Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because taxes are withheld under their bogus number and their is no way for them to get a refund if they were due one
Not entirely true. They can file under the stolen SSN they have been using, and probably get a refund unless the person whose SSN it really is, gets it. The truly golden stolen SSN is one of a person who doesn’t file taxes at all. If the illegal claims enough children (whether they’re his or not) can also get a handsome Earned Income Credit. It happens. It’s no joke.
 
Because taxes are withheld under their bogus number and their is no way for them to get a refund if they were due one
Misusing a Social Security number is a felony crime subject to a maximum penalty of 5 years in federal prison without parole and a fine up to $250,000.
 
Misusing a Social Security number is a felony crime subject to a maximum penalty of 5 years in federal prison without parole and a fine up to $250,000.
A crime is a crime unless it’s committed by a poor illegal. Then they must be forgiven, otherwise we are bad christians.
 
Not entirely true. They can file under the stolen SSN they have been using, and probably get a refund unless the person whose SSN it really is, gets it. The truly golden stolen SSN is one of a person who doesn’t file taxes at all. If the illegal claims enough children (whether they’re his or not) can also get a handsome Earned Income Credit. It happens. It’s no joke.
I tried to file my taxes electronically last year. I was due a very large refund, so was anxious to get them filed. My return was not accepted by the federal government because someone using my SSN had already filed a return. Luckily, I just had to send in proof of my identity, e.g. driver’s license, passport, and my return was then accepted, and I got my refund quickly. However, had I still been living in Europe and not filing taxes, I suppose the person who appropriated my SSN could have used it for years. This year, my taxes went through just fine.
 
Was it a national poll or a CA poll?
I found this in the source article,
About: SurveyUSA interviewed 2,400 state of California adults 03/30/16 through 04/03/16. Of the adults, 1,991 were registered to vote in the state of California. Of the CA registered voters, 356 were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely to vote in the 06/07/16 Republican Presidential primary, 767 were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely to vote in the 06/07/16 Democratic Presidential primary, 1,269 were determined to be likely to vote in the 06/07/16 open, non-partisan U.S. Senate primary, and 1,507 were determined to be likely to vote in the 11/08/16 general election. This research was conducted using blended sample, mixed mode. Respondents reachable on a home telephone (58% of registered voters) were interviewed on their home telephone in the recorded voice of a professional announcer. Respondents not reachable on a home telephone (42% of registered voters) were shown a questionnaire on their smartphone, tablet or other electronic device. Barack Obama carried CA by 24 points in 2008 and by 23 points in 2012.
 
America is rich so it’s all america’s fault. We can’t do anything to stop illegals from coming in because they are poor, oh my! If we ever try even thinking about doing something, how dare we? How can we? How are we so cruel and heartless?

Sorry! Not going to buy that argument. I’m an immigrant from a very poor family. Poverty doesn’t give the right to behave illegally. You either have the law or don’t. You either have a country and defend it or you don’t.
This country is founded on “illegal” immigrants. A lot of my ancestors came to this country from England almost 400 years ago in the 1600s and all their farms were on land taken from Native Americans. Throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, Native Americans were swindled out of millions of acres and land hungry settlers and immigrants swarmed across the continent pushing many Native Americans onto reservations in the least desirable land. Large areas of the west coast and the southwest were taken by force form Mexico.

In some ways, there is some poetic justice in the Mexicans coming back legally and illegally to the areas taken from their country in the 19th century.
 
This country is founded on “illegal” immigrants. A lot of my ancestors came to this country from England almost 400 years ago in the 1600s and all their farms were on land taken from Native Americans. Throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, Native Americans were swindled out of millions of acres and land hungry settlers and immigrants swarmed across the continent pushing many Native Americans onto reservations in the least desirable land. Large areas of the west coast and the southwest were taken by force form Mexico.

In some ways, there is some poetic justice in the Mexicans coming back legally and illegally to the areas taken from their country in the 19th century.
America-hating nonsense.

Most immigrants to the U.S. before the recent “no borders” policy came here legally.

Most land taken by settlers was uninhabited. My state is a good example of that. The native population in the Ozarks, where I live, had been wiped out by the Osage, who came from the north. The Osage wanted it for a hunting ground. Kentucky was the same way, virtually uninhabited because Ohio Valley tribes wanted it as their hunting preserve.

Much of the U.S. was nearly uninhabited by Indians. Some of it was due to disease. The cities along the Mississippi noted by Desoto’s chronicler had disappeared by the time the French missionaries went up that river 200 years later. Some of it was due to the nature of the land. The Great Plains were nearly uninhabited until some of the tribes got horses. Until then, the only Indians there were a few in the river valleys. Buffalo and other wild animals roamed virtually unmolested because Indians couldn’t run them down until the horse.

Even after the horse, the plains population was very scanty and there were few fixed villages.

And some of the tribes didn’t do too badly in Oklahoma, particularly the Osage (who moved there voluntarily) whose land is rich in oil.

There were virtually no Mexicans north of San Antonio when the Anglo settlers came into the vast area claimed by Mexico but not inhabited by Mexicans. And even San Antonio and much of northern Mexico was becoming depopulated by Comanche attacks. Mexico invited the Anglos in because of that depopulation. The Anglos later declared their independence, not surprisingly.

Mexico took what it had from Spain. But most of it wasn’t even mapped or explored, let alone inhabited by Mexicans.

And Mexico fired the first shots in the Mexican-American War, not Americans.

There won’t be any “taking back” American land by Mexico. How many Mexican-Americans really want to be ruled by Mexican government? Besides, a lot of the illegal Hispanic immigrants are Central Americans and Mexican Maya, who don’t get along with “La Raza” Mexicans anyway.
 
More rationalization. Because we don’t react the way you say we should it proves we are just another political entity-which, of course, makes it perfectly acceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because we are not “sincere” Correct?

zz912 we are definately going to have to add this to the list:

Pro-lifers dont want to punish women who have had abortions as I have determined they should therefore its ok to vote for the virulentley pro-abortion candidate
I know you like to twist posters words completely out of shape, but you should know by now that it is a completely ineffective technique. The pro-life’s movement utter lack of internal consistency or integrity is not a reason to vote for a candidate that one disagrees with, true. But the pro-life movement’s insistence that a large group of murderers live among us, while simultaneously insisting we do nothing to bring those murderers to justice, speaks volumes about the sincerity and integrity of the entire movement.
 
This country is founded on “illegal” immigrants. A lot of my ancestors came to this country from England almost 400 years ago in the 1600s and all their farms were on land taken from Native Americans. Throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, Native Americans were swindled out of millions of acres and land hungry settlers and immigrants swarmed across the continent pushing many Native Americans onto reservations in the least desirable land. Large areas of the west coast and the southwest were taken by force form Mexico.

In some ways, there is some poetic justice in the Mexicans coming back legally and illegally to the areas taken from their country in the 19th century.
You mean after I sell my house to someone, I still have the right to barge back in whenever I want? Poetic justice, eh?
 
I know you like to twist posters words completely out of shape, but you should know by now that it is a completely ineffective technique. The pro-life’s movement utter lack of internal consistency or integrity is not a reason to vote for a candidate that one disagrees with, true. But the pro-life movement’s insistence that a large group of murderers live among us, while simultaneously insisting we do nothing to bring those murderers to justice, speaks volumes about the sincerity and integrity of the entire movement.
👍
 
I know you like to twist posters words completely out of shape, but you should know by now that it is a completely ineffective technique. The pro-life’s movement utter lack of internal consistency or integrity is not a reason to vote for a candidate that one disagrees with, true. But the pro-life movement’s insistence that a large group of murderers live among us, while simultaneously insisting we do nothing to bring those murderers to justice, speaks volumes about the sincerity and integrity of the entire movement.
So if Pro-lifers don’t react to situations the way abortion supporters claim they should that justifies voting for pro abortion candidates? . And people defending human life have no integrity but those fighting for the right to dispose of it do? This is the mental gymnastics archbishop Chaput rightly describes as a mental gymnastics necessary for Catholics to rationalize their votes to support evil.
 
So if Pro-lifers don’t react to situations the way abortion supporters claim they should that justifies voting for pro abortion candidates? . And people defending human life have no integrity but those fighting for the right to dispose of it do? This is the mental gymnastics archbishop Chaput rightly describes as a mental gymnastics necessary for Catholics to rationalize their votes to support evil.
What takes mental gymnastics is to believe that you live surrounded by murderers, but that none of the murderers should be brought to justice.
 
What takes mental gymnastics is to believe that you live surrounded by murderers, but that none of the murderers should be brought to justice.
I agree with and strongly encourage the following from the Joint Committee on Bio-Ethical Issues of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Great Britain:

"In a society which widely permits and procures abortion (e.g. by publicly funding it), some may judge that justice and the common good are most fittingly served by campaigning uncompromisingly for the ‘politically impossible:’ full equal legal protection for the unborn. Others may judge it right to concentrate on pressing for a measure of protection which is less than complete but which is greater than that accorded by today’s unjust law and has, they consider, a better prospect of being soon enacted and brought into force.
“Those who chose the stricter course should not adversely judge those who promote imperfect legislation, provided that the actions and attitudes of the latter are consistent with all other guidelines…Nor should those who promote imperfect legislation make adverse judgments on those whose preference for the stricter course seems to hinder the pursuit of the politically possible. Either group’s adverse criticism of the other may undermine the common effort—to extend the equal protection of the law to all.” (Briefing 89, Vol. 19, No. 14, July 7, 1989.)
 
What takes mental gymnastics is to believe that you live surrounded by murderers, but that none of the murderers should be brought to justice.
If you believe women who procure an abortion should be tried as murderers that is your right . Neither the church nor people involved in the pro-life ministry agree with you but you are within your rights to push for such legislation
 
America-hating nonsense.

Most immigrants to the U.S. before the recent “no borders” policy came here legally.

Most land taken by settlers was uninhabited. My state is a good example of that. The native population in the Ozarks, where I live, had been wiped out by the Osage, who came from the north. The Osage wanted it for a hunting ground. Kentucky was the same way, virtually uninhabited because Ohio Valley tribes wanted it as their hunting preserve.
They came here legally according to who?..according to the colonial powers, the English, French and Spanish, that sent their people here? Do you think that the Native Americans invited the settlers to come and take their land and their hunting grounds?

Have you read about Pontiac’s War?
Pontiac’s War, Pontiac’s Conspiracy, or Pontiac’s Rebellion was a war that was launched in 1763 by a loose confederation of elements of Native American tribes primarily from the Great Lakes region, the Illinois Country, and Ohio Country who were dissatisfied with British postwar policies in the Great Lakes region after the British victory in the French and Indian War (1754–1763). Warriors from numerous tribes joined the uprising in an effort to drive British soldiers and settlers out of the region. The war is named after the Odawa leader Pontiac, the most prominent of many native leaders in the conflict.
The war began in May 1763 when Native Americans, offended by the policies of British General Jeffrey Amherst, attacked a number of British forts and settlements. Eight forts were destroyed, and hundreds of colonists were killed or captured, with many more fleeing the region. Hostilities came to an end after British Army expeditions in 1764 led to peace negotiations over the next two years. Native Americans were unable to drive away the British, but the uprising prompted the British government to modify the policies that had provoked the conflict.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War

Or have you heard about the Walking Purchase?
The Walking Purchase (or Walking Treaty) was a purported 1737 agreement between the Penn family, the proprietors of Pennsylvania, and the Lenape (also known as the Delaware). By it the Penn family and proprietors claimed an area of 1,200,000 acres (4,860 km²) and forced the Lenape to vacate it. The Lenape appeal to the Iroquois for aid on the issue was refused.
In Delaware Nation v. Pennsylvania (2004), the Delaware nation (one of three federally recognized Lenape tribes) claimed 314 acres (1.27 km2) of land included in the original purchase, but the US District Court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss.** It ruled that the case was nonjusticiable, although it acknowledged that Indian title appeared to have been extinguished by fraud**. This ruling held through the United States courts of appeals. The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_Purchase
 
Looks more and more like Trump will not be picked on the first ballot at the Republican convention and might lose the nomination.
Trump had a bad week and his Party’s leadership is trying to knock him out, but I wouldn’t count him out just yet!

That said, I am beyond fascinated to see what a brokered convention would look like!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top