Hilliary vs. Trump: The 2016 US Presidental Election

Pence says Trump rhetoric has nothing to do with anything.

Apparently 'evil' is more to blame.

So the bomber with targets on Trump's critics and a guy murdering people he thought helped the 'caravan' are not linked to Trump's gobshitery at all.

I notice neither of these have been handed the label 'terrorist' attacks either. I wonder what they use as a definition...

 

Somethingsomethingracejokesomethingsomething

 

Do you think he knows he's contradicting himself?

If calling a free and independent press fake news and the true enemy of the people is not openely and obviously hostile IDK what would be, perhaps sending around government officials to 'lean' on the press?

 

Inflammatory title (unfortunately IMO), but good analysis.

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...der-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

 

The 14th amendment says 'hi'.

But the concerning thing is not whether or not he can just ignore/amend a constitutional amendment by EO [most roads seem to suggest he can't]… but the fact he wants to.

 

Is this a genuine goal of his, or is this just "strong anti-immigration policy" posturing right before the midterm elections?

 

Bit of both.

 

Another depressing tidbit


Take care, american trans friends.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...efers-scheme-targeting-mueller-to-fbi/574411/

 

"While Mr Trump inflames the issue, Democrats are ducking it."
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2...onduran-migrants-the-democrats-are-incoherent

Worth a read.

 

Cruz forgetting what Cruz said several years before surrounding the legal arguments. Doesn't surprise me, he has spouted anything to keep himself where he is.

Funny how they're so passionate about the 2nd Amendment but the 14th? Nah, not so much.

 

Like Rubio slithering in line with Trump's 14th amendment/birthright citizenship comments... one slight problem...

...without the 14th amendment/birthright citizenship... Rubio wouldn't be a US citizen.

 

Yea i thought the same. If Trump did use an EO and it survived the legal process it would set a precedence and you know the first thing some future evil liberal president would do at the next mass shooting would be to take ma guns away.

 

That'd tickle me.

Racism and xenophobia having gun control as a consequence.

 

Not disagreeing but from conversation I've had with pro-2nd-Amendment-people they seem to view the amendments as stand-alone documents, i got the impression they didn't understand that constitution was the context of the amendments, which as you say seems odd as the clues in the name.

 

Those screaming for the repealing/gutting of the 14th amendment are relying heavily on the 1st amendment.

The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th [Prohibition].

 

The Constitution is the amended Constitution because the provision for amendments is in the original constitution. I don't hear anyone in the US arguing that amendments have any less validity or weight. The argument is roughly about whether you can just ignore the constitution to do stuff you think makes sense (living constitution) or whether you have to stick with the existing text and original intent until the point the politicians get their act together and pass amendment to change the stuff they don't like any more to other stuff.