Jump to content

Republican debate GDT

Over 29 years of fanhood
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 452
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Roundybout
Roundybout

Desantis is absolutely cooked. He's done. What an absolute complete f-ing loser. 

Big Blitz
Big Blitz

The last SIXTEEN YEARS:     Obama - a moron with zero experience and zero accomplishments of any significance - but he spoke well and made whites comfortable.  Despite being the most di

SoCal Deek
SoCal Deek

The amount of pure racist crap on here today is beyond over the top! 

Posted Images

Tommy Callahan All Pro

Tommy Callahan

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Roundybout said:


People are leaving states like California because housing is too expensive in the most desirable parts. People want to live in San Fran, not Bakersfield. 

And NY?  Illinois?  Mass?  New Jersey? Michigan?

 

Same talking point?

 

 

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Big Blitz Hall of Famer

Big Blitz

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Roundybout said:

Curious why Vivek is against birthright citizenship when he himself is a birthright citizen. 


You mad because DeSantis has the personality of a soggy mushroom and his culture war is actually unpopular outside of Florida?


 

 

He could have the personality of dish rag and it wouldn’t matter to me.   
 

 

The country needs adult leadership not more cults of personality.  
 

 

And if saying girls need to use the girls bathroom is unpopular outside of Florida and 7 year olds shouldn’t have drag queen hour at their school or have books featuring pedophilia in their libraries then nothing matters except every sane American left should move to Florida - where the property is just as expensive as California but it’s unfortunate the interest rates make it unaffordable out there or in any Deep Blue ***t hole.  
 

How did these interest rates get like this again?  This quickly?

Edited by Big Blitz
K D Hall of Famer

K D

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Roundybout said:

Curious why Vivek is against birthright citizenship when he himself is a birthright citizen. 

Because it gives incentives to illegal migrants to sneak over the border to have their baby so they can be citizens. He explains that if they come over LEGALLY then they are citizens. Need to close that loophole

sherpa Veteran

sherpa

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

Because it gives incentives to illegal migrants to sneak over the border to have their baby so they can be citizens. He explains that if they come over LEGALLY then they are citizens. Need to close that loophole

 

It goes far beyond illegals.

Watch the Immigration lines at Miami International every morning when the South/Central America flights arrive.

Scores of pregnant women on visas whose exit dates will never be enforced, knowing they will give birth on the US taxpayers dime, to kids that are guaranteed US citizenship.

Watched it for years. 

Everybody knows about it, and nobody can do a thing.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Shocked 1
The Frankish Reich Hall of Famer

The Frankish Reich

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

The opposition was specifically in context of illegal entry. Made the example that if a foreign National has a child on us soil, that child isn’t an automatic citizen. 
 

It’s a reasonable question; why are foreign nationals illegally in this country treated exactly as legal migrants? 

First, I disagree with the notion that you can limit birthright citizenship. Vivek was correct (for me, his best moment) when he cited the exact language of the 14th Amendment. And there have been prominent legal scholars who have agreed with that take.

But I think the plain language - born in the USA and subject to the jurisdiction thereof - applies to everyone born on US soil. Are you "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA if you enter illegally? Well, in almost all cases, yes. You commit a crime, you can be prosecuted for it. You are expected to abide by the laws of this country even though you didn't come here legally. Vivek talked about diplomats, but they have that famous diplomatic immunity, which does exempt them from lots of laws of general applicability.

Tim Scott jumped in and put it in historical context, as the 14th Amendment was clearly a post-Civil War Amendment about black Americans. But ... that's a tough argument for conservative legal scholars to make, as they always focus on the words of the text and not on things like the historical circumstances surrounding the adoption of an Article/Amendment. See the whole 2nd Amendment thing, in which the "well regulated militia" clause was basically brushed aside ...

Over 29 years of fanhood Hall of Famer

Over 29 years of fanhood

Posted
  • Author
Posted
23 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

First, I disagree with the notion that you can limit birthright citizenship. Vivek was correct (for me, his best moment) when he cited the exact language of the 14th Amendment. And there have been prominent legal scholars who have agreed with that take.

But I think the plain language - born in the USA and subject to the jurisdiction thereof - applies to everyone born on US soil. Are you "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA if you enter illegally? Well, in almost all cases, yes. You commit a crime, you can be prosecuted for it. You are expected to abide by the laws of this country even though you didn't come here legally. Vivek talked about diplomats, but they have that famous diplomatic immunity, which does exempt them from lots of laws of general applicability.

Tim Scott jumped in and put it in historical context, as the 14th Amendment was clearly a post-Civil War Amendment about black Americans. But ... that's a tough argument for conservative legal scholars to make, as they always focus on the words of the text and not on things like the historical circumstances surrounding the adoption of an Article/Amendment. See the whole 2nd Amendment thing, in which the "well regulated militia" clause was basically brushed aside ...


And while people want to freak out about extreme positions, no one is saying stop immigration.  I hear stop rewarding those that do it criminally and let’s have an orderly process that protects our citizens and others by the way from bad actors and criminals coming in fro RoW. 
 

Why is that so hard to establish as common ground?? 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
The Frankish Reich Hall of Famer

The Frankish Reich

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:


And while people want to freak out about extreme positions, no one is saying stop immigration.  I hear stop rewarding those that do it criminally and let’s have an orderly process that protects our citizens and others by the way from bad actors and criminals coming in fro RoW. 
 

Why is that so hard to establish as common ground?? 

Well we can agree on that. 
it was basically the working principle of Obama’s first term, and Bill Clinton’s first term before that. 

The Frankish Reich Hall of Famer

The Frankish Reich

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:


so how do we get everyone else on board and stop the insanity going on now? 

Good luck.

It's a political talking point for both parties. Republicans aren't proposing any serious fixes ("the wall" is not addressing what is really happening, and Title 42 was a public health authority) because I suspect they like the video of the caravans entering. Democrats aren't proposing any serious fixes ("comprehensive immigration reform" for them means an amnesty for people who've been here a few years, and that won't do anything to stop new arrivals; in fact, it would likely encourage them) because they like to harp on how cruel Republican policies were. 

You are right: I think the clear majority of Americans see room for compromise and a coherent policy. The candidates we get don't, or it's not in their selfish partisan interests to propose it.

I guess I should say "what a mess."

  • 3 weeks later...
Warcodered Hall of Famer

Warcodered

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, BillStime said:

Trump gonna show up yet? Or is he a PUSSSSSSSY-WILLOW?

 

 

image.thumb.png.2a9846094471e44e84b0449ae5f41af5.png

 

 

Going to a debate might not be such a great idea for him, words seem to be hard for him lately.

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 2
B-Man Hall of Famer

B-Man

Posted
Posted

 

 

Keep going with the same old "moderators, we never learn.

 

 

Lester Holt, Kristen Welker and Hugh Hewitt to moderate third GOP presidential debate Nov. 8 on NBC

Associated Press, by Staff

 

NEW YORK — Lester Holt, Kristen Welker and Hugh Hewitt will moderate the third Republican presidential debate, scheduled for Nov. 8 in Miami, NBC said Wednesday. The first one held outside the confines of Fox News, the two-hour debate will be seen at 8 p.m. Eastern on NBC and the NBC News Now streaming service. Holt is the anchor of “NBC Nightly News” and Welker is the moderator of “Meet the Press.” Hewitt hosts a morning talk show for the Salem Radio Network, a co-sponsor of the debate. Qualified participants will be announced later. 

 

https://apnews.com/article/nbc-republican-debate-holt-welker-hewitt-1629915891d162a2255a8bd2b0bf0b24

 

 

 

.

  • 2 weeks later...
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...