If you want to make me laugh, sure. Keep posting.



The funniest part is that MotherJones, who broke the original story, caught them in a lie immediately when they gave their official response. They tried to blame the whole thing on a "database error" naturally, but MJ got their second scoop of the day by showing that the campaign had corresponded with him way longer than they claimed: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/trump-white-nationalist-california-delegate-response-email-pledge-database-error

Oh the Trump campaign... even when they flip-flop on all their alleged "principles" about big money and outside money and powerful special interests and lobbyists, and they bring them all in because they just want to win, they still end up fucking the easy stuff up. I never thought we'd get another bumbler like the Mitt Romney campaign but we just might.

lol @ banning muslim immigrants being "unconstitutional"

first of all, the constitution only applies to CITIZENS. Vast majority of Syrian migrants are definitely not US citizens.

Also, Obama banned ALL Iraqi refugees in 2012. Similar things were done against all Japanese/Irish by previous presidents. It's not like there's no precedent and Trump is the only one to ever suggest something like this.

That is a precedent based on nationality not religion. Also Trumps ban would include citizens abroad and also act as a travel restriction for US citizens who are muslim. Any other bullshit you'd like me to sift through shittroll?

Thank you, thank you.

Bernie supporters, too, can shitpost.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182



Banning muslims from the USA is within the President's power. Can you cite where Trump wants to ban citizens?

Can you cite where Donald Trump wants to censor the media? Are you referring to libel?

14th amendment argument there is weak, please reinforce it.

I imagine the censorship thing is in regards to the whole "close off parts of the internet" thing from the debates

Uhm, no it wouldn't, he specifically stated people who are already citizens aren't affected. Common sense exceptions are also made for world leaders, skilled professionals, etc.

Rofl

This post was edited by EndlessSky on May 11 2016 03:01pm

the corporate raider telling others what to do. hahahahah! weak RINO L O S E R !!!!!!!!!!

And does that apply to religions in the same way it does to country of origin? There is no precedent. IMO its unconstitutional but without precedent that's for the USSC to decide, the fact that its in a grey area and needs to be defined by the USSC is a big issue for me.

I am referring to increased legal sanctions against the media who commit libel rather than the civil sanctions that are traditionally used now. Its an unconstitutional wave of a big stick by a man who has a beef with the media, a scare tactic to suggest legal sanctions are needed beyond civil suits that i feel would violate the 1st ammendment. As mangix correctly identified he also wants censor parts of the internet.

I dont think the 14th ammendment argument is weak at all, he has at times made comments suggesting patrols in neighborhoods based on ethnicity which i feel violates that clause.

But if you're just going to ask questions and not provide any commentary ill just stop, i have no desire to have a one sided conversation with a google warrior.



you're correct he did backtrack to that position after the public outcry. very brave of him.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 11 2016 03:15pm