Another loss for Trump just around the corner!

[BS Filter]

Birthright citizenship is at the Supreme Court this week. The president is sweating.

Ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, Trump posted an incorrect background of the case on Truth Social.

www.ms.now

A bad time for Trump! He's fighting a war he ain't winning, bogged down in Iran while he is chomping at the bit to invade Cuba. The SCOTUS smacked him down on his illegal tariff taxes on the American people, and he is on the verge of getting embarrassed again by the SCOTUS in his war against the Constitution allowed birthright citizenship.

So, as he elaborated in his over the top racist post, Trump wants the SCOTUS to override the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, without holding a Constitutional Convention as required by the Constitution itself. And why is that; it's because he knows he can't win a Constitutional Convention because he ain't got enough states in his pocket! Somebody who Trump would listen to, Junior perhaps, should explain to him that the SCOTUS cannot change the Constitution to suit his whims. He took an oath "to protect and defend the Constitution." The oath does not say "subject to changes he feels appropriate."

Get ready Trump; you're going down soon on your birther BS!

You're really in for a surprise.

 

[BS Filter]

I guess you never read Psalms.

 

[Robert W]

Birthright citizenship is at the Supreme Court this week. The president is sweating.

Ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, Trump posted an incorrect background of the case on Truth Social.

www.ms.now

A bad time for Trump! He's fighting a war he ain't winning, bogged down in Iran while he is chomping at the bit to invade Cuba. The SCOTUS smacked him down on his illegal tariff taxes on the American people, and he is on the verge of getting embarrassed again by the SCOTUS in his war against the Constitution allowed birthright citizenship.

So, as he elaborated in his over the top racist post, Trump wants the SCOTUS to override the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, without holding a Constitutional Convention as required by the Constitution itself. And why is that; it's because he knows he can't win a Constitutional Convention because he ain't got enough states in his pocket! Somebody who Trump would listen to, Junior perhaps, should explain to him that the SCOTUS cannot change the Constitution to suit his whims. He took an oath "to protect and defend the Constitution." The oath does not say "subject to changes he feels appropriate."

Get ready Trump; you're going down soon on your birther BS!

Already many born here are classified as non-citizens. The children booted out leave when the parents tell the officials they want the child, born in the USA to leave with them.

 

[Robert W]

LOL

It is not bigotry to say women who come here illegally and give birth to a US citizen is wrong. Or women who play birth tourism.

But you would have to love America to see the reality, not hate it as you do.

Also, when discussing abortion, the left claims the child is her body, clearly her body is not a us citizen.

 

[dudmuck]

I guess you never read Psalms.

the psalms are for defenders, not for aggressors.

 

[22lcidw]

You guys do not want to pay for anything. You do the talk and not the walk.

 

[BS Filter]

the psalms are for defenders, not for aggressors.

You're confused if you don't know who the aggressors are.

 

[candycorn]

Other than that, we could go in tomorrow, destroy the infrastructure and kill the population and army if we wanted to, no one to stop us, except OURSELVES not wanting to.

And the same exact thing was said when we invaded Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq.....

 

[candycorn]

It is not bigotry to say women who come here illegally and give birth to a US citizen is wrong.

Its a bigoted opinion.

 

[Lockback]

Its a bigoted opinion.

It's a good opinion. We don't need foreigners crossing the border and dumping their newborns here just so they can be citizens.
Our Founding Fathers never could have foreseen just how this wonderful dream of American citizenship could be used against us.

 

[Robert W]

And the same exact thing was said when we invaded Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq.....

You said we, meaning you. Why did you invade Lebanon and Afghanistan?

Of the three you mention, the only country we, meaning the USA, invaded was Iraq and it was good for the people since they executed Saddam Hussain.

 

[BackAgain]

It is possible but not probable.

Nostradumbass strikes again.

The argument in favor of President Trump’s position is superior to your knee jerk argument for the dubious present interpretation.

 

[BackAgain]

And what you MAGAts seek is validation of all your silly bigotries.

Wrong again Moldy Crocka.

What you seek is any “loss” for President Trump. It doesn’t matter to ignorant old fools like you that the meaning presently “understood” as applicable to the 14th Amendment is contradicted by the original meaning of the terms chosen by its framers.

You are the maggot.

Your bigotries are legendary.

 

[Lockback]

Wrong again Moldy Crocka.

What you seek is any “loss” for President Trump. It doesn’t matter to ignorant old fools like you that the meaning presently “understood” as applicable to the 14th Amendment is contradicted by the original meaning of the terms chosen by its framers.

You are the maggot.

Your bigotries are legendary.

Game.
Set.
Match.
BackAgain.

 

[candycorn]

You said we, meaning you. Why did you invade Lebanon and Afghanistan?

Of the three you mention, the only country we, meaning the USA, invaded was Iraq and it was good for the people since they executed Saddam Hussain.

I guess the 280+ Marines dead in Beirut, thousands of US Servicemen dead in Afghanistan were just tourists?

As for "good", the body count for Iraqi freedom was, at last count, 100,000+

 

[Robert W]

I guess the 280+ Marines dead in Beirut, thousands of US Servicemen dead in Afghanistan were just tourists?

As for "good", the body count for Iraqi freedom was, at last count, 100,000+

Who killed the Marines? Over a long time,

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Coalition_casualties...

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan - Wikipedia​

Throughout the War in Afghanistan, there had been 3,621 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of the coalition operations (Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF) since the invasion in 2001. 3,485 of these deaths occurred during NATO's combat

 

[candycorn]

Who killed the Marines? Over a long time,

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Coalition_casualties...

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan - Wikipedia​

Throughout the War in Afghanistan, there had been 3,621 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of the coalition operations (Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF) since the invasion in 2001. 3,485 of these deaths occurred during NATO's combat

Another republican president, another invasion in the middle east....nothing new under the sun.

 

[Robert W]

Another republican president, another invasion in the middle east....nothing new under the sun.

Reagan did not blow up the Marines; in fact, he ordered the Battleship New Jersey to shell Lebanon where he knew the killers came from for days.

 

[Robert W]

Another republican president, another invasion in the middle east....nothing new under the sun.

Reagan did not invade, he ordered a battleship to fire where the enemy was located.

 

[candycorn]

Reagan did not invade, he ordered a battleship to fire where the enemy was located.

You have no idea what you're talking about.