Trump Thread Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter XndrK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good_Tidings said:
They want Cruz, a Trump rival and chairman of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, to hold a hearing to determine whether Trump’s request for “foreign entities to conduct cyberattacks on political opponents” broke existing laws.
“Mr. Trump’s encouragement of a Russian cyber incursion of a U.S. presidential candidate represents an unprecedented call for a foreign government to spy on a U.S. citizen and interfere with a U.S. election,” they wrote.
Click to expand...
That ought to be a pretty short hearing, since Trump didn’t actually say that.

What he actually said was that if Russia had hacked the 30,000 Hillary emails before she erased them to keep the FBI from seeing them, he thought someone in the media would pay to have them released.

I would like to see it happen myself. So maybe Ryan needs to investigate the millions of Americans and the FBI that would like to know what she is hiding.

If, of course, Russia or China or Iran hacked her server before she erased those 30,000 emails, they’re already in the hands of our enemies. So why not let the FBI see them too?

But no matter what, they’re in the hands of the various people who received them. If there is damaging stuff in them, they will almost certainly be used to blackmail Clinton in the future. Better that law enforcement and the public know what’s in them now.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Not too long ago the Five Thirty Eight prediction had Trump way out in lead, now Clinton is in the lead and things can change again. I agree that Clinton is being helped by a bump in the polls from the DNC and Trump has hurt himself and the two things together means Clinton is leading right now.
Click to expand...
Five Thirty Eight did have Trump in the lead, but it was by about 55% to Hillary’s 45%. That’s not nearly as big a lead as Hillary has now of almost 78% to 22% for Trump.
 
The_Bucket said:
That has a zero percent chance of happening.

I mean, throw it into the average, sure. But Trump isn’t winning 32% of the black vote anywhere. Ever.
Click to expand...
So you don’t the trust the poll? Is that correct? Why not?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Not in “any way it wants to”. For instance, the policy may not violate the 1st amendment. The qualification may not be based on membership in a specific religion. However, I heard Trump has now backed away from that stance and is now saying he would ban immigration based on region.
Click to expand...
First amendment rights do not extend to noncitizens who do not live here. That is why they can pass laws limiting or outlawing foreign contributions to political campaigns or PAC’s.
 
randomuser said:
This part of Trump’s “healthcare reform” policy, directly from his official campaign web site, raises some red flags for me:

“To reduce the number of individuals needing access to programs like Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program” [emphasis added]
donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

He wants to reduce healthcare options for children? How is that consistent with being “pro-life”? And, unlike Hillary’s plan, Trump’s policies could very well exclude immigrant unborn babies from access to adequate healthcare. All unborn lives matter.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should re-read what you posted. He said he wants to reduce the number of people who NEED a program. Fundamentally different than what you are trying to portray here.
 
zz912 said:
First amendment rights do not extend to noncitizens who do not live here. That is why they can pass laws limiting or outlawing foreign contributions to political campaigns or PAC’s.
Click to expand...
The 1st amendment applies to Congress. It says Congress “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Any law that Congress makes cannot violate this provision. If Congress makes a law that applies a religious test for immigration, that would be Congress violating the 1st amendment. It makes no difference if the object of the law is citizens or non-citizens.

As for foreign contributions to political campaigns, there is no constitutional bar to laws of this type, so they can do it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The 1st amendment applies to Congress. It says Congress “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Any law that Congress makes cannot violate this provision. If Congress makes a law that applies a religious test for immigration, that would be Congress violating the 1st amendment. It makes no difference if the object of the law is citizens or non-citizens.
Click to expand...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It says Congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech, and yet it does to those who the First Amendment do not apply, namely foreign nationals living abroad. Same principle applies.
 
zz912 said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It says Congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech, and yet it does to those who the First Amendment do not apply, namely foreign nationals living abroad. Same principle applies.
Click to expand...
You are interpreting freedom of speech too liberally. Even for citizens there are laws that limit the amount of campaign contributions.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You are interpreting freedom of speech too liberally. Even for citizens there are laws that limit the amount of campaign contributions.
Click to expand...
Congress outright forbids it for foreign nationals. First Amendment rights don’t exist for foreign nationals living outside the US.
 
I was reading comments on Yahoo and ironically Fox News, and people who posted on articles in regards to Donald Trump were interesting.

One that I saw alot and I see it here, is “the liberal media is going after Trump”.

But what the right wing calls the liberal media, brought out dirt against HRC, like the emails, Benghazi, and now with the Iran and $400 million.

If Trump stayed on message and not fight the everyone, the media would have a field day with HRC, but when he goes after a military family, or doesn’t endorse when his campaign asked others to endorse him, or his spokeswomen lied about Capt. Khan and Pres. Obama, just to name a few, Trump will continue to dominate. the headlines.
 
chero23 said:
Babies still died under Bush.

Babies will still die unfortunately if Trump is nominated.
Click to expand...
Of course babies still died under Bush. But he did the best he could in appointing two prolife justices to the Supreme Court, both of whom voted to uphold state bans on partial birth abortion.

And they’ll continue to die if Trump is elected until he can (as he said he would) appoint justices known to be prolife. If Hillary Clinton is elected, she will appoint pro-abortion justices, just as she said she would, including those who support partial birth abortion similar to Obama’s appointees to the court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top