Wake Up, America! Wake Up! PLEASE!!

[TwoBiFour]

Since You guys obviously miss Sub, I'll post a few memes for you to entertain your day.

And some food for thought,...

I especially like how the left INSISTS that Trump is taking our rights away and then in the same breath demand gun control and ban hate speech claiming our constitution is "out dated."

Have a happy Thanksgiving!

 

[mmbbc]

Since You guys obviously miss Sub, I'll post a few memes for you to entertain your day.

And some food for thought,...

I especially like how the left INSISTS that Trump is taking our rights away and then in the same breath demand gun control and ban hate speech claiming our constitution is "out dated."

Have a happy Thanksgiving!

Rotflmao! The turkey with the trump hair! The mouth is just about right too. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[TwoBiFour]

I'm just curious as to what you think of Trump's desire to change our 14th Amendment by executive order? Do you think he should have that right, and if so, why?

No president should have the right to change the constitution via executive order

Trump's ******* did exactly the same thing with her private e-mail account as did Hillary Clinton. Trump disagreed?

She should be investigated and charged if there were laws broken. The same with Hillary. but we both know that's not going to happen simply because of who and what they are - bringing us to your next point.

Is there ANYTHING the President could do that his drones would finally say "Trump is wrong?" What do you think it is? Trump, himself, said he could shoot & ******* someone in public and get away with it ... do you agree?

Are you asking if we agree that he should get away with it or are you asking if we agree to that statement? We both know that statement rings true and not only for Trump, but anyone in the position of power or has lots of money. (see above statement) It is sad but true. Should Trump have said it out loud? no. I'm sure you have thought that about others - if not said it yourself.

Its now knowned that the Saudi prince ordered the assassination of Khosogghi. Trump says he doesn't care if they did, he'll still side with Saudi Arabia ......

He who is without sin...
Not up on that news so not sure how it effects us? Obama also knew that Saudi was behind 9/11, yet we continued relations. Our own government has done the same or worse. Would you rather Trump just give us lip service about the order, as any other President would do? Or would you rather he be honest with us. I really doubt any president would actually make a move against SA.

I'm just wondering if there is a common "POINT" where both anti-Trumpers (being someone like myself) and Trump drones can agree that Trump has gone too far on something.

He goes to far on a lot of things, the only difference is that the right don't turn a mole hill into a mountain. If he isn't breaking the law - I don't give a fuck. If he is breaking a law, then bring PROOF to the table, not a bunch of Hear-Say and opinions. I really don't care how he dresses, how he drinks his water, or what he tweets. The biggest difference here is the left insist on controlling others behaviors, what you do and how you act and what you should think and live your life. That is what bothers you the most about Trump, you can't control him. The right simply don't care how you behave as long as you are not harming others or others property.

There are actually a lot of things the right don't agree with Trump - we just don't think it is grounds for removal from office. We still believe in Do-Process. Imagine the Chaos if the people had the power to just yank presidents from office and put someone else in simply because they don't tweet the right words.

 

[Zwing]

Half of this country voted for the current President - when you insult him by calling him a moron - you insult them - I’ve noticed what you liberals do BEST - is insult and call names - soooooo childish REALLY - too bad that seems to be your strong suit.

To be accurate, less than 20% of the population of the United States voted for Trump. Roughly 19.3%.

And you must grasp the irony of you accusing liberals of name calling. You are aware of Trump and his penchant for name calling, right?

 

[hoping hubby]

He's wanting to do away with the Fourteenth Amendment by "executive order" .... the fuck'er is insane!

What's insane is the liberal hyperbole (and often hypocrisy) with anything Trump says. No Trump is not "wanting to do away with the Fourteenth Amendment by executive order" He's suggested an executive order to clarify the implementation of the citizenship aspect of the 14th amendment might be issued. There's a vast difference between the reality of what Trump has said and your hyperbole, but we've come to expect such irrational exaggeration from you time and again.

The simple fact is the text of the 14th amendment doesn't clearly state any guarantee of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. The first sentence of the amendment states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The key phrase being "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Illegal aliens are NOT political subjects of the United States. They are subject to US criminal jurisdiction, but they are still under the political jurisdiction and bear allegiance to the nation state they originated from. This part of the amendment's language was based on the 1866 civil rights act which said: "That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-civil-rights-act-of-1866/

The intent was to grant citizenship to children born on US soil to parents who were legally residing in the US and while excluding people like diplomats who are subject of a foreign state. A clear example showing this fact was the creation of the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. This law granted citizenship to all native americans born on US soil. If the 14th amendment actually meant that any baby born on US soil got citizenship, the Indian Citizenship Act wouldn't have been necessary....they would have already been US citizens.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-civil-rights-act-of-1866/

The Supreme Court even ruled on this fact in Elk v. Wilkins. They held that John Elk, an indian born on US soil did not have US citizenship rights under the 14th amendment because despite being born on US soil, his parent's political jurisdiction at the time of his birth was first to their tribal nation.

Liberal extremists who want everyone who illegally crosses the Rio Grande to be able to pop out an anchor baby like to point to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark to support unlimited birthright citizenship, but again this is simply not part of the court's ruling. The Supreme Court held Wong Kim Ark did get citizenship when born on US soil to his Chinese immigrant parents. The key factor being his parents were legally here and politically subjects of the US

Funny I don't remember the great outcry from the liberals for Harry Reid's head when he was "wanting to do away with the Fourteenth Amendment" by a simple act of congress (not an amendment proposal) back in 1993 saying "no sane country" would allow illegal alien birthright citizenship.

 

[hoping hubby]

To be accurate, less than 20% of the population of the United States voted for Trump. Roughly 19.3%.

And you must grasp the irony of you accusing liberals of name calling. You are aware of Trump and his penchant for name calling, right?

Of course you're including around 75 million people in your denominator who are too young to vote. What 2bi's obvious point was (for those willing to think) was that basically half of those who voted did so for Trump while the other half voted for Shrillary.

Of course by your "thinking"....to be "accurate" Obummer only got the vote of roughly 22.8% of the population in 2008 and only 20.9% in 2012.

 

[Zwing]

Of course you're including around 75 million people in your denominator who are too young to vote. What 2bi's obvious point was (for those willing to think) was that basically half of those who voted did so for Trump while the other half voted for Shrillary.

Of course by your "thinking"....to be "accurate" Obummer only got the vote of roughly 22.8% of the population in 2008 and only 20.9% in 2012.

He stated, and I quote, "Half of this country voted for the current President." All I did was point out the obvious mathematical error. And of course you reduce it to "basically half". It fits your narrative. But maybe this is more palatable for you and more simple to understand. More people didn't vote for Trump than did.

Oh, and I like your, "BUT... BUT... OBAMA!!!!!"

 

[hoping hubby]

He stated, and I quote, "Half of this country voted for the current President." All I did was point out the obvious mathematical error. And of course you reduce it to "basically half". It fits your narrative. But maybe this is more palatable for you and more simple to understand. More people didn't vote for Trump than did.

Oh, and I like your, "BUT... BUT... OBAMA!!!!!"

There was no mathematical error to point out in 2bi's post. It's obvious to anyone engaging more than a couple neurons that the implication was (Basically) half of the country (THAT VOTED) voted for Trump. Your attempt at an argument isn't pointing out a math error. Math errors are things like 1 + 1 = 3....What you were trying to argue was that a different methodology should be used to get the numbers to plug into the math equation. Ultimately in this, you're really just making yourself out as a shining example of the behavior 2bi has talked about in his recent posts.

As for Obama, I was merely demonstrating how silly your point was when put into the proper comparative perspective using your suggested methodology...but I'm not surprised that is lost on you.

 

[Zwing]

There was no mathematical error to point out in 2bi's post. It's obvious to anyone engaging more than a couple neurons that the implication was (Basically) half of the country (THAT VOTED) voted for Trump. Your attempt at an argument isn't pointing out a math error. Math errors are things like 1 + 1 = 3....What you were trying to argue was that a different methodology should be used to get the numbers to plug into the math equation. Ultimately in this, you're really just making yourself out as a shining example of the behavior 2bi has talked about in his recent posts.

As for Obama, I was merely demonstrating how silly your point was when put into the proper comparative perspective using your suggested methodology...but I'm not surprised that is lost on you.

I don't know what numbers he was using to arrive at his "about half". But no math is used in figuring out half of an amount? Gotcha. But maybe you can show me the different methodology that should be used to calculate the proper percentage.

And maybe he should have said that in the first place. You know, "Trump nearly received half of all the votes cast." But he didn't state that and intentionally I might add just to make it look and sound like half of the country wanted Trump as president. Which cannot be verified. The only thing we do know for a fact is that Trump received 2.6 million fewer votes than Clinton and significantly less than half of the voting age population actually voted for Trump.

These facts are indisputable.

But the hilarious thing is you trying to defend it. He made an erroneous statement. I corrected it.

Now let's hear it again. "BUT.. BUT... OBAMA!"

 

[hoping hubby]

I don't know what numbers he was using to arrive at his "about half".

Oh I bet you do. You just wish to argue incessantly.

But no math is used in figuring out half of an amount? Gotcha.

I didn't say that. Your attempts at straw man arguments will get you nowhere. Just ask Mac. He's the king of getting called out for that logical fallacy.

The only thing we do know for a fact is that Trump received 2.6 million fewer votes than Clinton and significantly less than half of the voting age population actually voted for Trump.

Suddenly now you're switching to voting age population for the denominator (you know that number on the bottom of the fraction? Or maybe Jethro was your teacher in which case it is the number after the "gozinta")

You obviously didn't use VAP in your first post. You used the entire US population. Or at least that is obvious to most....possibly not you.

 

[Zwing]

Oh I bet you do. You just wish to argue incessantly.

I didn't say that. Your attempts at straw man arguments will get you nowhere. Just ask Mac. He's the king of getting called out for that logical fallacy.

Suddenly now you're switching to voting age population for the denominator (you know that number on the bottom of the fraction? Or maybe Jethro was your teacher in which case it is the number after the "gozinta")

You obviously didn't use VAP in your first post. You used the entire US population. Or at least that is obvious to most....possibly not you.

I used voting aged population because you whined that I had used the general pop in my initial post. If you like I can restate it using that number.
Over 80 percent of the population didn't vote for Trump. Better? Seriously, you whine when I use general pop and whine when I use VAP. Make up your mind.

And talk about just wanting to argue. That is you all over. See above.

 

[Zwing]

And the funniest thing is you call me out for mathematical error v. methodological error but we all should have known what blckdlaur meant by "half the country".

Comedic gold on your part.

 

[Drillher4me]

WHEN "THE DONALD STEPS INTO THE DOGGIE-DOO" NOT EVERYONE IS AFRAID TO RUB HIS NOSE INTO IT!
HERE'S THUMBS UP TO "CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS" OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!
Congratulations Chief Justice Roberts for your courage and willingness to stand up for the American people and the office you represent!

--------------------------------------------------​

Chief Justice Roberts defends judiciary in rare statement

(CNN)Chief Justice John Roberts made a rare statement on Wednesday pushing back against President Donald Trump after the President again went after federal judges.
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."
Roberts' comment came in response to an inquiry from The Associated Press. On Tuesday, Trump slammed the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals again, this time after a judge from the Northern District of California -- where cases get appealed to the 9th Circuit -- issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from barring migrants who cross into the US illegally from seeking asylum.
"It's a disgrace when every case gets filed in the 9th Circuit," Trump said as part of a lengthy criticism of the court. "That's not law. Every case in the 9th Circuit we get beaten and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court like the travel ban and we won. Every case, no matter where it is, they file is practically, for all intents and purposes, they file it in what's called the 9th Circuit. This was an Obama judge. I'll tell you what, it's not going to happen like this anymore."
Roberts, who then-President George W. Bush tapped to lead the Supreme Court, is the highest authority in the federal judiciary, and his remark was a rare direct response to the head of the Executive Branch.
Speaking at the University of Minnesota Law School in October, Roberts emphasized the Supreme Court's independence and differences from the other branches.
"I will not criticize the political branches," Roberts said. "We do that often enough in our opinions. But what I would like to do, briefly, is emphasize how the judicial branch is -- how it must be -- very different."
Trump has been a frequent critic of the 9th Circuit, and just a few months into his presidency, he said he was considering breaking up the circuit that covers a slew of Western states and Guam.
Several of his most controversial policies have been held up by judges there, and the temporary block on his attempt to rewrite asylum rules marked the latest such instance.
RELATED: John Roberts played the long game. He just won.
In addition to his criticism of the 9th Circuit, Trump has previously attacked Roberts as well.
While he was a presidential candidate, Trump in 2016 called Roberts a "nightmare for conservatives" in an interview on ABC. He also said in the interview that "Justice Roberts could've killed Obamacare and should've, based on everything -- should've killed it twice," a reference in part to Roberts casting the deciding vote in June 2012 to save President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act. Roberts voted again in 2015 in favor of supporting Obamacare.
More concisely, Trump tweeted after Roberts' first vote in favor of Obamacare in 2012, "Congratulations to John Roberts for making Americans hate the Supreme Court because of his BS."

 

[blkdlaur]

Well all the useless quibbling aside - I wish you all a HAPPY THANKSGIVING !!!!!
I hope I made that freaking clear enough - GEEZ - I’ll add nitpicking - to whining - hypocrisy - incessant insulting and name calling to the looney bin liberal repertoire!!!

 

[hoping hubby]

I used voting aged population because you whined that I had used the general pop in my initial post. If you like I can restate it using that number.
Over 80 percent of the population didn't vote for Trump. Better? Seriously, you whine when I use general pop and whine when I use VAP. Make up your mind.

And talk about just wanting to argue. That is you all over. See above.

I've whined about nothing. I merely highlighted the silliness of your original post and that by your "logic" it is also true that about 80% of the population didn't vote for Obama. About 80% also didn't vote for GW, or ole Bubba blowjobs by unpaid interns. Ole Bubba only won 43% of the actual vote. 57% of the people who gave enough of a ******* to bother voting didn't want Clinton but we were stuck with him regardless.

The sort of 80% didn't vote for Trump statistic you bandy about really is meaningless practically speaking, but it sure is effective at stirring up the useful idiots!

And the logical fallacies will resume in 3....2....1.....

 

[MacNfries]

And talk about just wanting to argue.

Just ignore the idiot, Zwing ... H-H doesn't contribute anything to the forums but criticism. He'll take a 3 paragraph post, find one sentence that isn't clear to him and make an issue out of it. I end every post directed to him, for the past 2 years with "Fuck You, Fuck Off" ... he has nothing to do and certainly doesn't have a wife that gives 2 shits about him, either. She just ignores him, too. Responding to him only encourages him.

 

[Drillher4me]

Just ignore the idiot, Zwing ... H-H doesn't contribute anything to the forums but criticism. He'll take a 3 paragraph post, find one sentence that isn't clear to him and make an issue out of it. I end every post directed to him, for the past 2 years with "Fuck You, Fuck Off" ... he has nothing to do and certainly doesn't have a wife that gives 2 shits about him, either. She just ignores him, too. Responding to him only encourages him.

MacNfries, sometimes you just gotta zzzwwwwing with the motion of the ocean or just get the hell out of the water, eh!
Lol !! I fully concur that there are some on this site, even within this thread, that are best ignored, even some that I have and continue to ignore.

 

[hoping hubby]

H-H doesn't contribute anything to the forums but criticism.

Coming from a man with a significantly lower like to post ratio than mine...gee that really means a lot

He'll take a 3 paragraph post, find one sentence that isn't clear to him and make an issue out of it

Or I'll take the entirety of a post like your #2925 and demonstrate how substantively ignorant you are of the topic as I did in post#2936

he has nothing to do and certainly doesn't have a wife that gives 2 shits about him, either. She just ignores him, too

Why do you continue to attempt these childish insults about my wife and my marriage which you obviously know nothing about? Do you not realize how shallow and petulant such statements show you to be????

 

[MacNfries]

Coming from a man with a significantly lower like to post ratio than mine...gee that really means a lot

You see, what makes it enjoyable for me is the challenge to come up with new ways to tell you to ....
................ you DO know what a vowel is, hopefully, otherwise you can't play this game.

 

[blkdlaur]

The attempt at intelligent discourse with a liberal is futile. Buy their talking points or prepare for the invectives to fly - why bother?