unofan
Well-known member
You can't revoke citizenship once given. In fact, the US goes out of its way to prevent citizens from giving up their citizenship for tax reasons.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
You can't revoke citizenship once given. In fact, the US goes out of its way to prevent citizens from giving up their citizenship for tax reasons.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Yup. They demanded the pledge so Trump couldn't go third party on them when he lost the R endorsement. Uh ... oops.
Lesson learned: Don't throw razor sharp boomerangs.
Yup. They demanded the pledge so Trump couldn't go third party on them when he lost the R endorsement. Uh ... oops.
Lesson learned: Don't throw razor sharp boomerangs.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Mexicans and muslims are all the same to Trump--he has made that absolutely clear. If you are running for the office of POTUS and advocate treating people differently based on their religion, race, or ethnicity you should be seeking office in another country. But Trump and others will try to manipulate voters using fear on these issues, and it will work with many. Fear and the illusion that there was a golden age in this country when everyone and everything was idyllic. Although Trump would never be specific as to what decade or time he considers as America's golden age, it would necessarily have been a time when it was golden for white men but a much darker time for women, blacks, latinos, and other minority groups.
Mexicans and muslims are all the same to Trump--he has made that absolutely clear. If you are running for the office of POTUS and advocate treating people differently based on their religion, race, or ethnicity you should be seeking office in another country. But Trump and others will try to manipulate voters using fear on these issues, and it will work with many. Fear and the illusion that there was a golden age in this country when everyone and everything was idyllic. Although Trump would never be specific as to what decade or time he considers as America's golden age, it would necessarily have been a time when it was golden for white men but a much darker time for women, blacks, latinos, and other minority groups.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
It's pretty funny that the GOP is going all in on this when their own post mortem after Romney lost said that they can't do this anymore. I'll disagree with you. They'll continue to run this gambit if they lose. Trump winning the nomination has convinced most of the party that they ran the wrong candidate again (if he loses). Not that they ran the wrong rhetoric.
EDIT:
Meanwhile here's our liberal news media. I guess in the tank for Trump is liberal slant right?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/09/18/cnn-jake-tapper-edits-clintons-bombings-remark/
It's pretty funny that the GOP is going all in on this when their own post mortem after Romney lost said that they can't do this anymore. I'll disagree with you. They'll continue to run this gambit if they lose. Trump winning the nomination has convinced most of the party that they ran the wrong candidate again (if he loses). Not that they ran the wrong rhetoric.
EDIT:
Meanwhile here's our liberal news media. I guess in the tank for Trump is liberal slant right?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/09/18/cnn-jake-tapper-edits-clintons-bombings-remark/
Last edited:
Every other candidate had "Washington" written all over him, or in tbe case of the fringe (iCarly, Rev. Mike, Dr. Ben), were too fringe to make an impression.
The GOP primary was a rejection of the we'll promise X to get elected, but do Y once we get there. tD somehow picked up on those feelings and ran with them.
Bernie knew it too, but had (a) had to beat one candidate and (b) was playing against a stacked deck. If there were 6 Dem candidates of various ilk like the GOP, he may have won, too.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
She's going to repeal the free speech protections of the first amendment???
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Isn't that what you wrote? Citizens United was a free speech case. For better or for worse the Supremes declared that associations of citizens (corporations) have free speech rights that Congress can't abridge. That's not something a President can just "repeal."
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
I was using a shortcut cause I was on my phone. The case will be put before the Court again and it will be overturned. It was a 5-4 decision and a controversial one that went against years of precedence.
But, that will only happen if Hillary becomes President. If she doesn't we will continue the "conservative" court for the rest of my children's lifetimes.
I was using a shortcut cause I was on my phone. The case will be put before the Court again and it will be overturned. It was a 5-4 decision and a controversial one that went against years of precedence.
But, that will only happen if Hillary becomes President. If she doesn't we will continue the "conservative" court for the rest of my children's lifetimes.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
The media has failed to consistently challenge Trump on his fabrications and the cons generally for scandalmania, which frustrates the dems to no end. But it could not be any other way. The media loves scandals, and a close horse race because both sell. The trumped up scandals involving Clinton serve two purposes: they sell by appealing to the National Inquirer reader's appetite, and they make the race closer by feeding into the LIAR label that has been so long in the making. I'm sure Clinton's people understand this and are not the least bit surprised the media has not been more vigilant.
The media has failed to consistently challenge Trump on his fabrications and the cons generally for scandalmania, which frustrates the dems to no end. But it could not be any other way. The media loves scandals, and a close horse race because both sell. The trumped up scandals involving Clinton serve two purposes: they sell by appealing to the National Inquirer reader's appetite, and they make the race closer by feeding into the LIAR label that has been so long in the making. I'm sure Clinton's people understand this and are not the least bit surprised the media has not been more vigilant.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
The dissent in the case basically argued that the outcome will be deplorable. Corporations will buy elections. But they didn't have a good explanation for how we deny free speech rights to associations of citizens when we can't deny it to just single citizens.
I've always thought that what is funny about Citizen's United is that it essentially germinated out of left wing companies spending money to persuade voters. Michael Moore's company made a blatantly political movie designed to influence the 2004 election, and the Republican's objected, citing the "years of precedence" that you rely on. They were turned away, so a right wing company made an equally political movie about HRC and suddenly there is movement afoot to go after corporate influence peddling.
I often wonder what would have happened if the FEC had went after Moore's company, as demanded by the Republican's, and his company challenged the constitutionality of Congress' restrictions on corporate speech.
I wouldn't be so sure.
The dissent in the case basically argued that the outcome will be deplorable. Corporations will buy elections. But they didn't have a good explanation for how we deny free speech rights to associations of citizens when we can't deny it to just single citizens.
I've always thought that what is funny about Citizen's United is that it essentially germinated out of left wing companies spending money to persuade voters. Michael Moore's company made a blatantly political movie designed to influence the 2004 election, and the Republican's objected, citing the "years of precedence" that you rely on. They were turned away, so a right wing company made an equally political movie about HRC and suddenly there is movement afoot to go after corporate influence peddling.
I often wonder what would have happened if the FEC had went after Moore's company, as demanded by the Republican's, and his company challenged the constitutionality of Congress' restrictions on corporate speech.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Exactly eight years ago today, the Treasury had to offer insurance on money market funds, the SEC had to temporarily ban short-selling shares and the government was proposing to spend $700 billion to keep the economy from collapsing.
So yeah, auto sales being somewhat slower than expected is pretty much the same thing.
Exactly eight years ago today, the Treasury had to offer insurance on money market funds, the SEC had to temporarily ban short-selling shares and the government was proposing to spend $700 billion to keep the economy from collapsing.
So yeah, auto sales being somewhat slower than expected is pretty much the same thing.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Yeah, that's completely different. I think what is the same is no one is spending money right now cause of the election and the unknown attached to it. '08 overall was a dumpster fire.
Yeah, that's completely different. I think what is the same is no one is spending money right now cause of the election and the unknown attached to it. '08 overall was a dumpster fire.
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Setting aside the whole president can't repeal a supreme court decision thingy for the moment, I'd have to say that Trump has been a consistently critical of the results of the Citizens United decision. It is probably the single thing he has actually been given a bit of credit for from the left.
Some thoughts on this issue: Allegedly Trump has bought the Florida Attorney General for a $25,000 campaign contribution. Now granted that Trump wrote the check from his foundation rather than personally because he's either a) actually broke (despite the most extremely conservative estimates placing his value at least at $3 billion ) or b) because when Trump sits down at his kitchen table with all his checkbooks every month (like us) and writes out thousands of checks for his various companies, he decided to see if he couldn't slip a fast one by regulators on this one. Because he's cheap.
Fair enough. No argument from me. But rather I'll focus on the fact that the going rate for an Attorney general in Florida, a state with the 16th largest GDP in the world were it a country, is apparently a 25 thousand dollar campaign gift because Trump got what he wanted. This fact of a donor/favor granting relationship seems almost universally accepted on the left.
In a contrasting situation, The Clintons have have personally received (i.e. not a campaign gift, but cash, personally) more than $2.2 million just from Goldman-Sachs alone. Goldman-Sachs has also through direct donation and further facilitation, accounted for millions more in gifts to the Clinton foundation... And millions more in Clinton campaign contributions... And granted complete access to and use of Goldman facilities and their vast connections... And set up the Clinton's son-in-law in business managing a 330 million dollar hedge fund that Goldman helped finance and solicited investors for... And this is just Goldman. Tens of millions have been foisted upon the Clintons by similar institutions, ($50 million just from banks) not to mention all the other corporate interests and lobbyists that have followed suit.
The reason for this is either a) While we know the Clintons can't be bought or influenced by all these millions, the financial institutions keep throwing more and more at them hoping to finally reach their price. Ha! Stupid banks! Or b) In the almost unimaginable case that the good people could be influenced like the Florida Attorney General, (but only at 100,000x the price) in return for this literal mountain of cash and benefits rained down on the Clintons, what Goldman and the others want is for Mrs. Clinton to heavily tax and regulate them, and more importantly as is suggested, cut off all of their regular means of access to political power in the future. Perhaps this is a good place to mention again that I am currently in Florida and can probably get you a fantastic deal on some really high quality "water view" property.
Setting aside the whole president can't repeal a supreme court decision thingy for the moment, I'd have to say that Trump has been a consistently critical of the results of the Citizens United decision. It is probably the single thing he has actually been given a bit of credit for from the left.
Some thoughts on this issue: Allegedly Trump has bought the Florida Attorney General for a $25,000 campaign contribution. Now granted that Trump wrote the check from his foundation rather than personally because he's either a) actually broke (despite the most extremely conservative estimates placing his value at least at $3 billion ) or b) because when Trump sits down at his kitchen table with all his checkbooks every month (like us) and writes out thousands of checks for his various companies, he decided to see if he couldn't slip a fast one by regulators on this one. Because he's cheap.
Fair enough. No argument from me. But rather I'll focus on the fact that the going rate for an Attorney general in Florida, a state with the 16th largest GDP in the world were it a country, is apparently a 25 thousand dollar campaign gift because Trump got what he wanted. This fact of a donor/favor granting relationship seems almost universally accepted on the left.
In a contrasting situation, The Clintons have have personally received (i.e. not a campaign gift, but cash, personally) more than $2.2 million just from Goldman-Sachs alone. Goldman-Sachs has also through direct donation and further facilitation, accounted for millions more in gifts to the Clinton foundation... And millions more in Clinton campaign contributions... And granted complete access to and use of Goldman facilities and their vast connections... And set up the Clinton's son-in-law in business managing a 330 million dollar hedge fund that Goldman helped finance and solicited investors for... And this is just Goldman. Tens of millions have been foisted upon the Clintons by similar institutions, ($50 million just from banks) not to mention all the other corporate interests and lobbyists that have followed suit.
The reason for this is either a) While we know the Clintons can't be bought or influenced by all these millions, the financial institutions keep throwing more and more at them hoping to finally reach their price. Ha! Stupid banks! Or b) In the almost unimaginable case that the good people could be influenced like the Florida Attorney General, (but only at 100,000x the price) in return for this literal mountain of cash and benefits rained down on the Clintons, what Goldman and the others want is for Mrs. Clinton to heavily tax and regulate them, and more importantly as is suggested, cut off all of their regular means of access to political power in the future. Perhaps this is a good place to mention again that I am currently in Florida and can probably get you a fantastic deal on some really high quality "water view" property.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Snarky take by me, but is it because the media is just that: media, and media is about entertaining, not informing.
There are no more journalists out there. Edward R. Murrow is dead.
Today's version, the "advocacy journalist", doesn't know how to do anything beyond regurgitate the press release sent to it that aligns with their pre-conceived notions about topics. They have no clue how to research and dig to truth on a story. And doing such scares them because the truth may not align to their pre-conceived notions.
So what you get is what I saw in Sunday's Fargo Fishwrapper: the front page was all ... sports* ... save for under 100 words at the footer about the St. Cloud knifings. We can't have knifings and bombings on the front page disturb our sense of reality. So I find knifing and bombing stories buried in the A section.
But I also find a story, bigger than the knifing, bigger than the Chelsea and NJ bombings, about how everyone on the campaign trail is always sick because of the travel, and bad food, hotels. Really? Really? That's a story. Oh. Wait. After last Sunday someone had to spin out a story. And today's "journalists" actually run with it. Dare I say it makes me sick.
*I have a crazy idea: how about a section of the paper just for ... sports.
Snarky take by me, but is it because the media is just that: media, and media is about entertaining, not informing.
There are no more journalists out there. Edward R. Murrow is dead.
Today's version, the "advocacy journalist", doesn't know how to do anything beyond regurgitate the press release sent to it that aligns with their pre-conceived notions about topics. They have no clue how to research and dig to truth on a story. And doing such scares them because the truth may not align to their pre-conceived notions.
So what you get is what I saw in Sunday's Fargo Fishwrapper: the front page was all ... sports* ... save for under 100 words at the footer about the St. Cloud knifings. We can't have knifings and bombings on the front page disturb our sense of reality. So I find knifing and bombing stories buried in the A section.
But I also find a story, bigger than the knifing, bigger than the Chelsea and NJ bombings, about how everyone on the campaign trail is always sick because of the travel, and bad food, hotels. Really? Really? That's a story. Oh. Wait. After last Sunday someone had to spin out a story. And today's "journalists" actually run with it. Dare I say it makes me sick.
*I have a crazy idea: how about a section of the paper just for ... sports.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Dumpster fires start with a spark. (And dumpster references today may not be the best of form.)
Dumpster fires start with a spark. (And dumpster references today may not be the best of form.)
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Agree completely. While some of my comments may have been needlessly harsh, I'm adamant about not panicking. Hillary's campaign team knows this. The media always goes scandal mongering on Dems. For that reason the race was always going to tighten since younger voters and minorities tend to engage later than older whites. Now according to plan the Obama's as well as Warren and Sanders will start to fan out and engage these voters. You aren't trying to change minds. You're just getting like minded people to turn out. Even in a 50/50 race, Trump's lack of ground game is really problematic.
Agree completely. While some of my comments may have been needlessly harsh, I'm adamant about not panicking. Hillary's campaign team knows this. The media always goes scandal mongering on Dems. For that reason the race was always going to tighten since younger voters and minorities tend to engage later than older whites. Now according to plan the Obama's as well as Warren and Sanders will start to fan out and engage these voters. You aren't trying to change minds. You're just getting like minded people to turn out. Even in a 50/50 race, Trump's lack of ground game is really problematic.
- Status