Trump Allies Target Journalists Over Coverage Deemed Hostile to White House

Not according to the law. They're declining to use state resources to enforce federal law.[/QUOTE]

If they're violating the law, they can be deported.

 

If they're violating the law, they can be deported.[/QUOTE]


By being here they are breaking the law.

If the city declines to use their resources to do whats right for the country. Then the country should decline to use federal resources on them.


We should not allow it to be a one way street.. cities shouldn't ne allowed to harm the country. Hell maybe we should just dig motes around them and say "see ya"

 

A
As you say later, Trump is a Trumpist, not really a conservative except in the same way I'm a Christian when I want to be. I thought he did say the right things about this subject... am I wrong?
He knows what we all know -- that not all immigrants are equal. That million Norweigans are not the same as a million Pakistanis. But he doesn't know or care about knowing, how to say this. There is a lot humbug in social relationships and he doesn't defer to it, in the political sphere anyway.

No, you are right re Muslims as vote-getters but ... as often, we're talking about different things. You're talking about senior Democratic Party politicians, and I'm talking about what I call 'the Left', who are a different group -- they are strong in Academia and among those who take their cues from that quarter. They intimidate the genuine liberals, and have been gaining in influence in the general liberal movement. They're the future of America. There is a very roughly analogous situation in the consevative movement, from the other direction: our religious fundamentalists. You will have noticed that few conservatives who post here are outspokenly in-your-face fundamentalists. In fact, although several are serious Christians, I don't think there are any fundamentalists posting. But if you stand in the Republican Primaries in the South, and are against 'God in the School' and are for teaching real science and not bogus 'creation science', these people will mobilize against you. So they have influence among us which is out of proportion to their numbers in the country.

Corbyn doesn't really have an American analogue, for several reasons. He's the only example I know of, of a British politician who is significantly stupider than than the average American politician.

 

Well, the government is doing a poor job controlling the media. CNN is always on at the gym and it is always something bad about Trump.

Speaking about opposing fascism, isn't your party working towards expanding gun control?

 

Anyone who thinks trump is a conservative is absolutely ignorant of what conservatism is.

 

And if they promise and then do something else?

Who the devil is going to supervise this operation and guarantee folks' rights?

I think the Civil War came to the correct conclusion. Once you're "in" there's no exit except with the approval of Congress, and perhaps with the necessity of obtaining a Constitutional Amendment.

A big question ... are the residents of the new country still American citizens?

The way you come across ... Hawaii would be a protectorate.

As it is, Canada may have limited sovereignty in U.S. thinking. The port in Vancouver is considered critical infrastructure by this country. We depend on the electrical grid that includes power generation in Canada.

Politics. Hawaii has no way out.

How much of the Southwest are you prepared to repatriate to Mexico?

Apples and oranges. Is your vote for important if you move to Wyoming or Delaware. I think over-representation in the Senate is enough protection for small states.

 

So, then, deport them.

If they aren't breaking the law, what's your beef? You decide what's okay. If they don't go along, you take away their rights?

You don't seem to have much respect for the law.

 

No respect for the law, says the one who thinks it's ok for cities to harbor law breakers.

 

Of course. Separation has to be with the consent of the original state.
All rights are ultimately protected by those who hold the ultima ratio regnum. A separated statelet with resident American citizens would be very foolish to opporess them in any way.
It's like the large number of Russians who were left behind in the Baltic states -- they are treated very well, no doubt because the Balts are such nice people, but also because their Russian big brother is right across the border. The 'right conclusion' in the case of the Confederacy was reached because the North had the power to enforce its will. If it had not been for the issue of slavery,which trumped the right of nations to self-determination, the South would have had every right to leave, had a sufficiently-large majority of its citizens desired to do so.

As for Canada's status vis a vis the US ... there are things which are true, but which are not said.All states which are weak and near large ones tend to move towards de facto protectorate status. The US intervenes in the Carribbean and in Central America whenever it doesn't like a government there and puts in one that it likes. Cuba managed to defy the US, and good on them for doing so.

I'm in favor of the right of nations to self-determination. It is entirely possible that, with the Democratic Party's de facto Open Borders policy, the Hispanic population of the Southwest will become overwhelmingly large and dominant. At the moment, the last place these people want to return to is Mexico. But, fifty years from now, if Mexico is a prosperous economic colony of China, and the US is an opiod-addicted hellhole -- I see the insane Democrats of New York City want to close down their elite high schools because not enough of the right kind of minority can pass the tests, which is another step on the road to mediocrity -- then the Mexican inhabitants of the Southwest may want to take back their stolen property. If the Chinese back them, and the US is unable to hold on to it, that's where it will go. A few hundred lynchings and grisly murders of the remaining gringos should make them clear out pretty quick. See what happened to the French who were foolish enough to remain in an independent Algeria, or what is happening to the whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Not sure what you mean here. Under liberal rule, which will increasingly be progressive/SJW rule, and which is inevitable, the US is going down. It will be unrecognizable in another couple of decades,
is almost so now. It's not possible to predict the exact contours of its moral and social disintegration, nor how that will play out in political and military terms. All we can say is that it won't be pretty. It is very painful to admit this, but we have to face reality. At the moment, conservatives have their heads deeply buried in the sand, and somehow think things can magically be turned around. When pressed on exactly how this is going to happen, they cannot construct a coherent sentence. 'Something will turn up'.

I would like to see as much of the real America saved as possible, which is why I advocate peaceful separation.

 

Yeah, I think Trump is a faux conservative.

Trump can ask his staff for help if he doesn't know how to talk like a decent individual.

The "Left" on campus in the way you identify them are but a tiny minority of faculty and students. They're not our future.

Most fundamentalists are obnoxious prigs, but I think there some reasonably serious evangelicals. All the stuff about being reborn, about Jess and Big Daddy, and a personal god is a bit much, but evangelicals can act decently enough if they choose.

Yes, and I would say they're collectively a pain in the arse.

His economic ideas don't work. Period.

 

Okay.

Unless it is of sufficient size to develop nuclear weapons. Then they have options.

Too much Trump and Canada could at some point decide to develop WMD.

The only way we become a "opioid [sic] addicted hellhole" is if anti-drug types keep tolerating doctors prescribing opioids, getting patients hooked, and then forcing addicts to turn to the black market.

Too cryptic for me. I don't know what "liberal rule" means, what you consider "moral and social disintegration," and what "turned around" means when what we had before was no great hell.

 

It's FALSE:

GOOD NEWS: Labor Department rehires staffer Bloomberg accused of anti-Semitism.

Earlier: Bloomberg “Reporter”(For Now) Ben Penn: Hey, Don’t Overlook The Fact That I Took Out an Official Pushing Deregulation.

This lying pathetic piece of crap lied to accuse an Administration Official of "antisemitism" and then when busted red-handed justifies his lies by pointing out that this official favors deregulation, ignoring the fact that Americans know that with every inch of deregulation our personal Liberty and Freedom increases.

 

(1) I didn't say I agree with "sanctuary cities." You made that up. (2) I think the people and officials who refuse to commit state and local resources to enforce federal law are acting legally. (3) I oppose attempting to use federal spending to reward or punish those with whom we disagree.

 

The ignorance is yours not mine

And hearing the truth obviously makes you angry

 

Why don't you try being honest, and do a little research about Obama and his henchmen who spied on, and prosecuted reporters.

Would you float Obama in the same boat as Trump seeing that he did go after reporters?

C'mon....it won't hurt a bit to look into this. I promise you! LOL

 

You are not thinking logically

Unlike obama who was a poor man before becoming president, Tump is already rich

So there was no personal gain for trump by being president

The left may object to trumps policies but that is no excuse to smear his motives

 

Makes me laugh. Hard to believe that our education system failed so many of our seniors

 

Trump wants POWER not wealth. He wants himself and his family to run America forever.

Besides there is considerable speculation that the reason he will not release his tax returns is that he does not want it known how poor he really is. Mark Cuban has said it is likely he in not even a billionaire any longer

 

i think you're right. Wow, I don't think I'll vote for Obama anymore.

 

It's not punishment it's fair play.. tit for tat.

You're supporting sanctuary cities by defending them..
If what i am doing makes me actrump supporter what you are doing makes you a sanctuary city supporter.

 

First, America needs to save itself from its new brand of crusaders peddling an even more pernicious brand of global activism than what came before them. Without that, there is no chance for America to get anything right at home either.

Otherwise, I am not sure what you worry about would require separation per se. I for one see nothing wrong if America would allow its states (while respecting the due process and equal protection of the laws for their residents) to experiment with different approaches to various social and economic issues. Not only I don't think every answer works equally everywhere in America, I am not sure in many cases the right answers can be found by forcing one experiment on all.

For instance, there would be nothing wrong in my eyes if you didn't have a "wall of separation between church and state" in some states, while you had it clearly in others. Before the incorporation of the 1st Amendment through the 14th amendment by judicial fiat, the First Amendment (like the other Bill of Rights) were merely a limitation on federal power. Not state power. And while I am not religious, and certainly not Christian, as long as a state would not be able to rob one of the explicit protections of the 14th amendment (which are specifically addressed to the states), living in a state which gives greater respect to traditional values might not have been all that bad. Certainly, until the liberal vision of things finds a better answer to the break-up of the institution of marriage, the rearing of a productive family, and greater abstinence from activities (sexual, or recreational) which may be fun but become habits that are hard to break and which may weaken many other institutions besides the family, the right to at least see if such an experiment works or not shouldn't be denied by judicial fiat.

On the opposite side, there is also nothing in a true and fair reading of the constitution that would prevent a state such as New York, for instance, from having a socialist model of government economically, have strict regulation (or even a ban) on private ownership of guns, and impose the tallest and thickest wall between church and state, while allowing individual liberties on social, cultural and related matters to extend as far and as wide as they wish. That would be another experiment that deserves the chance to show its merits and demerits without it being derailed by extra-constitutional arguments employed by a judiciary that is addicted to deciding things by fiat and not the text or history of the constitutional principles before it. Otherwise, which part of the 2nd Amendment can truly said to be a limitation on state power? And certainly the sad and odd chapter with "substantive due process" (an oxymoron when applied to defeat New Deal legislation and now to work with penumbras to find constitutional limitations on democratic governance not found in the constitution itself) is no longer going to prevent such an experiment in socialist economics either.

America, freed from those who want to entangle its affairs with those of foreign states, and going back to the best of its ideals, cleansing those parts it already knew from the beginning were wrong, may still be an experiment that can be saved. But it is a tall order, as for now, its politics and institutions have simply been corrupted too much.

 

You don't understand our constitution at all do you. The state of new York is expressly forbidding by the constitution from banning gun ownership.
Every right in the bill of rights is a right given to every individual including the 2nd. Everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
Yes modern guns
Yes apart from a malita

Any honest reading of the constitution would have to come to the conclusion that most gun laws are unconstitutional.

 

You are wrong. Before the Bill of Rights were made to apply to the states by virtue of the "incorporation doctrine" via the 14th Amendment, they mostly operated as a limitation on the powers of the federal government, not the states. In some cases, rather explicitly (e.g. First Amendment).

 

An education system that gets worse with every generation

 

To help some who may not understand the issue, but are surely opinionated on the subject, here is a short note on the incorporation doctrine.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine