read the quote it clearly does and is not some grey area. The President has the power here.

Donald Trump wants to take legal actions against media that commit libel, this is not unconstitutional no matter if you "feel" it is.

Rather than tell me how you feel can you cite some sources to better construct an argument about violating the 14th amendment?

laws are always laws until challenged constitutionally, saying he has the power does not discount that it may be unconstitutional if applied on the basis of religion rather than country of origin. Like i said there is no precedent, stop presenting it as a foregone conclusion, it isnt.

i feel its a suppression of free speach, im not appealing to emotions its my opinion.

what type of sources are you looking for? my opinion on this matter is based on Trump's comments, im not going to sift through the internet and attempt to play with keywords for an hour to present you with a quote, and the last time a group as large as what he's suggesting was targeted was internment camps which are outdated but support my argument.

the constitution applies to citizens, you have no argument here

libel is a crime, do you feel it shouldn't be? that's another discussion to be had.

I want you to back up your argument that Donald Trump plans to " selective surveillance in both Hispanic and Muslim communities that violate that same 14th amendment. "

I may have no argument based on how Trump's stance currently sits, but he backed down to exceptions for citizens after he initially suggested a much more loose policy with no explanation. I feel this was due to the public backlash, as it fits Trump's general pattern of making outlandish statements then backtracking to a slightly less unpopular place. As i said before this doesn't comfort me, if he flip flops back to a softer position he can flip back to the harsher position at any time. I do not trust the timeline of his statements either, all statements hes made must be taken equally seriously and new statements don't discredit old ones based on how hard he's flip flopped.



Im talking about him making cases that are currently handled in civil suits criminal matters, essentially broadening the definition if libel to criminalize aspects of free speach that are currently not criminalized. I feel this is a direct shot at the first amendment.



No. As i said im not digging through piles of quotes, the keywords hurt my brain just thinking of what to search for. if you want to have this feel free to chalk it up to a win.

So do I need to go back to the beginning of this thread around page 19-30 and quote myself calling the Clinton foundation crooked? Well gee golly guys looks like I hit the nail on the head. Wall Street whistle blower already confirmed the money isn't matching up. Stay tuned this gun be gud

Also another note a few billionaire donors who were giving to Cruz are now dumping money into Clinton because she is the last establishment person left in the race. Imagine that huh what America is really wants is a Trump/Sanders unified ticket than the two party system can shove it and shit could actually get done.

Just don't go too far back or you might accidently end up quoting yourself saying you voted for Clinton in 08 for the sole purpose of keeping "the negro" out of office

Your point being? Oh I get it nothing to say about my comment just a personal attack. ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sadiq-khan-pledges-to-help-hillary-clinton-beat-donald-trump-a7024841.html

5 mins on the job, all spent worrying about one orange American, small time as it gets.

Happy to have him on board

Im sure you are. You'd take Ghengis and Star Trek Khan at this point too.