus! Trump just publicly admitted to premeditated election tampering on national tv.

 

[SassyPants]

11 hours ago, 47of74 said:

I just had a thought while out riding around on my two wheeled money sink today.

If, God Willing, Fuck Face is out of a job come January, gets convicted, and sent to the big house for the rest of his worthless life I would hope the media would pay as little attention as possible to him.  Just relegate that son of a bitch to page ten thousand when he makes the news and when he does they should not refer to him by name, but instead by his BOP inmate number.  Our own government should not refer to him by name either, just call him President Inmate #nnnnnnn.

I think that would be the absolute worst punishment for the fuck stick in chief to be ignored and forgotten about - and not even referred to by name anymore by anyone.   Since he lives for publicity made if people just ignored that fuck stick  after he left office except when he's brought to trial it would hurt a hell of a lot more.

The one and only positive for the American people in terms of Covid is that the virus and pandemic have almost completely overshadowed Trump’s re-election campaign. Americans can turn on the TV or radio and not have to hear his voice or see his face 24/7. We have less than 3 months, guys. God I hope we send that clown packing. I’d rather hear about a possible vaccine and intense medical science than hear one more word from Trump.

[fraurosena]

LOL.

 

[SassyPants]

Remember when Republicans used to yammer about how Clinton receiving a BJ in The Oval Office degraded the (role? Position? Significance? ?) of the Presidency? Well, it took them a while, but they really did find a way to elect a person who has destroyed any sense of dignity associated with being the leader of the free world. I wonder how long the stain and stench will last? 
 

Remember when we thought once he was inaugurated, he’d start acting Presidential? Thank God for the mute and on/off buttons.

[Alisamer]

7 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Remember when Republicans used to yammer about how Clinton receiving a BJ in The Oval Office degraded the (role? Position? Significance? ?) of the Presidency? Well, it took them a while, but they really did find a way to elect a person who has destroyed any sense of dignity associated with being the leader of the free world. I wonder how long the stain and stench will last? 

I really believe that a huge part of how Trump got elected was because his racist base lost all respect for the office once a black man became president. They'd never have voted in somebody like Trump before Obama, but afterward they were so used to denigrating the president that it seemed like no big deal to vote for a demented liar con artist like Trump.

[47of74]

22 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Remember when Republicans used to yammer about how Clinton receiving a BJ in The Oval Office degraded the (role? Position? Significance? ?) of the Presidency? Well, it took them a while, but they really did find a way to elect a person who has destroyed any sense of dignity associated with being the leader of the free world. I wonder how long the stain and stench will last? 
 

Remember when we thought once he was inaugurated, he’d start acting Presidential? Thank God for the mute and on/off buttons.

I was not President Clinton's biggest fan by any means when he was in office but I'd just about sell my soul to the highest bidder to have him back in office.  When Clinton was in office I was a lot more conservative than I am now and I did not think much of him.  But compared to the fuckopotomus both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are fucking saints.

Yeah, President Clinton had trouble with the concept of keeping his pants on (and he was not the first President to have that issue).  Still despite all his flaws he never acted anywhere near as bad as fuck face.  If he was in office and a pandemic hit he would have gotten shit done even though Newt and the rest of the GOP fucks would have complained about it and before we knew it the pandemic would have been an unpleasant memory.

And despite all of President Clinton's flaws he never caused me to lose my love of this country like the orange shitgibbon and his GOP groupies have.  It's gone forever and even if we have 50 straight years of Democratic Presidents and Congresses that's never coming back. 

[SassyPants]

1 minute ago, 47of74 said:

I was not President Clinton's biggest fan by any means when he was in office but I'd just about sell my soul to the highest bidder to have him back in office.  When Clinton was in office I was a lot more conservative than I am now and I did not think much of him.  But compared to the fuckopotomus both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are fucking saints.

Yeah, President Clinton had trouble with the concept of keeping his pants on (and he was not the first President to have that issue).  Still despite all his flaws he never acted anywhere near as bad as fuck face.  If he was in office and a pandemic hit he would have gotten shit done even though Newt and the rest of the GOP fucks would have complained about it and before we knew it the pandemic would have been an unpleasant memory.

And despite all of President Clinton's flaws he never caused me to lose my love of this country like the orange shitgibbon and his GOP groupies have.  It's gone forever and even if we have 50 straight years of Democratic Presidents and Congresses that's never coming back. 

Are you me? I was not a huge Clinton fan either, and used to sway more right too, but Clinton was a smart man. He was fully capable of being the POTUS. Frankly, I think the reason many did not like Clinton is because he was a common man. There are some people in the US who think that only wealthy people men should be eligible for the presidency. 

[fraurosena]

 

[TuringMachine]

I'm not gonna tell you that Clinton is as bad as Trump because clearly there's no comparison. But can we please please stop minimizing what Clinton did as "getting a BJ" or "not keeping his pants on". Monica Lewinsky was a 22 year old intern. He was the president. Do you really think she was empowered to say no if she wanted? The relationship was the definition of an imbalance of power.

Now let's fast forward to 2018 where he still doesn't seem to see the problem with the relationship

Quote

"Looking back on what happened then, through the lens of #MeToo now, do you think differently or feel more responsibility?" Melvin asked Clinton.

"No. I felt terrible then, and I came to grips with it," Clinton replied.  

Melvin then asked Clinton if he had ever apologized to Lewinsky. 

"I apologized to everybody in the world," Clinton said. 

"But you didn't apologize to her," Melvin said. 

"I have not talked to her," Clinton said. 

"Do you feel like you owe her an apology," Melvin asked.

"No, I do — I do not," Clinton responded. "I've never talked to her. But I did say, publicly, on more than one occasion, that I was sorry. That's very different. The apology was public."

And let us not forgot the multiple accusations of sexual assault and harassment he's received before and during his presidency. 

Bill Clinton is a sexual predator. He had no business being president. Trump atrocities don't negate that.

Edited August 13, 2020 by TuringMachine

[WiseGirl]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump falsely claims Harris might not be a U.S. citizen"

Spoiler

“It’s an open question, and one I think [Sen. Kamala D.] Harris should answer so the American people know for sure she is eligible.”

— Trump campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis, in comments to ABC News, Aug. 13, 2020

“I heard it today that she [Harris] doesn’t meet the requirements. And, by the way, the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very qualified, very talented lawyer. I have no idea if that is right. … I would have to assume that the Democrats have checked it out.”

— President Trump, in remarks to reporters, Aug. 13, 2020

A legal adviser and spokesperson for President Trump’s reelection campaign is questioning the citizenship of Sen. Kamala D. Harris, a California native and the presumptive Democratic nominee for vice president.

Harris’s citizenship is not under any serious question, legal experts told us.

For years, and as a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump stoked the “birther” conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Now, another prominent African American politician’s citizenship is being challenged with no evidence.

Harris was born in Oakland, Calif., on Oct. 20, 1964. The 14th Amendment and a Supreme Court decision from 1898 give citizenship to people born in the territorial United States, according to constitutional law experts.

Trump perhaps knows this, because he announced in 2018 that he would try to end birthright citizenship with an executive order, which was never released.

The Facts

The Constitution requires the president and vice president to be natural-born U.S. citizens and at least 35 years old.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, repudiating the Supreme Court’s 7-to-2 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, an 1857 ruling that denied citizenship to people of African descent born in the United States.

“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,” the amendment says. The Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that this right to citizenship covered Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals legally residing in the United States.

Harris’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was born in India and came to the United States at age 25 to earn a PhD in nutrition and endocrinology at the University of California at Berkeley. Her father, Donald Harris, who is Black, arrived from Jamaica in 1963 to earn a PhD in economics from UC Berkeley.

Trump referenced and Ellis retweeted an op-ed in Newsweek by John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, that posited Harris might not be a citizen, depending on her parents’ immigration status when she was born.

The op-ed incorrectly dismisses relevant parts of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, legal experts told us. Stephen H. Legomsky, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law and former chief counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said “there is not a shred of doubt as to Kamala Harris’s legal eligibility to be either the vice president or the president.”

“A handful of fringe academics have seized on the requirement that one must be not only ‘born or naturalized in the United States,’ but also ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ ” Legomsky wrote in an email, citing language from the 14th Amendment. “But the latter clause has no applicability to Kamala Harris.”

“The only people to whom that clause denies birthright citizenship are (1) American Indians born on tribal reservations (because Indian lands were considered to be a separate sovereign) and (2) the children of either enemy occupiers or foreign diplomats (because those were the categories included in the English common law from which the phrase was taken),” Legomsky added. “The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark specifically so held, and it has never once departed from that interpretation.”

Here’s that section of the Supreme Court opinion:

“The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country,” Justice Horace Gray wrote for the court. That right covers “all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

“The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

We sent questions to the Trump campaign and did not get responses. In a 2018 interview with Axios shortly before the congressional midterms, Trump said he would be releasing an executive order to end birthright citizenship — which never came. Congressional leaders from both parties and legal experts quickly dismissed Trump’s plan and said it would not pass legal muster because birthright citizenship is in the Constitution.

“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits,” Trump stated falsely at the time. Birthright citizenship is the law in more than 30 countries, including Canada and Mexico.

“One of the hallmarks of the U.S. Constitution, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, is that it directly grants citizenship to those born in the United States, regardless of the ancestry of their parents,” Richard Pildes, a constitutional law professor at New York University School of Law, told HuffPost in a report documenting how a new strain of “birther” attacks on Harris has begun to spread. “The U.S. follows the principle of ‘jus solis’ (citizenship flows from birth ‘on the soil’); the alternative is known as ‘jus sanguinis’ (citizenship flows from blood).”

Andrew Bates, a spokesman for the Joe Biden presidential campaign, said that Trump “was the national leader of the grotesque, racist birther movement with respect to President Obama” and that his campaign was trying to distract from the administration’s record on handling the coronavirus pandemic with “demonstrably false lies.”

The Pinocchio Test

In 2018, Trump said he would end birthright citizenship. This year, the president and a legal adviser for his campaign are suggesting birthright citizenship perhaps never existed, at least not for some people born to immigrant postgraduate students in California in the 1960s, or at the very least not for one of them: Harris.

Which one is it? When the last national election was coming up, in 2018, birthright citizenship was real and Trump made empty threats to end it unilaterally. This election year, apparently, it’s not so real now that a California-born woman from Jamaican and Indian parents is running on the Democrats’ presidential ticket.

As explained above, and as Trump himself has acknowledged, the Constitution grants citizenship to people born in the territorial United States. Trump earns Four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

 

[onekidanddone]

10 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump falsely claims Harris might not be a U.S. citizen"

  Reveal hidden contents

“It’s an open question, and one I think [Sen. Kamala D.] Harris should answer so the American people know for sure she is eligible.”

— Trump campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis, in comments to ABC News, Aug. 13, 2020

“I heard it today that she [Harris] doesn’t meet the requirements. And, by the way, the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very qualified, very talented lawyer. I have no idea if that is right. … I would have to assume that the Democrats have checked it out.”

— President Trump, in remarks to reporters, Aug. 13, 2020

A legal adviser and spokesperson for President Trump’s reelection campaign is questioning the citizenship of Sen. Kamala D. Harris, a California native and the presumptive Democratic nominee for vice president.

Harris’s citizenship is not under any serious question, legal experts told us.

For years, and as a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump stoked the “birther” conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Now, another prominent African American politician’s citizenship is being challenged with no evidence.

Harris was born in Oakland, Calif., on Oct. 20, 1964. The 14th Amendment and a Supreme Court decision from 1898 give citizenship to people born in the territorial United States, according to constitutional law experts.

Trump perhaps knows this, because he announced in 2018 that he would try to end birthright citizenship with an executive order, which was never released.

The Facts

The Constitution requires the president and vice president to be natural-born U.S. citizens and at least 35 years old.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, repudiating the Supreme Court’s 7-to-2 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, an 1857 ruling that denied citizenship to people of African descent born in the United States.

“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,” the amendment says. The Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that this right to citizenship covered Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals legally residing in the United States.

Harris’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was born in India and came to the United States at age 25 to earn a PhD in nutrition and endocrinology at the University of California at Berkeley. Her father, Donald Harris, who is Black, arrived from Jamaica in 1963 to earn a PhD in economics from UC Berkeley.

Trump referenced and Ellis retweeted an op-ed in Newsweek by John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, that posited Harris might not be a citizen, depending on her parents’ immigration status when she was born.

The op-ed incorrectly dismisses relevant parts of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, legal experts told us. Stephen H. Legomsky, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law and former chief counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said “there is not a shred of doubt as to Kamala Harris’s legal eligibility to be either the vice president or the president.”

“A handful of fringe academics have seized on the requirement that one must be not only ‘born or naturalized in the United States,’ but also ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ ” Legomsky wrote in an email, citing language from the 14th Amendment. “But the latter clause has no applicability to Kamala Harris.”

“The only people to whom that clause denies birthright citizenship are (1) American Indians born on tribal reservations (because Indian lands were considered to be a separate sovereign) and (2) the children of either enemy occupiers or foreign diplomats (because those were the categories included in the English common law from which the phrase was taken),” Legomsky added. “The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark specifically so held, and it has never once departed from that interpretation.”

Here’s that section of the Supreme Court opinion:

“The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country,” Justice Horace Gray wrote for the court. That right covers “all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

“The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

We sent questions to the Trump campaign and did not get responses. In a 2018 interview with Axios shortly before the congressional midterms, Trump said he would be releasing an executive order to end birthright citizenship — which never came. Congressional leaders from both parties and legal experts quickly dismissed Trump’s plan and said it would not pass legal muster because birthright citizenship is in the Constitution.

“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits,” Trump stated falsely at the time. Birthright citizenship is the law in more than 30 countries, including Canada and Mexico.

“One of the hallmarks of the U.S. Constitution, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, is that it directly grants citizenship to those born in the United States, regardless of the ancestry of their parents,” Richard Pildes, a constitutional law professor at New York University School of Law, told HuffPost in a report documenting how a new strain of “birther” attacks on Harris has begun to spread. “The U.S. follows the principle of ‘jus solis’ (citizenship flows from birth ‘on the soil’); the alternative is known as ‘jus sanguinis’ (citizenship flows from blood).”

Andrew Bates, a spokesman for the Joe Biden presidential campaign, said that Trump “was the national leader of the grotesque, racist birther movement with respect to President Obama” and that his campaign was trying to distract from the administration’s record on handling the coronavirus pandemic with “demonstrably false lies.”

The Pinocchio Test

In 2018, Trump said he would end birthright citizenship. This year, the president and a legal adviser for his campaign are suggesting birthright citizenship perhaps never existed, at least not for some people born to immigrant postgraduate students in California in the 1960s, or at the very least not for one of them: Harris.

Which one is it? When the last national election was coming up, in 2018, birthright citizenship was real and Trump made empty threats to end it unilaterally. This election year, apparently, it’s not so real now that a California-born woman from Jamaican and Indian parents is running on the Democrats’ presidential ticket.

As explained above, and as Trump himself has acknowledged, the Constitution grants citizenship to people born in the territorial United States. Trump earns Four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

 

So he has nothing on Harris and is too lazy to make up anything new. He throws out the tiresome  birther blather. 

[thoughtful]

1 hour ago, onekidanddone said:

 birther blather. 

I think we've found another warm-up for actors and public speakers.

 

[Ozlsn]

21 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Sweet Rufus! Trump just publicly admitted to premeditated election tampering on national tv.

 

Joe Scalzi's response: "fuck you, I'm voting".

Excerpt: 

"In short: Know how to vote early, fucking vote early, and if you must do it by mail, do it especially early (or turn in your ballot by hand, to your local board of elections if possible).

And yes, I absolutely and positively hate feeling this paranoid about the idea that my government is trying to keep my vote from being counted, thank you for asking. But here we are, it’s 2020, the worst President of my lifetime is just blithely gibbering at a microphone about suppressing voting, and there’s no point trying to pretend that it’s not what’s happening, and that the president’s party isn’t complicit with it.

And also: Fuck you, I’m voting. You literally could not stop me this year. I have always voted — always took for granted I could vote — but this year above all I will go out of my way to get it done. You should, too."

[WiseGirl]

[Becky]

12 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump falsely claims Harris might not be a U.S. citizen"

  Reveal hidden contents

“It’s an open question, and one I think [Sen. Kamala D.] Harris should answer so the American people know for sure she is eligible.”

— Trump campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis, in comments to ABC News, Aug. 13, 2020

“I heard it today that she [Harris] doesn’t meet the requirements. And, by the way, the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very qualified, very talented lawyer. I have no idea if that is right. … I would have to assume that the Democrats have checked it out.”

— President Trump, in remarks to reporters, Aug. 13, 2020

A legal adviser and spokesperson for President Trump’s reelection campaign is questioning the citizenship of Sen. Kamala D. Harris, a California native and the presumptive Democratic nominee for vice president.

Harris’s citizenship is not under any serious question, legal experts told us.

For years, and as a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump stoked the “birther” conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Now, another prominent African American politician’s citizenship is being challenged with no evidence.

Harris was born in Oakland, Calif., on Oct. 20, 1964. The 14th Amendment and a Supreme Court decision from 1898 give citizenship to people born in the territorial United States, according to constitutional law experts.

Trump perhaps knows this, because he announced in 2018 that he would try to end birthright citizenship with an executive order, which was never released.

The Facts

The Constitution requires the president and vice president to be natural-born U.S. citizens and at least 35 years old.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, repudiating the Supreme Court’s 7-to-2 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, an 1857 ruling that denied citizenship to people of African descent born in the United States.

“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,” the amendment says. The Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that this right to citizenship covered Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals legally residing in the United States.

Harris’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was born in India and came to the United States at age 25 to earn a PhD in nutrition and endocrinology at the University of California at Berkeley. Her father, Donald Harris, who is Black, arrived from Jamaica in 1963 to earn a PhD in economics from UC Berkeley.

Trump referenced and Ellis retweeted an op-ed in Newsweek by John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, that posited Harris might not be a citizen, depending on her parents’ immigration status when she was born.

The op-ed incorrectly dismisses relevant parts of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, legal experts told us. Stephen H. Legomsky, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law and former chief counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said “there is not a shred of doubt as to Kamala Harris’s legal eligibility to be either the vice president or the president.”

“A handful of fringe academics have seized on the requirement that one must be not only ‘born or naturalized in the United States,’ but also ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ ” Legomsky wrote in an email, citing language from the 14th Amendment. “But the latter clause has no applicability to Kamala Harris.”

“The only people to whom that clause denies birthright citizenship are (1) American Indians born on tribal reservations (because Indian lands were considered to be a separate sovereign) and (2) the children of either enemy occupiers or foreign diplomats (because those were the categories included in the English common law from which the phrase was taken),” Legomsky added. “The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark specifically so held, and it has never once departed from that interpretation.”

Here’s that section of the Supreme Court opinion:

“The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country,” Justice Horace Gray wrote for the court. That right covers “all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

“The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

We sent questions to the Trump campaign and did not get responses. In a 2018 interview with Axios shortly before the congressional midterms, Trump said he would be releasing an executive order to end birthright citizenship — which never came. Congressional leaders from both parties and legal experts quickly dismissed Trump’s plan and said it would not pass legal muster because birthright citizenship is in the Constitution.

“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits,” Trump stated falsely at the time. Birthright citizenship is the law in more than 30 countries, including Canada and Mexico.

“One of the hallmarks of the U.S. Constitution, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, is that it directly grants citizenship to those born in the United States, regardless of the ancestry of their parents,” Richard Pildes, a constitutional law professor at New York University School of Law, told HuffPost in a report documenting how a new strain of “birther” attacks on Harris has begun to spread. “The U.S. follows the principle of ‘jus solis’ (citizenship flows from birth ‘on the soil’); the alternative is known as ‘jus sanguinis’ (citizenship flows from blood).”

Andrew Bates, a spokesman for the Joe Biden presidential campaign, said that Trump “was the national leader of the grotesque, racist birther movement with respect to President Obama” and that his campaign was trying to distract from the administration’s record on handling the coronavirus pandemic with “demonstrably false lies.”

The Pinocchio Test

In 2018, Trump said he would end birthright citizenship. This year, the president and a legal adviser for his campaign are suggesting birthright citizenship perhaps never existed, at least not for some people born to immigrant postgraduate students in California in the 1960s, or at the very least not for one of them: Harris.

Which one is it? When the last national election was coming up, in 2018, birthright citizenship was real and Trump made empty threats to end it unilaterally. This election year, apparently, it’s not so real now that a California-born woman from Jamaican and Indian parents is running on the Democrats’ presidential ticket.

As explained above, and as Trump himself has acknowledged, the Constitution grants citizenship to people born in the territorial United States. Trump earns Four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

 

He may not be particularly smart, but he does have a certain low cunning and an instinctive ability to manipulate his followers and the media.  He doesn't come right out and say it, but he puts out the bait and waits for the masses to take it.  He loves creating chaos, fear, and doubt.  

[Alisamer]

7 minutes ago, Becky said:

He may not be particularly smart, but he does have a certain low cunning and an instinctive ability to manipulate his followers and the media.  He doesn't come right out and say it, but he puts out the bait and waits for the masses to take it.  He loves creating chaos, fear, and doubt.  

I'd say he should be careful about that - his mother wasn't born in the US, was she? His own heritage in the US is really recent comparatively speaking. 

But I know that citizenship questions like that only apply to non-white people. He's white under all that orange makeup, so he gets a pass from the rest of the racists. Just like how the fact McCain technically WASN'T born in the US (yeah I know Panama was under US control at the time, and he was born on a US military base) got a pass, while they were all clamoring for Obama's birth certificate. You know full well a black or brown person born in the same situation as McCain would have been endlessly investigated and interrogated about their citizenship. 

[SassyPants]

17 minutes ago, Becky said:

He may not be particularly smart, but he does have a certain low cunning and an instinctive ability to manipulate his followers and the media.  He doesn't come right out and say it, but he puts out the bait and waits for the masses to take it.  He loves creating chaos, fear, and doubt.  

Yep...I can tell you right now that my 80+ YO mom is thinking Harris isn’t a legal  citizen-

[WiseGirl]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm glad the question was asked. His response was no surprise.

 

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I'm glad the question was asked. His response was no surprise.

 

Do you know what I find the absolutely most utterly galling about this?

That the next reporter blandly goes "I wanna ask about payroll tax..."

 

[Ozlsn]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Do you know what I find the absolutely most utterly galling about this?

That the next reporter blandly goes "I wanna ask about payroll tax..."

 

It needed to end - can you explain all the lying you've done about payroll tax?

[GreyhoundFan]

[Xan]

13 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

Joe Scalzi's response: "fuck you, I'm voting".

Excerpt: 

"In short: Know how to vote early, fucking vote early, and if you must do it by mail, do it especially early (or turn in your ballot by hand, to your local board of elections if possible).

And yes, I absolutely and positively hate feeling this paranoid about the idea that my government is trying to keep my vote from being counted, thank you for asking. But here we are, it’s 2020, the worst President of my lifetime is just blithely gibbering at a microphone about suppressing voting, and there’s no point trying to pretend that it’s not what’s happening, and that the president’s party isn’t complicit with it.

And also: Fuck you, I’m voting. You literally could not stop me this year. I have always voted — always took for granted I could vote — but this year above all I will go out of my way to get it done. You should, too."

What bothers me the most is how overt this is.  We've have cunning and deceitful presidents in the past but they had the sense to conceal it.  Even Nixon wasn't open about his worst traits.  Trump doesn't care.  Neither do the Republicans.  "Yeah.  We're cheating.  So what?"  We need for the press to hold their feet to the fire and we may need to all take to the streets again.

This is not okay.  Killing the USPS is not okay.  Lying to the American people day after day after day is not okay.  Being racist is not okay.  Pandering to the Q crowd is not okay.  None of this is okay.  

The emperor has no clothes.  It's time everyone pointed that out.

[JMarie]

11 hours ago, Alisamer said:

I'd say he should be careful about that - his mother wasn't born in the US, was she? His own heritage in the US is really recent comparatively speaking. 

But I know that citizenship questions like that only apply to non-white people. He's white under all that orange makeup, so he gets a pass from the rest of the racists. Just like how the fact McCain technically WASN'T born in the US (yeah I know Panama was under US control at the time, and he was born on a US military base) got a pass, while they were all clamoring for Obama's birth certificate. You know full well a black or brown person born in the same situation as McCain would have been endlessly investigated and interrogated about their citizenship. 

And it didn't seem to matter that Ted Cruz was born in Canada, seemingly because his parents mother was born in the U. S.