Patterico's Pontifications

8/24/2016

“There Certainly Can Be a Softening”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:33 pm



UPDATE: Back taxes!

112 Responses to ““There Certainly Can Be a Softening””

  1. What took him so long?

    JVW (f97acd)

  2. By the end of September he will be quoted as saying, “ObamaCare is here to stay.”

    JVW (f97acd)

  3. By mid-October he’ll be proposing across-the-board tax increases.

    JVW (f97acd)

  4. By November he’ll rejoin the democrat party.

    Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6)

  5. Rev., and isn’t that the h3ll of it all?

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  6. A better mind than any of us:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/dont_be_like_the_man_who_married_his_motherinlaw.html

    Actually, some of us sit on ours.

    DNF (ffe548)

  7. This isn’t surprising on two levels: One being that any position he takes is, by default, not an actual position, but rather a momentary state of mind bound to change with the prevailing polling winds. Second, he financed the Gang of 8.

    Pretty soon, there will be no daylight between Trump and Rubio/Bush on immigration.

    Dana (995455)

  8. they have assumed, today is the day of eminent doom,

    narciso (732bc0)

  9. the game changer is the wall

    the game changer is border security

    everyone knows that

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  10. 7. In the far north of MN, some township named Cormorant has voted a Great Pyrenee mayor for his third consecutive term.

    #nevertrump take note, you can do better, hypothetically.

    DNF (ffe548)

  11. well he’s already trained, has his shots, that’s better than 70% of the political class,

    narciso (732bc0)

  12. redstate lol

    they just wanna huff some stinkypig stinkypig

    huff it down deep

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  13. Yeah, you’ll get a wall. And a bottle of Arpege.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. Isn’t it pretty not to to think so.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  15. We should just elect Hillary!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  16. Great movie quotes.

    “Sentry: Do you want the padre?
    Harry Morant: No, thank you. I’m a pagan.
    Sentry: And you?
    Peter Handcock: What’s a pagan?
    Harry Morant: Well… it’s somebody who doesn’t believe there’s a divine being dispensing justice to mankind.
    Peter Handcock: I’m a pagan, too.
    Harry Morant: There is an epitaph I’d like: Matthew 10:36. Well, Peter… this is what comes of ’empire building.’
    Major Thomas: Matthew 10:36?
    Minister: And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  17. “And a bottle of Arpege.”

    Eau d’Ivanka (actually Guangzhou #5).

    Rick Ballard (ce29ad)

  18. If, God forbid, Trump is elected, he will be a Democrat. Think about it. Is there any Republican in Congress who would not rather have Mike Pence as President? Is there any Democrat who would? Trump will do nothing that will make Democrats join a two-thirds vote to impeach him.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. Nobody expected him to go after 11 million.

    After all, 6 million will do. It’s a nice round figure. Fur der history books.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  20. If, God forbid, Trump is elected, he will be a Democrat. Think about it. Is there any Republican in Congress who would not rather have Mike Pence as President? Is there any Democrat who would? Trump will do nothing that will make Democrats join a two-thirds vote to impeach him.

    nk (dbc370) — 8/24/2016 @ 8:23 pm

    Is this supposed to be serious?

    Gerald A (76f251)

  21. I predict that all of Trump’s children (except the one who’s out of the public eye) will be endorsing various Democrat candidates in the decades to come.

    Gerald A (76f251)

  22. It is optimistic to write as if the UK is already out of the EU.
    But I grew up in the era when the Communists had a “People’s Army”. They need a different name.

    kishnevi (1c16da)

  23. Sturmabteilungen?

    nk (dbc370)

  24. like I said, setbacks to the movement, and the uk is a major cash cow for the eu, so they will resist,

    narciso (732bc0)

  25. Cruz fan boys are pissed Trump has turned the tide in his favor.

    I luv what Kelly Ann Conway is doing with Trump.

    She wants to win. Good for her and the Nation.

    Criminals li,e Hillary should be in jail.

    And we have had worse in the WH than Trump .. Obola, LBJ come to mind. carter.

    Rodney King's Spirit (a2db57)

  26. Oh no! Stick a fork in him — he’s done!
    Now approximately zero former Trump supporters will abandon him and vote for Hillary or Johnson or that bald doofus in Utah.

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

  27. I love how the #NeverTrumpers are like, “Yeah, he might be softening his immigration rhetoric, so now I really can’t vote for him!”
    (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  28. The willfully ignorant Trump faithful are now beginning to get what they deserve, good and hard.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  29. there isn’t an organized political party is there, up there,

    http://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2016/08/libertarian-johnson-on-mn-ballot-ip-pushes-mcmullin/

    narciso (732bc0)

  30. the game changer is the wall

    the game changer is border security

    everyone knows that

    Yes, and everyone knows it, but you’re forgetting one thing: you and I can say it, but a candidate can’t. Not because it’s political dynamite, but because the situation is dynamic.

    Everyone knows that eventually, once the border is sealed, some sort of amnesty will happen. It’s both practically necessary and morally right. But to talk about it before the border is sealed is to announce to everyone who’s thinking of coming that if they get in before the doors close they’ll be allowed to stay.

    It’s no good saying the amnesty will only apply to those who are here as of last year, or some other arbitrary date in the past, because they won’t believe you. If you say there’s an amnesty coming they’ll try to get in under it.

    So the only responsible path for someone in the public eye, someone who wants a hand in future policy, is to shut up about it until the time comes. Just say “the first priority is to seal the border, and until that happens it’s too early to discuss what happens next.”

    This was basically the tack Cruz took. Trump should learn from him.

    Milhouse (5a188d)

  31. The willfully ignorant Trump faithful are now beginning to get what they deserve, good and hard.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 8/24/2016 @ 9:11 pm

    They’ll never admit it.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  32. This is much more entertaining than what’s been going on here… http://ace.mu.nu/archives/365473.php

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  33. Good call, coronello.

    …Pvt. Geddes gave up his life in the fight for Tarawa. About the size of Central Park, the island was the scene of a titanic struggle 73 years ago. Many of the Marines were dropped 1000 yards out, and had to wade through murderous Japanese machine gun fire with their rifles held over their heads. They couldn’t fight. Their heavy equipment meant that they couldn’t swim

    A lot of sailors went into the water after them.

    But all honor to PVT. Geddes.

    I know this. Coxswains Douglas Munroe and Samuel B. Roberts would rather die. And did.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  34. DE-413

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  35. The game changer would be a constitutional amendment that says “No person, having entered the United States contrary to law, may be granted citizenship.”

    It would take them decades to get around that.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  36. Kevin,I would think it’s already law. I give you the Nazis, stripped of ciitizenship.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  37. Trump should learn

    If only.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  38. Steve, Congress can grant citizenship to anyone they want. The Nazi thing has to do with REVOKING citizenship. It’s not a “must” thing though, and has to do with perjury on citizenship applications. If they had said “I was a Nazi” and we still granted them citizenship (e.g. certain rocket scientists), those laws wouldn’t apply.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  39. Kevin, maybe so. But it’s the law we can undo it.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  40. @41. Google ‘Arthur Rudolph’.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  41. Ok, there’s MSGT Benevidez and LT Ramsey.

    So, maybe I do know from Army.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  42. Tacloban airfield.

    http://aboutww2.com/images/phillipines.html

    I would be remiss if I didn’t mention it. The Army types were, when convinced of the seriousness of the situation Taffy 3 was facing, quite helpful.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  43. I think it had to do with the fact the Navy types kept landing.

    If they had a carrier to return to, they would have returned to it.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  44. Can’t wait for all you rinos to move to the arctic with cher.

    mg (31009b)

  45. Funny you mention it. I want to move to the Arctic.

    http://www.articrigs.com/

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  46. And:

    http://www.affordabledogsleds.com/

    Me and the Hawken rifle want to move to the Arctic, MG because thanks to you everything south sucks.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  47. I just thought of this, mg.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  48. Just now, I thought of this.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  49. Back taxes is part of the old “comprensive immigration reform” but people only say that because they’re not thinking or they’re not serious. It’s a thoughtless concession to the hardliners on immigration. How can poor people whose taxes were not withheld pay them, or even know them? This is besides the point that taxes were set based on the existence of EEarned Income Tax Credit, which they were not eligible for. If there is really a desire to collect uncollected taxes, it is the employers who should pay them.

    We really don’t need the filing of more false forms, which is what would likely happen.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c7fb2)

  50. Your more than welcome, comrade Steve57.

    mg (31009b)

  51. 1. JVW (f97acd) — 8/24/2016 @ 7:36 pm

    What took him so long?

    The prospect of losing an election has a tendency to concentrate the mind. But this is too tomoorous. Trump needs to get attacked by Steve King and others, and also by Hillary Clinton, as soft on immigration.

    One possibility: He could come out for removing the bar to immigration by deported aliens.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c7fb2)

  52. Dana (995455) — 8/24/2016 @ 7:50 pm

    Pretty soon, there will be no daylight between Trump and Rubio/Bush on immigration.

    But Trump has no credibility.

    That won’t help him.

    He needs for the Democrats and the media to reinforce the point that his policy is now something different than what was thought before. He has to actually run to Hillary’s left.

    Avoiding citizenship, as per Lindsey Graham, is a good touch. It may help guarantee Democratic opposition.

    Even then, he still needs very negaive impressions of Hillary Clinton. And hes got a problem with DACA.

    Does Trump have enough common sense to figure his way out of this? Probably not. He’ll probably fall short.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c7fb2)

  53. One point:

    On this and other issues, Trump proposes things that only make sense to people who don’t know what they are talking about.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c7fb2)

  54. Milhouse (5a188d) — 8/24/2016 @ 9:21 pm

    It’s no good saying the amnesty will only apply to those who are here as of last year, or some other arbitrary date in the past, because they won’t believe you. If you say there’s an amnesty coming they’ll try to get in under it.

    If the amnesty is delayed, the date will be advanced.

    But Democrats will not agree to border security without getting amnesty in advace.

    In fact this whole argument is faulty, because 100% border control cannot be achieved, nor should anyone actually want it. Making amnesty contingent on border control is the ame thing as no amnesty. And claiming this will be the last amnesty is delusional. What they could do is set conditions for the next amnesty.

    This always falls down on the metric by which you are supposed to measure whether or not border security has been achieved. Do you do it on the basis of money spent? A specific construction project completed?

    So the only responsible path for someone in the public eye, someone who wants a hand in future policy, is to shut up about it until the time comes. Just say “the first priority is to seal the border, and until that happens it’s too early to discuss what happens next.”

    This was basically the tack Cruz took. Trump should learn from him.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c7fb2)

  55. Not to say we told you so, but…

    We told you so Biatches!

    Carlos (fb2d03)

  56. Your more than welcome, comrade Steve57.

    mg (31009b) — 8/25/2016 @ 3:37 am

    Comrade. Nice touch.

    The last time I hunted caribou, the Mulchatna herd, we touched down to change planes in the middle of nowhere. We had to shift from the Cessna 172 to the Piper Cubs with the Tundra tires.

    There was a Lesbian couple who met the plane. They were doing what they wanted in the one place on earth where they could. But they enjoyed the society of us knuckle dragging Neanderthal hunters because, you know what? Our way of life is more under threat than theirs.

    1 Peter 3:15

    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

    They didn’t ask. God will judge, not us. And we enjoyed their society as they enjoyed ours.

    The Arctic, or at least Alaska, is a big place. Plenty of elbow room. It has much to recommend it.

    But then, Texas has much the same qualities. And maybe in a few years I’ll get a boat slip in Corpus Christi.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  57. That was actually the only time I hunted caribou. I’ve hunted Alaska several other times but for Sitka Blacktail on the islets off Kodiak.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  58. We really don’t need the filing of more false forms, which is what would likely happen.

    Nor do we need another batch of Alan Thicke commercials.

    kishnevi (b58549)

  59. Fickle memory is a poor servant. It could have been the Nushagak herd.

    http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/areaplans/bristol/pdf/bbap_ch3_reg06.pdf

    Region 6

    Nushagak, Mulchatna

    Summary of Resources and Uses in the Region

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  60. I used to say:
    I’m a Christian Conservative.
    I’m a Christian first.
    I’m a 3-prong Conservative second.
    I’m a Republican third, but only because there isn’t a viable Conservative party.

    I no longer call myself a Republican. With Trump, it has abandoned any pretenses at being Conservative, Constitutionalist, or Honest. To Sheol with the Republicans, and to an exponentially greater magnitude, all Trump Idolators. Fornicate them all. Not a one of them is worth a pile of bovine excrement.

    John Hitchcock (277264)

  61. Trump is still working on his policy on immigration. he was originally suppowed to deliver a speech today but cancelled a few days ago, but is now planning to deliver a speech next week in Phoenix.

    I wonder if he really believes he can come up with a compromise that satisfies 60% of the people, without acknowledging any backtracking or giving up anybody’s red lines.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c7fb2)

  62. The game changer would be a constitutional amendment that says “No person, having entered the United States contrary to law, may be granted citizenship.”

    It would take them decades to get around that.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/25/2016 @ 12:09 am

    Amnesty and a blanket pardon like was used for draft dodgers would fulfill your requirement.

    Not tenable.

    njrob (249c83)

  63. Can we assume that this criticism means that Patterico has now adopted the Vdare.com line on immigration and will govern itself accordingly from now on?

    No?

    Then “Fornicate them all.”, as John Hitchcock so hilariously and ham-lippedly put it. Also, John, no matter how many ‘prongs’ your ideological state of mind has, to everyone else, the only thing that matters is “YOU’RE A ****ING WHITE MALE!”

    Note that Hillary Clinton will never, ever, ever make a speech on the dangers of Patterico.

    Dystopia Max (76803a)

  64. Kevin, maybe so. But it’s the law we can undo it.

    Once citizenship is granted, it can only be revoked in extreme circumstances (e.g. concentration camp guards). The point of a AMENDMENT is to stop Democrats from liberalizing the laws later and naturalizing such illegals who are allowed to stay as legal residents.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  65. Amnesty and a blanket pardon like was used for draft dodgers would fulfill your requirement.

    You cannot pardon someone for being here illegally if they are still here illegally. Obama could issue such pardons daily, but the day he’s out of office they all get arrested for still being here.

    Congress has the enumerated powers of admission and naturalization.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  66. A white man’s only competition is other white men. I don’t know about white “males” — they might need to be specially protected.

    nk (dbc370)

  67. http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=365477

    Problem: Trump Not on the Minnesota Ballot, and It Looks Like He Can’t Get On It

    You fools nominated the one GOP “Bush lied, people died” candidate.

    He’s not in it to win it. And he’s said so. But you idiot Trumptards couldn’t be bothered to pay attention.

    And you accuse of who weren’t fooled of being traitors.

    Steve57 (41f53d)

  68. He is on the Minnesota ballot now. Never mind what the law says; that’s only there to be used on third parties.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  69. Still the same unthinking hostility to the GOP candidate. See you in November. Too bad.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  70. Yep they are still over macho grande, and they are William shatter to boot.

    narciso (732bc0)

  71. I am not 100 percent white, as I have noted multiple times. 5 different continents are represented in my family, Australia and Antarctica not making it into the 5. And Christoph is a racist.

    John Hitchcock (4d2dbe)

  72. Well she’s been making excuses for criminals anx terrorist for fifty years from the panthers to the faln to somelived matters,

    narciso (732bc0)

  73. 71.A white man’s only competition is other white men.

    Other than being a thoroughly Anglophobic statement, what makes you believe such nonsense?

    Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6)

  74. Still the same unthinking hostility to the GOP candidate. See you in November. Too bad.

    Still the same unthinking support that got him the nomination. When we lose in November, you will blame everyone but yourself.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  75. And again, for those with the hearing problem:

    We told you that we could not support Trump.
    We told you that there were many other candidates that we COULD support, some of whom had similar views.
    We told you that the issue wasn’t Trump’s views, it was Trump himself. Manifestly unsuited to the job.
    You didn’t listen.
    Instead you forced this choice on the majority through rules that allowed a large minority to control the nomination.
    And we told you again and again and again that we would not be voting for him in November.
    We PLEADED with you not to launch this clusterfukk.

    And you did it anyway.

    Now, you sound like we’re stabbing you in the back or something. WE EFFING TOLD YOU WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

    Live with your choices. In this case Hillary. It’s your fukking fault.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  76. I love how Mr. Trump is gonna do the good policies on the illegal immigrants. This is what we need for our president to do for so the country can move forward and deal with the serious challenges.

    He’s truly a good friend to us all.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  77. Hillary is a short term problem.

    Electing Trump would be a long-term problem.

    The fact that repudiating Trump involves getting Hillary elected for a term (or less, she’s ill) is unfortunate. We would have preferred to do this during the primaries but you lot had the bit between your teeth. So try not to scream as we kick them in.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  78. Kevin M,

    How is electing Hillary only a short-term problem?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  79. Mr. Trump is only a long term problem if you really had your heart set on them stinkypig judges going to town on them poor defenseless wiggle giggles.

    This is not a problem for me.

    i have my own agenda.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  80. It would seem to me that the damage Hillary! could do just in the Supreme Court is far longer, more reaching and insidious than anything Trump would do. Or is Trump planning on “legalizing” all of South America and the Middle East or making Christianity illegal or something else we’re not aware of?

    Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6)

  81. Mr happyfeet,

    I think some of our holier-than-thou “conservative” friends think that Barack has only been a short term problem.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  82. that’s so crazy and innumerate

    what food stamp did on economic growth will still have ramifications 100 years from now, even after all the pension piggies are dead and gone

    rape is rape

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  83. “I am not 100 percent white, as I have noted multiple times. 5 different continents are represented in my family, Australia and Antarctica not making it into the 5. And Christoph is a racist.”

    John Bloviating Hitchcock, no matter how many races you feel are represented within your psyche, you’re always going to be a white man to the nonwhites and SJWs who currently rule and can identify you on sight.

    Acting like your personal super special awesome racial mix is worthy of more than a moment’s consideration is as silly as entertaining Bruce Jenners multigendered fantasies.

    Dystopia Max (76803a)

  84. Christoph proves he doesn’t know the difference between “family” and “psyche”.

    John Hitchcock (df5aba)

  85. “Christoph proves he doesn’t know the difference between “family” and “psyche”.”

    WHAT CHOO TALKIN BOUT, CRACKA??? Y’ALL LOOK HONKY TO ME!

    That’s the rough level of discourse you’ll be able to get to in a Democrat administration before being deemed ‘white’ and abused for Crimes Against Black Bodies.

    Though thank you for showing, in detail, exactly why race-mixing even among whites has fundamentally enervating effects on tribal cameraderie and makes takeover by legalistic dictators and their mystery-meat figureheads much easier.

    Dystopia Max (76803a)

  86. Though thank you for showing, in detail, exactly why race-mixing even among whites has fundamentally enervating effects on tribal cameraderie and makes takeover by legalistic dictators and their mystery-meat figureheads much easier.

    This is the GOP now. That and overreacting to Downfall memes because there is so much to be insecure about these days on Team R. I guess I can understand that.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  87. are you ready for the summer

    are you ready for the good times

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  88. “80. We told you that we could not support Trump.
    We told you that there were many other candidates that we COULD support, some of whom had similar views.
    We told you that the issue wasn’t Trump’s views, it was Trump himself. Manifestly unsuited to the job.
    You didn’t listen”

    Somehow I doubt that the 14 million people who voted for Trump got the message that Kevin M (25bbee) didn’t approve of him — otherwise they would have surely voted differently.
    Did you forget to send out the email? Is it stuck in your Drafts folder?

    Do you guys have any idea how rediculous you sound? “Duh, you should have voted the way I said.” Duh, the Democrats have been telling me that for 50 years. Why should I listen to you when I didn’t listen to them?

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

  89. Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/25/2016 @ 11:12 am

    Congress has the enumerated powers of admission and naturalization

    And just where in the constiitution does Congress have the power of admission, or non-admission.

    It is NOT an enumerated power of Congress.

    http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/full-text

    Article I, Section 8 Clause 4:

    The Congress shall have Power… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    I see naturalization, but I don’t see immigration. Naturalization does not mean admission any more than the power to pass bankruptcy laws implies the power to establish a commercial code.

    NOt only does the Tenth amendment say that the powers not given to Congress are reserved to the states, but there is a clause in the original constitution that saysd the states have the power to admit people to that state: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing
    shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    This was there becase of slavery, but they wrote amrore general clause.

    Whatever power does possess is derivaive of its power to regulate foreign commerce, and provie for the national defense, and the supreme Court in many 19th century cases actually ruled that way.

    This was understood. That’s why the Know-Nothings only proposed restricted naturalization.

    I’ve been pointing this out for 2 years now.

    The federal government has no right to remove a person from a state whom that state wants to l;et stay.

    Sammy Finkelman (20c5cc)

  90. Do you guys have any idea how rediculous you sound? “Duh, you should have voted the way I said.” Duh, the Democrats have been telling me that for 50 years. Why should I listen to you when I didn’t listen to them?

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

    You could have joined a team that could beat Hillary, but you didn’t because it had to be Trump. I still do not understand what about Trump was appealing in any way. But you got your wish. You guys would rather have Hillary than Jeb, Rubio, Cruz, etc. You win.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  91. Hillary hah more like HITLERY

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  92. You guys would rather have Hillary than Jeb, Rubio, Cruz, etc.

    And the Democrats would rather have Trump rather than Jeb, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, et al, if they can’t have Hillary. He’s their consolation prize.

    nk (dbc370)

  93. ooh look the propaganda sluts at National Soros Radio are regurgitating stinkypig like a mamabird

    Clinton: Trump Is ‘Taking Hate Groups Mainstream’

    “From the start, Donald Trump has built his campaign on prejudice and paranoia,” Hillary Clinton said in Reno, Nev., on Thursday.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  94. Somehow I doubt that the 14 million people who voted for Trump got the message that Kevin M (25bbee) didn’t approve of him — otherwise they would have surely voted differently.

    The drones that voted after April don’t count. No contest. Subtract off the votes from California, where the turnout was 20-some percent and you don’t have that.

    But that’s not my point, as you would know if you could think. You cannot have a nominee that half the party WILL NOT SUPPORT. That’s called “fuc*ing stupid.” Although I admit “fuc*ing stupid” is a Trumpie’s natural state.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  95. Sammy, ok, it’s a power that is mentioned in passing as being one of Congresses AFTER 1808. We quibble on “enumerated” but it is impossible to say it is not IN the Constitution as a power of Congress.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  96. How is electing Hillary only a short-term problem?

    Because she’s gone in 4 years. She shouldn’t have a chance this time, but unless she’s FDR and Reagan rolled into one, she’s got zero chance of re-election.

    Trump however, if not repudiated, pollutes the GOP for my lifetime. Electing Trump turns the GOP into Trump’s party as much as Obama’s election did that to the Dems (and why they should have lost this time but for our clusterfukk).

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  97. right when they’ve brought in 100-200,000 syrians as citizens, naturalized 20 million illegals, and stacked the court, has california taught you no lessons,

    narciso (732bc0)

  98. “This is the GOP now. That and overreacting to Downfall memes”

    I’m a reactionary, didn’t see or comment about your sorry meme until you mentioned it here. Part of the daily #NeverTrump talking points?

    “because there is so much to be insecure about these days on Team R. I guess I can understand that.”

    30 years of post-Cold War fake opposition parties and racial dispossession gave us all the insecurity we needed, difference is we have actual hope this cycle that you seem particularly inclined to crush at the earliest opportunity.

    Unfortunately for you, we already corrected Trump on H1Bs when he went wobbly already. We will correct him on immigration. We scary. We dedicated. We motivated. You ain’t.

    Dystopia Max (76803a)

  99. #101 Kevin M,

    We all said the same thing about Barack in June 2009 when he refused to lift a nicotine-stained finger to help the revolutionaries in the streets of Tehran against the Iranian Mullahs.
    We said the same thing (again) when he and Nancy Pelosi passed ObamaCare before anyone knew what was in it.
    … we were certain he was a one-term President.

    We were certain as recently as eight months ago that one of the conservative GOP candidates would eventually transcend Trump for the nomination. That didn’t happen either.

    I don’t think we can sit here and be certain that Hillary will be a one-term President. In fact, following the first Gulf War, it appeared that Bush 41 was a shoe-in for re-election in ’92.

    So, let’s not get carried away with betting the farm on “knowing” the outcome of a Presidential election FOUR years in advance.

    Also, we can’t be certain what a President Trump will mean for the GOP going forward. We can’t concern ourselves with that. We need to elect the lesser of two evils in every Presidential election. We can’t concede the next four years to the Left and to the Jihadists. We just can’t.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  100. “Because she’s gone in 4 years. She shouldn’t have a chance this time, but unless she’s FDR and Reagan rolled into one, she’s got zero chance of re-election.”

    Voter replacement and open crony governance, how does it work?

    “Trump however, if not repudiated, pollutes the GOP for my lifetime. Electing Trump turns the GOP into Trump’s party as much as Obama’s election did that to the Dems (and why they should have lost this time but for our clusterfukk).”

    I’m detecting a lot of ‘ought’ in a post ostensibly made by an adult who should be primarily concerned with ‘is’.

    Dystopia Max (76803a)

  101. 100. Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/25/2016 @ 5:54 pm

    Sammy, ok, it’s a power that is mentioned in passing as being one of Congresses AFTER 1808.

    No, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 doesn’t grant any powers. It restricts a power that Cogress would otherwise have.

    That power seems to be, at least, to stop the importation of slaves.

    But where does Congress get such a power in the first place?

    This can only be from its power to “regulate commerce woth foreign nations”. Maybe also the power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas. Maybe provide for the common defense (from the Preamble)

    We quibble on “enumerated” but it is impossible to say it is not IN the Constitution as a power of Congress.

    It definitely is not. The power to admit, is not enumerated, and therefore, as per the Tenth Amendment is reserved for the states. What the states can’t do is grant citizenship, and they are allowed to discriminate in any fashion -at least until the 14th amendment came along – between citizens and non-citizens, like prohibiting land ownership or whatever.

    And should you have any doubts Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 makes clear that the power to admit is a state power, and Congress in fact did not get involved in any way until the year 1820, and then only to keep records.

    The only argument that this is a power of Congress is that this is a power of any government, but as we see, the Tenth Amendment reserves unenumerated powers to the states.

    And let’s look at the leading Supreme Court decision of Gibbons v. Ogden 2 Wheaton 1, or 22 U.S. 1 (1824.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22/1

    The act passed in 1803, 3 U.S.L. 529, prohibiting the importation of slaves into any State which shall itself prohibit their importation, implies, it is said, an admission that the States possessed the power to exclude or admit them, from which it is inferred that they possess the same power with respect to other articles.

    If this inference were correct, if this power was exercised not under any particular clause in the Constitution, but in virtue of a general right over the subject of commerce, to exist as long as the Constitution itself, it might now be exercised. Any State might now import African slaves into its own territory. But it is obvious that the power of the States over this subject, previous to the year 1808, constitutes an exception to the power of [p207] Congress to regulate commerce, and the exception is expressed in such words, as to manifest clearly the intention to continue the preexisting right of the States to admit or exclude, for a limited period. The words are

    the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States, now existing, shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808.

    The whole object of the exception is to preserve the power to those States which might be disposed to exercise it, and its language seems to the Court to convey this idea unequivocally. The possession of this particular power, then, during the time limited in the Constitution, cannot be admitted to prove the possession of any other similar power.

    It has been said that the act of August 7, 1789, acknowledges a concurrent power in the States to regulate the conduct of pilots, and hence is inferred an admission of their concurrent right with Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and amongst the States. But this inference is not, we think, justified by the fact.

    Now notice, all of this is derived from the power to regulate commerce, or to import or not.

    The federal government may have some power to regulate entrance of people as a byproduct of its power to regulate foreign commerce, but where does it get any power to deport people, or make amy kind of internal regulations, like forbidding even local employment, at least against the wishes of a state?

    Most conservatives don’t like Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), and these kind of regulations go much further, so as to even prohibit any employment of certain individuals. But even thst power, gives Congress no power to order someone to leave a state.

    Sammy Finkelman (7a51c2)

  102. Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/25/2016 @ 7:42 pm

    I don’t think we can sit here and be certain that Hillary will be a one-term President.

    Of course not.

    In 1992, I thought Bill Clinton woud probably be impeached, but it took six years, and then only indirectly as a result of something I did (the e-mail message that resulted in the death of Vincent Foster and the ensuing coverup – later Bill Clinton was to exile Monica Lewinsky to the exact same government office as Linda Tripp) and even then Bill Clinton was not removed from office, although he was perhaps chastened and more careful until his final day, when he pardoned lots of people.

    Sammy Finkelman (7a51c2)

  103. “where does it get any power to deport people, or make amy kind of internal regulations, like forbidding even local employment, at least against the wishes of a state?”

    David Chalmers legal theory: WOW! HOW COULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EVEN COMPEL PEOPLE TO MOVE? IT WOULD REQUIRE LEGAL STRUCTURES WE HAVEN’T EVEN THOUGHT OF YET!

    Ever seen a social security card printed with NOT VALID FOR USE AS WORK PERMIT? How did Operation Wetback even work? Are sanctuary cities that serve as de facto Mexican mafia hubs not easily classified as areas taken over by foreign nationals, which can be therefore crushed with the full might of the National Guard, and the US Army if necessary?

    What part of ‘Make America Great Again’ is difficult to understand, legally?

    Dystopia Max (76803a)

  104. In fact, following the first Gulf War, it appeared that Bush 41 was a shoe-in for re-election in ’92.

    This was the result of a misundersanding of what a president’s job approval rating was – it only applied to the latest things, except maybe right before an election. Bill Clinton understood what it meant and din’t mean. (And he knew others didn’t, so he would sometimes do some popular things when he was in trouble.)

    We need to elect the lesser of two evils in every Presidential election. We can’t concede the next four years to the Left and to the Jihadists. We just can’t.

    But the thing is, nobody knows what Trump would do either. As Kevin said, maybe only slightly exaggerating, he might let Russia invade Alaska. (not at all likely if he carries it, as he would need its 3 Electoral votes in the 2020 election.)

    Sammy Finkelman (7a51c2)

  105. In fact, following the first Gulf War, it appeared that Bush 41 was a shoe-in for re-election in ’92.

    This was the result of a misundersanding of what a president’s job approval rating was – it only applied to the latest things, except maybe right before an election. Bill Clinton understood what it meant and din’t mean. (And he knew others didn’t, so he would sometimes do some popular things when he was in trouble.)

    We need to elect the lesser of two evils in every Presidential election. We can’t concede the next four years to the Left and to the Jihadists. We just can’t.

    But the thing is, nobody knows what Trump would do either. As Kevin said, maybe only slightly exaggerating, he might let Russia invade Alaska. (not at all likely if he carries it, as he would need its 3 Electoral votes in the 2020 election. If the Libertarains carry Alaska, who knows?) This is a joke.

    Sammy Finkelman (7a51c2)

  106. Dystopia Max (76803a) — 8/25/2016 @ 8:34 pm

    Ever seen a social security card printed with NOT VALID FOR USE AS WORK PERMIT?

    It used to say NOT VALID FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES.

    How did Operation Wetback even work?

    Informally. They deported people who were here legally, and even some American citizens. It couldn’t be done today.

    Are sanctuary cities that serve as de facto Mexican mafia hubs not easily classified as areas taken over by foreign nationals,

    If that was the case yes, but that’s not the case, and where it might be the case, deporting everyone or almost everyone there is not the way to get rid of Mexican Mafia control.

    which can be therefore crushed with the full might of the National Guard, and the US Army if necessary?

    You’re talking about declaring martial law, or a version of it. Such a power might exist. The U.S. Army was certainly active in many sattes and parts of states after 1861.

    What part of ‘Make America Great Again’ is difficult to understand, legally?

    That’s not a legal standard. It’s a political commitment, whatever it means. There is no enumerated or unenumerated power of either Congress or the president to “Make America Great Again.”

    Sammy Finkelman (7a51c2)

  107. It would seem to me that the damage Hillary! could do just in the Supreme Court is far longer, more reaching and insidious than anything Trump would do. Or is Trump planning on “legalizing” all of South America and the Middle East or making Christianity illegal or something else we’re not aware of?

    Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/25/2016 @ 1:02 pm

    I don’t know. And the reason I don’t know is because Donald “Stream of Consciousness” Trump doesn’t know.

    Steve57 (41f53d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1241 secs.