CDZ Real Questions for Trump Supporters

[toobfreak]

1) When do you think America became great?

The day Hillary was stopped from ever becoming president.

2) What made America great?

The fact that the Founders in creating the USA rejected everything that the Left today now hold dear and are trying to drag us back to.

3) When did America begin to lose its greatness?

It began in the 1960s with the advent of the radical hippy, soon to grow up to be the corporate manager of the 1980s, and culminated in their creation of political correctness as a way of muzzling dissension over the their insidious form of depraved socialism.

4) What are the reason (s) you think we are not a great nation today?

Moral and ethical depravity, both personal and corporate.

5) How can we measure the idea of greatness?

By the degree in which the nation succeeds at its original goals of raising each individual up to achieving self-actualization.

 

[eagle1462010]

You asked questions in your OP.

I'm sorry if you don't like the responses your received.

The illegal immigration State of Emergency we are in is a response to your questions;

There is no authority in the Constitution for what you are expecting.

You haven't proven that. Not by a long shot.

Of course I have. You have trolled this thread; tried to hijack it and disrespected it; however, YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN US THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO GRANT POWERS TO ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

They don't grant powers. They make rulings on it. They don't decide what cases are brought to them. They only decide whether it is Constitutional or not.

They are Granting ANYTHING. And what the hell does this have to do with Trump supporters. Trolling. I answered your general questions, then you changed the rules............You can't have your cake and eat it to.

The United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress. It is a hotly contested concept in constitutional law:

"In a series of cases decided between 1886 and 1903, the United States Supreme Court first articulated a doctrine allowing the "political" branches of government plenary power over American Indian nations, immigrants, and external colonies such as Puerto Rico. While generally regarded as distinct fields of law, these cases form a consistent body of jurisprudence in which the Court defers to the political branches of government because the powers being exercised by Congress or the Executive are "inherent" in the sovereignty of the United States. What ties them together, of course, is not just this rationale but the fact that this sovereignty is being exercised over peoples who have been consistently identified as both social and political "outsiders" by virtue of citizenship, national origin, race, ethnicity, or some conflation of these factors. Furthermore, the plenary power doctrine is applied in each of these areas of law to the same end: the rendering "legal" within domestic law of governmental action that is otherwise forbidden by the Constitution or by international law..,"

EARLIER in the same article, the author states:

"Nothing in the Constitution explicitly gives the federal government such power. Explanations and justifications of the exercise of plenary power are confused and sometimes contradictory,..."

https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1310&context=lawreview

Also read these articles:

Does the Constitution Give the Federal Government Power Over Immigration?

Symposium: Could this be the end of plenary power? - SCOTUSblogI

I have already told you in the very first post I made what caused that. It is the Enumerated powers that have been abused and giving too much power to the Federal Gov't. The Constitution gives the power of Amending it. But didn't consider that in times of crisis there will be a mob mentality of one side having all the power for a short period of time. Who then change the very meaning of the Constitution.

The GREATEST ABUSE is for the Common Good Bastardized. Which went against the Enumerated Powers. Which has led to the very thing the Founding Fathers Warned us about.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1) When do you think America became great?

The day Hillary was stopped from ever becoming president.

2) What made America great?

The fact that the Founders in creating the USA rejected everything that the Left today now hold dear and are trying to drag us back to.

3) When did America begin to lose its greatness?

It began in the 1960s with the advent of the radical hippy, soon to grow up to be the corporate manager of the 1980s, and culminated in their creation of political correctness as a way of muzzling dissension over the their insidious form of depraved socialism.

4) What are the reason (s) you think we are not a great nation today?

Moral and ethical depravity, both personal and corporate.

5) How can we measure the idea of greatness?

By the degree in which the nation succeeds at its original goals of raising each individual up to achieving self-actualization.

So, in your history of greatness, America was great under Barack Obama?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There is no authority in the Constitution for what you are expecting.

You haven't proven that. Not by a long shot.

Of course I have. You have trolled this thread; tried to hijack it and disrespected it; however, YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN US THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO GRANT POWERS TO ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

They don't grant powers. They make rulings on it. They don't decide what cases are brought to them. They only decide whether it is Constitutional or not.

They are Granting ANYTHING. And what the hell does this have to do with Trump supporters. Trolling. I answered your general questions, then you changed the rules............You can't have your cake and eat it to.

The United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress. It is a hotly contested concept in constitutional law:

"In a series of cases decided between 1886 and 1903, the United States Supreme Court first articulated a doctrine allowing the "political" branches of government plenary power over American Indian nations, immigrants, and external colonies such as Puerto Rico. While generally regarded as distinct fields of law, these cases form a consistent body of jurisprudence in which the Court defers to the political branches of government because the powers being exercised by Congress or the Executive are "inherent" in the sovereignty of the United States. What ties them together, of course, is not just this rationale but the fact that this sovereignty is being exercised over peoples who have been consistently identified as both social and political "outsiders" by virtue of citizenship, national origin, race, ethnicity, or some conflation of these factors. Furthermore, the plenary power doctrine is applied in each of these areas of law to the same end: the rendering "legal" within domestic law of governmental action that is otherwise forbidden by the Constitution or by international law..,"

EARLIER in the same article, the author states:

"Nothing in the Constitution explicitly gives the federal government such power. Explanations and justifications of the exercise of plenary power are confused and sometimes contradictory,..."

https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1310&context=lawreview

Also read these articles:

Does the Constitution Give the Federal Government Power Over Immigration?

Symposium: Could this be the end of plenary power? - SCOTUSblogI

I have already told you in the very first post I made what caused that. It is the Enumerated powers that have been abused and giving too much power to the Federal Gov't. The Constitution gives the power of Amending it. But didn't consider that in times of crisis there will be a mob mentality of one side having all the power for a short period of time. Who then change the very meaning of the Constitution.

The GREATEST ABUSE is for the Common Good Bastardized. Which went against the Enumerated Powers. Which has led to the very thing the Founding Fathers Warned us about.

Your post has no bearing on my reply to you explaining that the United States Supreme Court over-stepped their authority and went outside the Constitution thinking that they can bestow upon other branches of government ANY powers.

With your own quote of Jefferson, you proved my point. America came under the control of bankers when Congress illegally transferred their duties over to private banking institutions. You and I both know that no branch of government is constitutionally authorized to delegate their powers to private individuals. Yet the United States Supreme Court has overseen the downfall of America.

Likewise, the high Court lacks the authority to grant any powers to another branch of government. Period. If such authority existed, you could explain it.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

So far, nobody has made an argument that America was a great nation AFTER we began rejecting the principles upon which this Republic rests. Until we know what America looked like when it was great will we be able to quantify what is we want it to be again.

Greatness is in the eye of the beholder.

Greatness is a nation standing up against Hitler and Japan and their Bushido code. And literally helping to save the world from these Facist who were Barbarians............Greatness is preventing Stalin from expanding even more after WWII. A man who slaughtered 20 million or so of his own people..........Greatness is the standing up to the back stabbing Chineese after they forgot how we helped save them in WWII from Japan. Example........Taiwan is only still alive because we stand in the way of Chinese expansion.

Many examples of Greatness due to the people of the country unrelated to politics and the baloney of the politicians in this country.

I would say we are great because of finding DNA.......which has helped find cures that all humans on earth use today.

Again, Greatness is in the eye of the beholder.......A fat chick may be the love of your life and that you think that's GREAT, while others go.............yuck................

Greatness is a relative term.

Greatness may be a relative term, but if we don't have a general consensus of what it means in the instant case, it is nothing more than a political platitude. So, we're electing politicians for nothing more than window dressing???

Yes, that's seems to be the case.

 

[sartre play]

Maters not what party you belong, letting the propaganda from either party cloud your judgment, making winning by party more important than honest government. fails us all.

 

[2aguy]

Let me say up front, these are honest questions. I'm not trying to troll either side of the political aisle. I see the MAGA hats on one side of the political aisle and I hear the Democrats asking questions that I'm going to repeat. I'm just after your real input.

I hope that those who oppose Trump will allow this discussion with as little interruption as possible. Thank you in advance for well thought out responses.

1) When do you think America became great?

2) What made America great?

3) When did America begin to lose its greatness?

4) What are the reason (s) you think we are not a great nation today?

5) How can we measure the idea of greatness?

1) When it was founded.

2) The creation of America based on Constitution and Bill of Rights, a country created on ideas, rather than race, or ethnic identity....and the ability of any individual to become American by embracing the ideas set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

3) In the 1960s as the left began to take over the Universities, Hollywood, and the government bureacracy.

4) We are still the greatest nation on earth but if the left is allowed to turn us into a socialist country, we will no longer be great.

5) By how free our people are.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Let me say up front, these are honest questions. I'm not trying to troll either side of the political aisle. I see the MAGA hats on one side of the political aisle and I hear the Democrats asking questions that I'm going to repeat. I'm just after your real input.

I hope that those who oppose Trump will allow this discussion with as little interruption as possible. Thank you in advance for well thought out responses.

1) When do you think America became great?

2) What made America great?

3) When did America begin to lose its greatness?

4) What are the reason (s) you think we are not a great nation today?

5) How can we measure the idea of greatness?

1) When it was founded.

2) The creation of America based on Constitution and Bill of Rights, a country created on ideas, rather than race, or ethnic identity....and the ability of any individual to become American by embracing the ideas set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

3) In the 1960s as the left began to take over the Universities, Hollywood, and the government bureacracy.

4) We are still the greatest nation on earth but if the left is allowed to turn us into a socialist country, we will no longer be great.

5) By how free our people are.

Not to be overly critical here, but Congress had but one and only one area of authority over foreigners. It is found in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. It states as follows:

"The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

Within months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress carried out that duty and this is the relevant section of our FIRST Naturalization Law:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof..."

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Realistically, the United States WAS founded on race. It's a part of our culture. Almost all, if not all, the earliest state constitutions required a person to be a white Christian in order to be able to vote or hold public office. Many of the earliest Charters, Compacts, etc. alluded to this as well.

Many of our political leaders, including JFK and Ronald Reagan like to quote from a 1630 sermon delivered by John Winthrop aboard the Arbella as it sailed to the New World. While they like to invoke the part about America to be like a shining city on a hill, I'm sure none of these men ever really READ that sermon. I'd like to quote some of it for you:

"First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

Our founders believed that they were the biblical Israelites sent here to build the New Jerusalem and to be a blessing to all nations. Our laws are a combination of Bible law and the Anglo Saxon system of jurisprudence. We did NOT build a nation that tried to amalgamate other cultures and races into ours. As a matter of fact, it was not until 1967 that interracial marriage was decreed "legal" (and then only via an illegally ratified Amendment to the Constitution.) Wikipedia states:

"Anti-miscegenation laws were a part of American law, in some States:since before the United States was established."

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States - Wikipedia

To deny the racial origins of our culture and its influence on our nation is academically dishonest. I guess that is why I don't understand the whole MAGA concept - as this is one issue where they say the same words you say, but at the end of the day they do not practice it. That is why they want a wall between America and the southern border.

See, here is what is puzzling to me:

1) The MAGA concept is all about our culture, heritage, etc. and that we should be protected from so - called "illegals." Hopefully, you will clear this up for me. In the Declaration of Independence, it states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now, let me quote for you how our Courts interpreted unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Sooo... If the government did not create Liberty; if Liberty was, indeed an unalienable Right, we would have NO constitutional basis upon which to keep foreigners from entering the United States to partake of opportunities willingly offered. Or maybe you can make an argument for creating quotas for keeping foreigners from taking advantage of opportunities willingly offered by Americans?

2) In my understanding of American history, Liberty was an unalienable Right; citizenship, on the other hand was a privilege that was granted by men subject to the limitations set by law

3) Today the dynamics are bass ackwards. We allow more people to become citizens than we allow to come here and work as temporary workers. Adding insult to injury, MOST of the rest of the people on the face of this earth have an identity that we deny to ourselves. China is over 90 percent Han Chinese; Japan claims to be the most racially pure people and according to my research:

"...the population of Japan appears largely homogenous with the final population statistics comprised of a 98.5% contribution from ethnic Japanese people."

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/japan-population/

North Korea according to my research:

"North Korea actually boasts one of the most racially homogeneous societies in the world. Of the total population of approximately 25 million people, 99.8 percent are ethnically Korean. Less than one percent of North Koreans are identified as not being Korean."

North Korea Ethnic Groups | Study.com

Zimbabwe is 99.7 percent black. So, how come it is so hard for the American people to embrace their racial heritage? Slavery? Did we invent slavery? How come other countries are not held accountable? The liberals want YOU held accountable.

This is the most puzzling aspect of trying to understand the whole MAGA concept. I'm sure that you've read United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney's legal reasoning as to our racial heritage in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case. If you have not read it, I urge you to do so. Many blacks have and that is why they really don't like white people. Study the case if you haven't read it:

Scott v. Sandford

Anyway, thank you for a well thought our response and I hope you will take the time to clear up this differing viewpoint about our racial heritage.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I wanted to thank those of you who took the time to at least post something that would indicate what the MAGA concept is all about. There are a lot of people in the cheering section; not so many that can explain the concept.

The only issue I see that MAGA supporters raise is that of immigration. That leads me to only more questions. Do MAGA supporters conflate citizenship with Liberty? Do they think that you don't have Liberty unless you follow some "legal" (as they erroneously call it) path to citizenship? If this is all about some "legal" issue, if Congress passed a law allowing all foreigners to come here by showing their ID on the way in, would that end the MAGA concept?

What are we trying to protect with this concept? Unemployment is, supposedly, lower than at any time in history. So, IF that proposition is true, does that not disprove any perceived need for the MAGA immigration concept? OR, in the alternative, is the right lying about our economic situation and Trump did not make it any better?

IF we are willing to extend citizenship to a million new people a year, what is it we are protecting by keeping the foreigners out? I mean, if someone tells you what you want to hear (i.e. you love America and its people) then come on in... isn't that what I've been hearing? We allow these foreigners to come in with their strange ideologies and then they are trying to implement those ideologies as members Congress and the U.S. Senate. I've never examined their influence at the state level. What other nation invites foreigners in and then allows them to try and subvert their Constitution and change their form of government?

Why do we do these things? Then, to top it off, we deny our own heritage, our own history and our own unique culture. I'm sorry that I'm not getting it... but I tried.

 

[Picaro]

IF anyone is actually reading this exchange, my basic point is that if you read the links from the last few posts I just made, you will see that plenary power goes far and beyond this obsession Trump supporters have with immigration. It calls into question a broader issue: LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

If this extra-judicial power is not curtailed, you may as well not have a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. Just because the right thinks they are going to benefit off some of the decisions, they will be losers in the grand scheme of things. Again, how can America become great "again" if we do not support the United States Constitution?

Can you name the Constitutional Amendments that were not ratified legally? You like cherry picking from 1886 onward for some reason, but the real problems re the SC begin in 1861.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

IF anyone is actually reading this exchange, my basic point is that if you read the links from the last few posts I just made, you will see that plenary power goes far and beyond this obsession Trump supporters have with immigration. It calls into question a broader issue: LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

If this extra-judicial power is not curtailed, you may as well not have a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. Just because the right thinks they are going to benefit off some of the decisions, they will be losers in the grand scheme of things. Again, how can America become great "again" if we do not support the United States Constitution?

Can you name the Constitutional Amendments that were not ratified legally? You like cherry picking from 1886 onward for some reason, but the real problems re the SC begin in 1861.

For me, it is not an issue of cherry picking. It is an issue of experience. Having worked in the legal field, you don't get to pick what cases you are going to come up against. The biggest thing to happen in 1861 (IIRC) was Lincoln using the military for martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. If that is what you're talking about, I'm not a fan of that historical outrage.

It set a bad precedent and one that future presidents would build upon, much like Donald Trump wanting to steal land along the border to build his nutty wall. And, like the race issue back then being the pretext for a more sinister purpose, Trump is exploiting the immigration issue to further infringe on your constitutional Rights. It's what is baffling to me about the whole MAGA concept. There seems to be no end game. I'm not saying that they don't have one, but if they do, they are leaving a LOT of people in the dark as to what it is.

 

[Picaro]

IF anyone is actually reading this exchange, my basic point is that if you read the links from the last few posts I just made, you will see that plenary power goes far and beyond this obsession Trump supporters have with immigration. It calls into question a broader issue: LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

If this extra-judicial power is not curtailed, you may as well not have a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. Just because the right thinks they are going to benefit off some of the decisions, they will be losers in the grand scheme of things. Again, how can America become great "again" if we do not support the United States Constitution?

Can you name the Constitutional Amendments that were not ratified legally? You like cherry picking from 1886 onward for some reason, but the real problems re the SC begin in 1861.

For me, it is not an issue of cherry picking. It is an issue of experience. Having worked in the legal field, you don't get to pick what cases you are going to come up against. The biggest thing to happen in 1861 (IIRC) was Lincoln using the military for martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. If that is what you're talking about, I'm not a fan of that historical outrage.

It set a bad precedent and one that future presidents would build upon, much like Donald Trump wanting to steal land along the border to build his nutty wall. And, like the race issue back then being the pretext for a more sinister purpose, Trump is exploiting the immigration issue to further infringe on your constitutional Rights. It's what is baffling to me about the whole MAGA concept. There seems to be no end game. I'm not saying that they don't have one, but if they do, they are leaving a LOT of people in the dark as to what it is.

I was referring to the SC justices that resigned as a result, and the appointments to the Chase Court, and the death of Chief Justice Taney. The rise of 'judicial activism' begins there, and then there are the way certain Amendments were passed that most certainly violated Constitutionally defined procedures and votes. Right wingers like to gloss over the later consequences of ''activists Courts' as long they favored rich crooks, big corporations, the forming of trusts, etc.

Trump is using what is left of the 'system', so your 'confusion' is merely that you still think the Constitution is in effect as always. It's dead, has been for a long along time. Congress has gradually ceded most of its power to the Courts, so voters will blame the Courts, while they focus on soliciting bribes and getting re-elected. Don't know many who are confused about this at all. Just because you're confused doesn't mean everybody else is, too.

 

[Picaro]

Can anybody find a Constitutional precedent for this degenerate psychotic behavior being left up to an obviously sick woman just because a Democrat sociopath Judge approves of it?

Anne Georgulas | LifeSite

 

[Porter Rockwell]

IF anyone is actually reading this exchange, my basic point is that if you read the links from the last few posts I just made, you will see that plenary power goes far and beyond this obsession Trump supporters have with immigration. It calls into question a broader issue: LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

If this extra-judicial power is not curtailed, you may as well not have a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. Just because the right thinks they are going to benefit off some of the decisions, they will be losers in the grand scheme of things. Again, how can America become great "again" if we do not support the United States Constitution?

Can you name the Constitutional Amendments that were not ratified legally? You like cherry picking from 1886 onward for some reason, but the real problems re the SC begin in 1861.

For me, it is not an issue of cherry picking. It is an issue of experience. Having worked in the legal field, you don't get to pick what cases you are going to come up against. The biggest thing to happen in 1861 (IIRC) was Lincoln using the military for martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. If that is what you're talking about, I'm not a fan of that historical outrage.

It set a bad precedent and one that future presidents would build upon, much like Donald Trump wanting to steal land along the border to build his nutty wall. And, like the race issue back then being the pretext for a more sinister purpose, Trump is exploiting the immigration issue to further infringe on your constitutional Rights. It's what is baffling to me about the whole MAGA concept. There seems to be no end game. I'm not saying that they don't have one, but if they do, they are leaving a LOT of people in the dark as to what it is.

I was referring to the SC justices that resigned as a result, and the appointments to the Chase Court, and the death of Chief Justice Taney. The rise of 'judicial activism' begins there, and then there are the way certain Amendments were passed that most certainly violated Constitutionally defined procedures and votes. Right wingers like to gloss over the later consequences of ''activists Courts' as long they favored rich crooks, big corporations, the forming of trusts, etc.

Trump is using what is left of the 'system', so your 'confusion' is merely that you still think the Constitution is in effect as always. It's dead, has been for a long along time. Congress has gradually ceded most of its power to the Courts, so voters will blame the Courts, while they focus on soliciting bribes and getting re-elected. Don't know many who are confused about this at all. Just because you're confused doesn't mean everybody else is, too.

I am ANYTHING, but confused about the Constitution. Posters have had a couple of weeks and a hundred posts to bring up the points you did. They haven't. So, again, if there is an end game, it is definitely left of center. Nobody can articulate what THAT is.

There are at least two governments operating in the United States at the current time:

The de jure / lawful / legal government in the United States is the constitutional Republic as guaranteed to us in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution. The other government is an illegal / de facto government that is generally referred to as the "democracy." I won't go off topic to tell you of the differences.

Suffice it to say, the Democrats and Republicans; left and right; conservative and liberal are all basically the same. If you looked at the agenda being espoused by the Ds in the mid 1990s, you would see that Trump's platform is the same, almost verbatim terminology.

I have been railing against the courts and judges legislating from the bench ever since I began posting here. And, to be fair and balanced, when the Constitution does not protect the actions of the right, I have pointed it out. It's been costly with uneducated people calling me names and making the most absurd accusations. The major point of contention is that the Constitution protects unalienable Rights or it does not. In the original interpretation, the Constitution DID acknowledge those unalienable Rights. Today, ALL sides of the political spectrum are opposed to those Rights. So, maybe we're just shopping for the best dictator we think our tax dollars can buy. Is THAT what you are trying to tell me in a nice way?

 

[peach174]

Those people realize what I just told you so they have a silent, but deliberate agenda to commit acts of genocide against the white people. And THAT is one of the things that drove me to start this thread. If America was great when we had a homogeneous society, comprised of white people in charge, how do we make America great again by giving people with an axe to grind against the posterity of the founders an equal say in the body politic?

I'm sure Trump supporters haven't thought this conundrum through, but maybe your post will open the door for them to fill in the blanks for me.

WOW! That is going to turn this thread at a 90 degree angle.

I have alot to say on that but it's too much to type right now...but I will say this...MAL-EDUCATION!

People being maleducated has to be stopped!

Even using slavery as an anti white propaganda...they don't consider that blacks also owned black slaves...indians owned black slaves...but today it's only used as anti white propaganda.

I'll come back later & type some more.

Are you accusing me of being "mal educated" (sic)?

Mal educated-
Imperfect or misdirected education.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Those people realize what I just told you so they have a silent, but deliberate agenda to commit acts of genocide against the white people. And THAT is one of the things that drove me to start this thread. If America was great when we had a homogeneous society, comprised of white people in charge, how do we make America great again by giving people with an axe to grind against the posterity of the founders an equal say in the body politic?

I'm sure Trump supporters haven't thought this conundrum through, but maybe your post will open the door for them to fill in the blanks for me.

WOW! That is going to turn this thread at a 90 degree angle.

I have alot to say on that but it's too much to type right now...but I will say this...MAL-EDUCATION!

People being maleducated has to be stopped!

Even using slavery as an anti white propaganda...they don't consider that blacks also owned black slaves...indians owned black slaves...but today it's only used as anti white propaganda.

I'll come back later & type some more.

Are you accusing me of being "mal educated" (sic)?

Mal educated-
Imperfect or misdirected education.

I think the left managed to condition the right, Pavlovian style. Now, they act against their own instincts and try to buy into the fairy tales they hope you will believe. As a result, those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

From all sides, America has NO leadership. It seems the masses don't even have a direction at the moment.

 

[peach174]

IF anyone is actually reading this exchange, my basic point is that if you read the links from the last few posts I just made, you will see that plenary power goes far and beyond this obsession Trump supporters have with immigration. It calls into question a broader issue: LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

If this extra-judicial power is not curtailed, you may as well not have a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. Just because the right thinks they are going to benefit off some of the decisions, they will be losers in the grand scheme of things. Again, how can America become great "again" if we do not support the United States Constitution?

Can you name the Constitutional Amendments that were not ratified legally? You like cherry picking from 1886 onward for some reason, but the real problems re the SC begin in 1861.

For me, it is not an issue of cherry picking. It is an issue of experience. Having worked in the legal field, you don't get to pick what cases you are going to come up against. The biggest thing to happen in 1861 (IIRC) was Lincoln using the military for martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. If that is what you're talking about, I'm not a fan of that historical outrage.

It set a bad precedent and one that future presidents would build upon, much like Donald Trump wanting to steal land along the border to build his nutty wall. And, like the race issue back then being the pretext for a more sinister purpose, Trump is exploiting the immigration issue to further infringe on your constitutional Rights. It's what is baffling to me about the whole MAGA concept. There seems to be no end game. I'm not saying that they don't have one, but if they do, they are leaving a LOT of people in the dark as to what it is.

The left keep saying his wall.
It's not Trumps wall it's the peoples wall.
The left has ignored the reasons why border patrol wants certain areas contained.
It frees them up from ports of heavy entries so they can control open areas better.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

IF anyone is actually reading this exchange, my basic point is that if you read the links from the last few posts I just made, you will see that plenary power goes far and beyond this obsession Trump supporters have with immigration. It calls into question a broader issue: LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

If this extra-judicial power is not curtailed, you may as well not have a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. Just because the right thinks they are going to benefit off some of the decisions, they will be losers in the grand scheme of things. Again, how can America become great "again" if we do not support the United States Constitution?

Can you name the Constitutional Amendments that were not ratified legally? You like cherry picking from 1886 onward for some reason, but the real problems re the SC begin in 1861.

For me, it is not an issue of cherry picking. It is an issue of experience. Having worked in the legal field, you don't get to pick what cases you are going to come up against. The biggest thing to happen in 1861 (IIRC) was Lincoln using the military for martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. If that is what you're talking about, I'm not a fan of that historical outrage.

It set a bad precedent and one that future presidents would build upon, much like Donald Trump wanting to steal land along the border to build his nutty wall. And, like the race issue back then being the pretext for a more sinister purpose, Trump is exploiting the immigration issue to further infringe on your constitutional Rights. It's what is baffling to me about the whole MAGA concept. There seems to be no end game. I'm not saying that they don't have one, but if they do, they are leaving a LOT of people in the dark as to what it is.

The left keep saying his wall.
It's not Trumps wall it's the peoples wall.
The left has ignored the reasons why border patrol wants certain areas contained.
It frees them up from ports of heavy entries so they can control open areas better.

The nutty wall was the liberals before it was a "conservative" concept long before Trump came along. The wall will cost more in dollars and lost Liberties than it can produce in measurable results. But, you are right. It is not Trump's wall. It was the left's idea first. Then the National Socialists took up the idea and Trump adopted it.





I find it hilarious that the right is demanding laws passed by Democrats that were intended to dilute the white vote be vigorously enforced when such laws are blatantly unconstitutional, anti-white, and lead to a multicultural nation. These are laws that are over half a century old and no longer applicable to our society. We end up naturalizing more people as citizens than we allow to come here to exercise the Right of Liberty as guest workers.

Then, we propose a wall with costs in terms of dollars and lost Liberties that far exceed what the wall promises to do (and it is just trading one set of problems for another.)

The only thing so far that MAGA seems to be synonymous with is a wall. There is no play beyond that AND the wall simply won't do what its supporters think it will. Besides, according to Donald Trump, he has lowered unemployment to its lowest point in history. It didn't take a wall to do that. So, we build a wall and then what? BTW, You do know that the United States Supreme Court will never allow the separation of families to become permanent, don't you? They will never uncitizen the millions who are citizens by way of undocumented parents. The wall is a solution looking for a problem to solve.

But, is that it? Just a wall???

 

[peach174]

IF anyone is actually reading this exchange, my basic point is that if you read the links from the last few posts I just made, you will see that plenary power goes far and beyond this obsession Trump supporters have with immigration. It calls into question a broader issue: LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

If this extra-judicial power is not curtailed, you may as well not have a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. Just because the right thinks they are going to benefit off some of the decisions, they will be losers in the grand scheme of things. Again, how can America become great "again" if we do not support the United States Constitution?

Can you name the Constitutional Amendments that were not ratified legally? You like cherry picking from 1886 onward for some reason, but the real problems re the SC begin in 1861.

For me, it is not an issue of cherry picking. It is an issue of experience. Having worked in the legal field, you don't get to pick what cases you are going to come up against. The biggest thing to happen in 1861 (IIRC) was Lincoln using the military for martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. If that is what you're talking about, I'm not a fan of that historical outrage.

It set a bad precedent and one that future presidents would build upon, much like Donald Trump wanting to steal land along the border to build his nutty wall. And, like the race issue back then being the pretext for a more sinister purpose, Trump is exploiting the immigration issue to further infringe on your constitutional Rights. It's what is baffling to me about the whole MAGA concept. There seems to be no end game. I'm not saying that they don't have one, but if they do, they are leaving a LOT of people in the dark as to what it is.

The left keep saying his wall.
It's not Trumps wall it's the peoples wall.
The left has ignored the reasons why border patrol wants certain areas contained.
It frees them up from ports of heavy entries so they can control open areas better.

The nutty wall was the liberals before it was a "conservative" concept long before Trump came along. The wall will cost more in dollars and lost Liberties than it can produce in measurable results. But, you are right. It is not Trump's wall. It was the left's idea first. Then the National Socialists took up the idea and Trump adopted it.





I find it hilarious that the right is demanding laws passed by Democrats that were intended to dilute the white vote be vigorously enforced when such laws are blatantly unconstitutional, anti-white, and lead to a multicultural nation. These are laws that are over half a century old and no longer applicable to our society. We end up naturalizing more people as citizens than we allow to come here to exercise the Right of Liberty as guest workers.

Then, we propose a wall with costs in terms of dollars and lost Liberties that far exceed what the wall promises to do (and it is just trading one set of problems for another.)

The only thing so far that MAGA seems to be synonymous with is a wall. There is no play beyond that AND the wall simply won't do what its supporters think it will. Besides, according to Donald Trump, he has lowered unemployment to its lowest point in history. It didn't take a wall to do that. So, we build a wall and then what? BTW, You do know that the United States Supreme Court will never allow the separation of families to become permanent, don't you? They will never uncitizen the millions who are citizens by way of undocumented parents. The wall is a solution looking for a problem to solve.

But, is that it? Just a wall???

Border patrol was asking for it because it is helping them in areas where the wall is implemented.
Ask any one of them and they say it's working along with all the other things added by Trump.
Dem's have ignored that fact and have pushed for lawless entry.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

IF anyone is actually reading this exchange, my basic point is that if you read the links from the last few posts I just made, you will see that plenary power goes far and beyond this obsession Trump supporters have with immigration. It calls into question a broader issue: LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

If this extra-judicial power is not curtailed, you may as well not have a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. Just because the right thinks they are going to benefit off some of the decisions, they will be losers in the grand scheme of things. Again, how can America become great "again" if we do not support the United States Constitution?

Can you name the Constitutional Amendments that were not ratified legally? You like cherry picking from 1886 onward for some reason, but the real problems re the SC begin in 1861.

For me, it is not an issue of cherry picking. It is an issue of experience. Having worked in the legal field, you don't get to pick what cases you are going to come up against. The biggest thing to happen in 1861 (IIRC) was Lincoln using the military for martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. If that is what you're talking about, I'm not a fan of that historical outrage.

It set a bad precedent and one that future presidents would build upon, much like Donald Trump wanting to steal land along the border to build his nutty wall. And, like the race issue back then being the pretext for a more sinister purpose, Trump is exploiting the immigration issue to further infringe on your constitutional Rights. It's what is baffling to me about the whole MAGA concept. There seems to be no end game. I'm not saying that they don't have one, but if they do, they are leaving a LOT of people in the dark as to what it is.

The left keep saying his wall.
It's not Trumps wall it's the peoples wall.
The left has ignored the reasons why border patrol wants certain areas contained.
It frees them up from ports of heavy entries so they can control open areas better.

The nutty wall was the liberals before it was a "conservative" concept long before Trump came along. The wall will cost more in dollars and lost Liberties than it can produce in measurable results. But, you are right. It is not Trump's wall. It was the left's idea first. Then the National Socialists took up the idea and Trump adopted it.





I find it hilarious that the right is demanding laws passed by Democrats that were intended to dilute the white vote be vigorously enforced when such laws are blatantly unconstitutional, anti-white, and lead to a multicultural nation. These are laws that are over half a century old and no longer applicable to our society. We end up naturalizing more people as citizens than we allow to come here to exercise the Right of Liberty as guest workers.

Then, we propose a wall with costs in terms of dollars and lost Liberties that far exceed what the wall promises to do (and it is just trading one set of problems for another.)

The only thing so far that MAGA seems to be synonymous with is a wall. There is no play beyond that AND the wall simply won't do what its supporters think it will. Besides, according to Donald Trump, he has lowered unemployment to its lowest point in history. It didn't take a wall to do that. So, we build a wall and then what? BTW, You do know that the United States Supreme Court will never allow the separation of families to become permanent, don't you? They will never uncitizen the millions who are citizens by way of undocumented parents. The wall is a solution looking for a problem to solve.

But, is that it? Just a wall???

Border patrol was asking for it because it is helping them in areas where the wall is implemented.
Ask any one of them and they say it's working along with all the other things added by Trump.
Dem's have ignored that fact and have pushed for lawless entry.

Now we go back to that deal with this being about "legalities." In my opinion, MAGA is now coming down to the building of a wall. Governors say they don't need the wall. It's not our job to make the Border Patrol a safe / do nothing job. Secondary to that, the laws on the books make a mockery of our Constitution. So, I don't understand MAGA.

IF the issue is a National Security concern, the remedy is a Declaration of War, not a wall. If this is about law enforcement, that is a job for the states. I still don't get the part about enforcing unconstitutional laws rammed through Congress by Democrats in order to dilute the white vote... OR do MAGA supporters never read that concern? They never address it.