Latinos

[JimBowie1958]

Donald Trump is not only an ardent supporter of gun control but he actually goes beyond even Hitlery - supporting "Stop & Frisk". You need to know what you're actually voting for and it's pretty clear you don't in this case.

Nonsense. Trump is an avid supporter of gun rights, has a concealed carry permit, and advocates a national automatic reciprocity among all states for CCW licenses much like a car license is recognised by all states.

This is one huge reason he got endorsed by the NRA and GOA.

Nonsense? Dude...did you tune in to the debates? He proudly declared his position on national television chief.

By the way...all dictators are guns. I'm not the least bit impressed by Trump's carry permit. Hitlery is surrounded by guns 24x7 too...does that make her a gun advocate?

I dont know what you think you heard int he debates that makes you think Trump is anti gun, but here are his publicly stated positions

BTW, no, Hitler did not have a concealed carry permit.

Donald Trump on Gun Control

Q: Are there any circumstances that you think we should be limiting gun sales of any kind in America?

TRUMP: No. I am a 2nd amendment person. If we had guns in California on the other side where the bullets went in the different direction, you wouldn't have 14 or 15 people dead right now. If even in Paris, if they had guns on the other side, going in the opposite direction, you wouldn't have 130 people plus dead. So the answer is no and what Jeb said is absolutely correct....

I have a concealed-carry permit that allows me to carry a concealed weapon. I took the time and the effort to get that permit because the constitutional right to defend yourself doesn't stop at the end of your driveway. That doesn't apply just to me either. It applies to all our driveways or front doors.

That's why I'm very much in favor of making all concealed-carry permits valid in every state. Every state has its own driving test that residents have to pass before becoming licensed to drive. Those tests are different in many states, but once a state licenses you to drive, every other state recognizes that license as valid.

If we can do that for driving--which is a privilege, not a right--then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege. That seems logical to me....

The gun-free zones are target practice for the sickos and for the mentally ill. They look for gun-free zones. The six soldiers that were killed. Two of them were among the most highly decorated, and they weren't allowed on a military base to have guns. And somebody walked in and shot them, killed them. If they had guns, he wouldn't be around very long. I can tell you, there wouldn't have been much damage. I think gun-free zones are a catastrophe. They're a feeding frenzy for sick people.....

Q: Every country has mentally ill people, not every country has mass shootings as frequently as we do. What do you propose to do about it?

TRUMP: No matter what you'll do you have people that are mentally ill and they have problems and they're going to slip through the cracks.

Q: So no new gun laws?

TRUMP: Well, the gun laws have nothing to do with this. This isn't guns. This is about mental illness. You're always going to have difficulties, no matter how tight you run it. Even if you had great education having to do with mental illness, you educate the community, still you're going to have people that slip through the cracks. And these people are more than slipping through the cracks.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sort of true. Hitlery is astoundingly incompetent. But Trump has bankrupted half a dozen companies. He's not exactly the shining example of business acumen (mostly because he allows his enormous ego to make all of the decisions).

Out of hundreds of deals and business starts, Trump has done a Chapter 11 debt restructuring FOUR TIMES.

He has not bankrupted half a dozen companies.

No dude....six times. Six.

Donald Trump - Wikipedia

Although Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, hotel and casino businesses of his have been declared bankrupt six [75] times between 1991 and 2009 due to its inability to meet required payments and to re-negotiate debt with banks, owners of stock and bonds and various small businesses (unsecured creditors).[76][77] Because the businesses used Chapter 11 bankruptcy, they were allowed to operate while negotiations proceeded. Trump was quoted by Newsweek in 2011 saying, "I do play with the bankruptcy laws—they're very good for me" as a tool for trimming debt.

You are right and I stand corrected. They are still minor quirks compared to his successes and he used the Chapter 11 restructurings very well and LEGALLY.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Stop and Frisk is completely Constitutional, dude.

Wow. Just....wow. This is where you and I officially part ways my friend. You just have no clue about the U.S. Constitution, you have no idea what you're actually voting for, and you have no idea about Trump's platform.

Lol, that is easy to say, but you provide no proof, no arguments or justification.

You just play the Pope of USMB and make these sweeping declarations.

IT is hard to argue with such unwarranted assertions, but I gave you my reasons, so why dont you share yours?

Why do you think that Stop and Frisk is unConstitutional?

Your Libertarians buddies told you that?

 

[P@triot]

Lol, that is easy to say, but you provide no proof, no arguments or justification. You just play the Pope of USMB and make these sweeping declarations. IT is hard to argue with such unwarranted assertions, but I gave you my reasons, so why dont you share yours?

Why do you think that Stop and Frisk is unConstitutional? Your Libertarians buddies told you that?

I'm not a "libertarian" chief. I simply read the U.S. Constitution. I give you the IV Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Excerpt From: States, United. “United States Bill of Rights.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: United States Bill of Rights

 

[P@triot]

Why do you think that Stop and Frisk is unConstitutional?

Oh...and I should add that my father was in law enforcement. My maternal and paternal grandfathers were in law enforcement. And my maternal and paternal great uncles were in law enforcement. So yeah...I know that stop and frisk is 100% illegal. An officer must have probable cause just to stop you (for example - running a red light) and then they must have additional probable cause to search you (for example - the smell of marijuana coming from your automobile).

 

[JimBowie1958]

I give you the IV Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Excerpt From: States, United. “United States Bill of Rights.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright. Check out this book on the iBooks Store: United States Bill of Rights

The courts have ruled a long time ago that stop and frisk is a reasonable search if it is done as designed.

I.e. the cop sees something that looks like a reasonable thing to check, then goes to the person, stops them and talks to them, asking questions, like "why do you have this crack pipe hanging in your shirt pocket?"

Then if they find the answers to be bullshit, they can then search them.

That is 100% totally within the Constitution.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh...and I should add that my father was in law enforcement. My maternal and paternal grandfathers were in law enforcement. And my maternal and paternal great uncles were in law enforcement. So yeah...I know that stop and frisk is 100% illegal. An officer must have probable cause just to stop you (for example - running a red light) and then they must have additional probable cause to search you (for example - the smell of marijuana coming from your automobile).

That does not make you an expert on the subject and on the internet any one can claim just about anything.

Stop and Frisk is not and never has been considered illegal or unConstitutional.

Period.

 

[P@triot]

I give you the IV Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Excerpt From: States, United. “United States Bill of Rights.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright. Check out this book on the iBooks Store: United States Bill of Rights

The courts have ruled a long time ago that stop and frisk is a reasonable search if it is done as designed.

I.e. the cop sees something that looks like a reasonable thing to check, then goes to the person, stops them and talks to them, asking questions, like "why do you have this crack pipe hanging in your shirt pocket?"

Then if they find the answers to be bullshit, they can then search them.

That is 100% totally within the Constitution.

You're 100% right on that. Except that's not what "Stop & Frisk" is. You're very confused right now my friend.

"Stop & Frisk" means they randomly stop people and pat them down for weapons. No probable cause at all. Just interrupting your day to see if you have a weapon on you.

 

[P@triot]

Oh...and I should add that my father was in law enforcement. My maternal and paternal grandfathers were in law enforcement. And my maternal and paternal great uncles were in law enforcement. So yeah...I know that stop and frisk is 100% illegal. An officer must have probable cause just to stop you (for example - running a red light) and then they must have additional probable cause to search you (for example - the smell of marijuana coming from your automobile).

That does not make you an expert on the subject and on the internet any one can claim just about anything. Stop and Frisk is not and never has been considered illegal or unConstitutional. Period.

My God you are uninformed...

Trump’s false claim that stop and frisk in NYC wasn’t ruled unconstitutional

Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory

Trump is wrong: ‘Stop and frisk’ was ruled unconstitutional

Judge Rejects New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy

I'm embarrassed for you. It has already been ruled unconstitutional in a court of law. Geez...

 

[JimBowie1958]

You're 100% right on that. Except that's not what "Stop & Frisk" is. You're very confused right now my friend.

"Stop & Frisk" means they randomly stop people and pat them down for weapons. No probable cause at all. Just interrupting your day to see if you have a weapon on you.

No, Stop and Frisk is not random, dude.

Terry stop - Wikipedia

In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[2] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous".[3]

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts" that would indicate to a reasonable police officer that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity (as opposed to past conduct).[4] Reasonable suspicion depends on the "totality of the circumstances",[5] and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.[6]

The search of the suspect's outer garments, also known as a patdown, must be limited to what is necessary to discover weapons;[7] however, pursuant to the "plain view" doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the contraband's identity is immediately apparent.[8]

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh...and I should add that my father was in law enforcement. My maternal and paternal grandfathers were in law enforcement. And my maternal and paternal great uncles were in law enforcement. So yeah...I know that stop and frisk is 100% illegal. An officer must have probable cause just to stop you (for example - running a red light) and then they must have additional probable cause to search you (for example - the smell of marijuana coming from your automobile).

That does not make you an expert on the subject and on the internet any one can claim just about anything. Stop and Frisk is not and never has been considered illegal or unConstitutional. Period.

My God you are uninformed...

Trump’s false claim that stop and frisk in NYC wasn’t ruled unconstitutional

Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory

Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html

I'm embarrassed for you. It has already been ruled unconstitutional in a court of law. Geez...

Oh My Gawd, you are citing that piece of shyte Judge Scheindlin ?

1. that was not a US decision for the whole country but only New York and it applies only to that judges area. The rest of the country has no problem with it.

2. It would likely have been over turned but the Sandinista Mayor of New York chose to not appeal it.

You are really getting to be a trollish ass, so why dont you cool off a bit and sober the fuck up, dude?

 

[P@triot]

Oh My Gawd, you are citing that piece of shyte Judge Scheindlin ?

1. that was not a US decision for the whole country but only New York and it applies only to that judges area. The rest of the country has no problem with it.

Um....sweetie? That's because "Stop & Frisk" only existed in New York. Why? Because it's an egregious violation of the U.S. Constitution so no other city (except a bat-shit crazy progressive city) would even attempt to implement it.

Wow. You are just clueless. Completely and totally clueless. You don't know the law, you don't know the U.S. Constitution, you don't know Trump's platform, and you don't know what you're supporting.

You're an embarrassment to conservatives. I cringe every time you post because you're making all of us look stupid. Progressives must have a field day with you on this board.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh My Gawd, you are citing that piece of shyte Judge Scheindlin ?

1. that was not a US decision for the whole country but only New York and it applies only to that judges area. The rest of the country has no problem with it.

Um....sweetie? That's because "Stop & Frisk" only existed in New York. Why? Because it's an egregious violation of the U.S. Constitution so no other city (except a bat-shit crazy progressive city) would even attempt to implement it.

Wow. You are just clueless. Completely and totally clueless. You don't know the law, you don't know the U.S. Constitution, you don't know Trump's platform, and you don't know what you're supporting.

You're an embarrassment to conservatives. I cringe every time you post because you're making all of us look stupid. Progressives must have a field day with you on this board.

You stupid fucking fool, Terry Stops do not only exist in New York.

Now, welcome to my ignore list, asshole.

 

[P@triot]

Now, welcome to my ignore list, asshole.

Thank God! I only wish you "ignore list" meant that people couldn't see your posts. They are embarrassing to the right.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If these dirt-bag criminals worked half as hard at changing their own miserable countries as they do illegally attempting to change our country, their countries wouldn't be miserable shit-holes necessary of escaping from...

Immigrant rights activist likely to be deported herself after hiding her status

And Republicans continue to wonder why 80% of Latinos vote Democrat

 

[BluesLegend]

If these dirt-bag criminals worked half as hard at changing their own miserable countries as they do illegally attempting to change our country, their countries wouldn't be miserable shit-holes necessary of escaping from...

Immigrant rights activist likely to be deported herself after hiding her status

You know you can be born here and still be Latino/a, right? Hispanic is ethnicity. Your great grandparents could have been born here and you would still be Latino/a.

I dont think he understands that parts of the US were actually Mexico.

I don't think you understand what happens when you get the shit kicked out of you in a war. Parts of Mexico were actually a Spanish colony.

I know what happens. White people steal your land and then complain when you try to get it back.

Yeah what are you going to do about it...yeah nothing.

 

[Disir]

You know you can be born here and still be Latino/a, right? Hispanic is ethnicity. Your great grandparents could have been born here and you would still be Latino/a.

Lol, that is a load of horse shit. "Latino" is a reference to a root language, Latin, and is not an ethnicity but is an ill defined group of ethnicities that speak a LAtin based language; French, Spanish, Italian, Portugeese, Romanian, etc.

"Latinos" dont consider themselves to be such, but only the nationality of the country that they are from. "Latino" is a hoaked up term to try and unite them all together like one might try to unite all Anglos by referring to them as Euro's.

But I have a few questions on this definition you use; Are Quebec's people Latino? They speak French which is a Latin based language like Spanish and Portugeese.

And what about people that immigrated to a "Latin" country from another country and assimilated or tried to? If a Chinese family immigrated to Peru in 1900 and now speak nothing but Spanish and have Spanish names, etc, if they immigrate to the USA are they Latino or are they Asian?

But dont let any FACTS get in your way, it has been repeatedly shown to me that Dimocrats are allergic to FACTS.

In the US it is a reference to Latin American descendants. In Europe it would cover Italy where, you know, Latin originated from a tribe called Latium, and it would include romance languages. The term Hispanic was first used in the census by Nixon and it was limited. It was a term that was used to "unite them all together". Latino gained prominent usage in the 1990s via California and is also a "unite them all together term" that includes Portuguese. It was much more marketable to put everyone in the same category. However, people would prefer to use their country of origin or that which they are descendants from simply because each area has different specific cultures. So, if you are Chinese and immigrated to Peru in 1900 and assimilated into the culture and came to the US then you would probably refer to yourself as Peruvian-American or of Peruvian descent. However, the US could very well categorize you as they see fit.

This isn't Europe. If we were having this argument in Europe we would tie it to language specific because borders have changed multiple times over thousands of years. That said, those arguments are usually geared towards evolving languages. This includes hour long discussions on etymology. The arguments over Latins are going to be over the Roman-Latin wars from about 6 BC. Huge difference between Europe and US. They have much more interesting arguments. I have never run into an argument calling people from Quebec Latinos. Although, I do remember a few people getting beat up for not speaking French years ago.

You on the other hand lashed out at me and not the OP for the term thus making you a fucking prick. I'm not a Dem, asshole.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dear, all of Mexico was once a Spanish colony. Then the dixiebacks swam the Red and Sabine rivers and took what was not theirs.

LOL......and at one time (1860s) , Mexico was under the French Napoleon III....Never heard of a French "wetback"???.....

For a short time, then the Mexicans caught the "Emperor" and shot him and sent the French swimming home.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie and Disir act like Dems at times: fucking pricks.

The far right will lose the language "wars" the same they are losing everything else.

 

[Disir]

JimBowie and Disir act like Dems at times: fucking pricks.

The far right will lose the language "wars" the same they are losing everything else.

You're a first class idiot so who the hell is concerned with what you think? No one. Had you had the decency to discuss the basic initial arguments over immigration then you wouldn't have the problems you see now. But, nooooooo.............not you, Jakey. You wave to and fro in the wind like a ...........sock. Buying into whatever you are told to buy into like the good lapdog you are.