Trump Administration Predictions

The_Doc_Man said:
I have seen debates over exactly that subject that would disagree with your take on the matter.
Click to expand...
It is not exactly a debate. Some people don't like the Constitution and want to ignore the plain words of the Constitution. "Subject to the jurisdiction of" has a clear legal meaning. Those who think that due process should not cover non-citizens are free to try to amend the Constitution.

It should be noted that citizenship clause codified the existing practice. The principle of Jus Soli goes back to English common law.
 
Paraphrasing: "It depends what the meaning of is is"

Remember that jewel?

Nowadays everything needs to be tested. It's the beauty of our system, three branches.
 
AccessBlaster said:
Paraphrasing: "It depends what the meaning of is is"

Remember that jewel?

Nowadays everything needs to be tested. It's the beauty of our system, three branches.
Click to expand...
Bill Clinton lied under oath. I am not sure it rose to the level of an impeachable offense, but there was no question that he lied.
 
AccessBlaster said:
That's why it was tested, because some people didn't feel it rose to the level, while others did.
Click to expand...
The Repubs were ushering in a new era in American Politics. The age of using the Justice System, and impeachment, to get rid of Presidents.
Then they all cried boo-hoo in their whiny little b ways, when the Dems did it back.
 
Last edited:
Pat Hartman said:
That's kinda' wishy-washy isn't it?
Click to expand...
No.
It is, however, annoying, as so many middle-of-the-road answer are, but it's not wishy washy, it's just a seeking of balancing in between the extremes.

Conservatives are sometimes accused of making it really hard for many people to get government benefits, in the interest of avoiding a small amount of fraud, waste or abuse. Liberals (apparently proudly, per Moke's post), seems like would rather default in giving them to just about everyone who performs the slightest thing that might be called a Request - making it super super easy, in order to avoid some deserving person starving to death.

Those are two extremes. As per the usual in life, they both seem both undesirable and unnecessary.
Make it a serious process with as much validation as possible as to the person's needs. Make it neither "give it to everyone" nor "make it damn hard for everyone".

I'll tell you, I tried to get food stamps once in life during a period, my only period in 28 years of supporting a family, of being out of work for about 6 months. It was incredibly hard, and I'm a techie - I'm happy to fill out long website applications, but it was HAAAAAAAARD. Ultimately we had to go and sit for about 6-8 hours to wait for an appointment, where an old lady with a mouth shaped like a No seemed to think it was odd that I was so able bodied, and white, and yet was asking for food stamps. She wasn't very nice, is what I'm trying to say. She asked for verification of 1000 forms of ID and documentation of all kinds, and we gave them to her, then they said later they hadn't received them. We went through a nightmare of letters, phone calls, and visits. By the time we were close to either getting approved or punching someone, I said to myself to hell with it, I got a job now. I can only imagine how hard it is for a single parent or a documentation-challenged person.
 
Thales750 said:
The Repubs were ushering in a new era in American Politics. The age of using the Justice System, and impeachment, to get rid of Presidents.
Then they all cried boo-hoo in whiny their little b ways, when the Dems did it back.
Click to expand...
And the dems activate their district judges and the legacy media to stymie any progress.

It's different sides of the same coin.
 
Isaac said:
I'll tell you, I tried to get food stamps once in life during a period, my only period in 28 years of supporting a family, of being out of work for about 6 months. It was incredibly hard, and I'm a techie - I'm happy to fill out long website applications, but it was HAAAAAAAARD. Ultimately we had to go and sit for about 6-8 hours to wait for an appointment, where an old lady with a mouth shaped like a No seemed to think it was odd that I was so able bodied, and white, and yet was asking for food stamps. She wasn't very nice, is what I'm trying to say. She asked for verification of 1000 forms of ID and documentation of all kinds, and we gave them to her, then they said later they hadn't received them. We went through a nightmare of letters, phone calls, and visits. By the time we were close to either getting approved or punching someone, I said to myself to hell with it, I got a job now. I can only imagine how hard it is for a single parent or a documentation-challenged person.
Click to expand...
My guess, you had some assets cars, house, some tangible items that you needed to "buy down" or liquidate in order to qualify it's just a guess.
 
Last edited:
RogerCooper said:
Some people don't like the Constitution and want to ignore the plain words of the Constitution. "Subject to the jurisdiction of" has a clear legal meaning.
Click to expand...
When it comes to lawyers; "plain words" is meaningless mumbo jumbo. Lawyers love twisting words to make a simple concept as complex and obscure as possible. Moreover, one needs to examine the underlying analysis used to support the text in the Constitution before one makes the claim that it "supports" what you claim.

RogerCooper said:
Those who think that due process should not cover non-citizens are free to try to amend the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Due process resides on a scale. For an illegal immigrant who just broke the law to enter the US, due process can be as simple as driving that person back across the border. Then there are absurdities were due process becomes a quagmire of endless appeals, reconsiderations, technicalities, etc. The Mendez brothers were found guilty for a crime committed in 1989. Now 36 years later, they are still in court! Can you imagine how clogged-up the court system would be if everybody (300+ million people) had this much legal scrutiny based on due process. Due process is an excellent concept, but there are rationale limits,
 
Isaac said:
Conservatives are sometimes accused of making it really hard for many people to get government benefits, in the interest of avoiding a small amount of fraud, waste or abuse.
Click to expand...

Ah, if only it WERE a small amount of fraud. But DOGE showed billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse. I was watching how much they found, but it was so much, spread over so many departments, that I must admit to having lost track. It was not a pretty amount.
 
Steve R. said:
When it comes to lawyers; "plain words" is meaningless mumbo jumbo. Lawyers love twisting words to make a simple concept as complex and obscure as possible. Moreover, one needs to examine the underlying analysis used to support the text in the Constitution before one makes the claim that it "supports" what you claim.


Due process resides on a scale. For an illegal immigrant who just broke the law to enter the US, due process can be as simple as driving that person back across the border. Then there are absurdities were due process becomes a quagmire of endless appeals, reconsiderations, technicalities, etc. The Mendez brothers were found guilty for a crime committed in 1989. Now 36 years later, they are still in court! Can you imagine how clogged-up the court system would be if everybody (300+ million people) had this much legal scrutiny based on due process. Due process is an excellent concept, but there are rationale limits,
Click to expand...
So do you support the idea that actual text of a law has no meaning? That is generally a left-wing view. Critical Legal Studies.

By they way the Menendez brothers had their first trials end in hung juries. In the second trial, their cases were combined, testimony about their abuse was limited by the judge and the prosecutor refused to allow lesser charges to be considered.
 
Isaac said:
Conservatives are sometimes accused of making it really hard for many people to get government benefits, in the interest of avoiding a small amount of fraud, waste or abuse. Liberals (apparently proudly, per Moke's post), seems like would rather default in giving them to just about everyone who performs the slightest thing that might be called a Request - making it super super easy, in order to avoid some deserving person starving to death.
Click to expand...
You are conflating legal vs illegal residents. Legal residents have rights to benefits assuming they qualify and there must be limits or everyone would be on the dole. Illegal residents have no rights to any benefits whatsoever. We accord them rights when they commit crimes beyond the crime of their illegal entry and continued occupation of our country. But they have no right to be here in the first place and we have multiple court cases which have supported that position. It is only because we are talking about Trump that anyone is making a fuss about expelling the illegal aliens. No one made a stink when Obama expelled 2.5 million. They certainly didn't get "due process" or have you forgotten that?

Isaac said:
I'll tell you, I tried to get food stamps once in life during a period, my only period in 28 years of supporting a family, of being out of work for about 6 months. It was incredibly hard, and I'm a techie - I'm happy to fill out long website applications, but it was HAAAAAAAARD.
Click to expand...
It was hard because you are inherently honest. Therefore you made real attempts to jump through the hoops and satisfy the requirements. I think that there can probably be improvements in how we handle certain situations so in my world, you might have gotten a yes in the end. However, the illegals HAVE NO RIGHTS to social welfare. PERIOD. That must be reserved for citizens and in some cases legal residents. That is simply not negotiable. Please don't conflate the two situations.

My brother who is a disabled (marginally and not a war injury) vet was denied proper medical care by the VA for over 10 years. He had all the symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis and they refused to test him for it because the treatments are expensive. A few years ago, once he was finally able to see a doctor outside of the "system", she ordered the tests and his condition was so bad that he was on a drug that cost $7,000 per month for 10 months until they finally stabilized the situation somewhat. This disease has no cure so he will be on drugs for the rest of his life but they are now still expensive but covered by Medicare so he has some relief.

Bureaucracies are inherently inefficient and you ran into that. So did my brother. So did my daughter for that matter. As a single mother of twins living in one of the most expensive counties in the country, she couldn't qualify for ANY financial aid for college although the girls each got a few grants so the four of us had to pay out of pocket for college because my daughter never lied on her applications. The twin's father was always in default and never really contributed to their support but he was alive and living la dolce vita in Las Vegas in a million dollar house while claiming to be unemployed and having no income. If he had been dead, she would have qualified for aid. How's that for fair?
 
The_Doc_Man said:
Ah, if only it WERE a small amount of fraud. But DOGE showed billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse. I was watching how much they found, but it was so much, spread over so many departments, that I must admit to having lost track. It was not a pretty amount.
Click to expand...
Most of DOGE'S claims were themselves fraudulent. The claims which were not withdrawn, were not documented.
 
RogerCooper said:
Most of DOGE'S claims were themselves fraudulent. The claims which were not withdrawn, were not documented.
Click to expand...

In DOGE's first 100 days, even after adjusting for inflated claims, $6–7 billion in true savings is a significant accomplishment. Eliminating USAID alone made the effort worthwhile.

Coupled with the border now being closed, it's a win.
 
AccessBlaster said:
In DOGE's first 100 days, even after adjusting for inflated claims, $6–7 billion in true savings is a significant accomplishment. Eliminating USAID alone made the effort worthwhile.

Coupled with the border now being closed, it's a win.
Click to expand...
Closing the border cost more than $6-7 billion. As is usual with Trump, spending increased.
 
AccessBlaster said:
I blame the democrats in general for allowing millions of undocumented people to enter the US. This has a profound impact on our spending, but sure blame who ever you need.
Click to expand...
I blame immigration restrictionists who have made it too hard to enter the US legally, despite the strong demand for labor. A closed border is inherently an expensive border.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Trump Not Happy, Declares to End Relations with Traditional American Allies.
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
1,905
Pat Hartman
P
Steve R.
Judicial Tyranny
2
Replies
27
Views
771
Steve R.
Steve R.
Steve R.
Clueless Republicans
Replies
14
Views
709
Isaac
Isaac
Steve R.
Lion Electric, the New Solyndra
Replies
7
Views
226
Pat Hartman
P
Cotswold
Sly and Sneaky Starmer's Latest Ego Trip.
2 3
Replies
45
Views
1,519
Isaac
Isaac

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom