Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[toubab]

I guess you think shutting down places of worship based on a religious test and forcing people of a particular religion to carry an ID identifying their religion would pass a constitutional test? Hell, even forcing everyone to carry such an ID wouldn't pass.

Trump has clearly not read the constitution and apparently you haven't either.

but yeah, he was just being 'imprecise".

Perhaps you can show me where Trump said those things.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Who did?

No one did. Ever. Not even Trump.

Here's another great example of the double-standard in reporting. The Democrat networks cut away from the families killed by illegals and from the mom of the fallen in Benghazi. Yet last night 60 Minutes let Mrs. Clinton imply that the latter was still lying when she tell the world that Hillary looked her in the eye, blamed her son's death on a movie and vowed to send the movie maker to jail...

But this is what Democrats do, they put an activist on the stage (founder of American Muslims Vote), get him to lie for them and then the willing, compliant and endorsing press repackages the lie for as long as they can get milage out of. They will never fact check Hillary's lies.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Perhaps you can show me where Trump said those things.

He can't. But all the news he reads and all the people he knows swear that it happened, so it did. Now it is up to you to post every single thing that Donald Trump has ever said publicly, privately and in the marital bed to prove he never said any such thing, which, of course, is impossible.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

...

Under the heading, “Ensure the Health and Safety of All Americans,” the following sentence appears: “There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.” This attempt to pitch gun control as a public health crisis is not new, of course. Two years ago, the Democrats introduced a bill that would have provided the CDC with $10 million a year to study gun crime from the public health perspective. And, in June of this year, the American Medical Association declared that gun violence is a public health crisis.

This is, however, the first time that a Democrat Party platform has formally categorized gun control as a public health issue. Even the 2012 platform put the issue under “Protecting Rights and Freedoms” and stuck to the usual talking points about gun show loopholes, strengthening background checks, banning assault weapons, ad nauseam. By converting gun violence from a law and order issue to a health crisis, Hillary Clinton and her accomplices hope to achieve two goals: Move the public’s focus away from crime prevention, a task at which Democrats are notoriously inept, and convince us that it’s all about scientific progress rather than increasing the power of the federal government.

...

http://spectator.org/democrats-your-gun-is-a-public-health-threat/

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Byron York highlights the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party and its fetish for the female neocon...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...ebate-over-muslim-immigration/article/2598232

 

[zipman]

Perhaps you can show me where Trump said those things.

He didn't say he would shut down mosques or make muslims carry ID cards. He just said that he wouldn't rule either of those things out.

That's why Khizr Khan offered to lend Trump his copy of the constitution so he could read it.

 

[toubab]

He didn't say he would shut down mosques or make muslims carry ID cards. He just said that he wouldn't rule either of those things out.

That's why Khizr Khan offered to lend Trump his copy of the constitution so he could read it.

Ah, so Trump never said those things. What a surprise.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's hard to know what Khan meant by suggesting a wall on the Mexican border would be unconstitutional. Perhaps it would be a bad idea, or it wouldn't work as Trump claims it would, but there's simply no sense in which a border wall violates the Constitution. (Some libertarians have argued that the use of eminent domain required to build a wall would violate property-owners' rights, but that's more complaining than constitutional argument — and besides, Khan didn't seem to be talking about property rights.)

Khan did not mention deportations, but regardless of exactly where Trump's illegal immigrant proposal stands at the moment, there is nothing unconstitutional about deporting people who are in the United States illegally.

As far as a Muslim ban is concerned, Trump has recently amended his proposal to focus on immigration from countries "compromised by terrorism." But assume that Khan was addressing Trump's original, more extensive, proposal: a temporary ban on foreign Muslims from entering the United States. By telling Trump to "look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law'" in the Constitution, Khan was suggesting that the ban would violate the 14th Amendment. This is the relevant portion of that amendment:
...

The text makes clear that its protections apply to "all persons born or naturalized" in the U.S.; persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; and persons "within its jurisdiction." None refers to foreign persons in foreign countries. Pakistanis in Pakistan, to take one example, regardless of religion, do not have U.S. constitutional rights. As far as "liberty," the other word mentioned by Khan, is concerned, the Constitution says the government may not deprive someone of liberty without due process of law, which of course means the government may deprive someone of liberty with due process of law.

Byron York (link above)


Someone should shut the fuck up and read his own copy of the pocket Constitution.

 

[Adre]

Bumpety bump: 46% to 39%, Clinton. CBS News poll. 2bob to soon come along to dispute the polling methods.

 

[Disgustipated]

Drumpf racially disparaged the parents of a fallen US soldier killed fighting for the right for that dried cantaloupe to run for office.

He (along with miles, as always) needs to STFU.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

...

But is there even more to the story about Khizr Khan? According to Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat, Mr. Khizr Muazzam Khan is a promoter of Islamic Sharia law and a co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (Islamic Sharia). In fact, in the past, Khizr Khan has shown "his appreciation for an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood," by the name of Said Ramadan who "wrote material for the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, an organization that has been promoting Islamic revivalism and indoctrination to recruit young people in Malaysia to jihadism." Mr. Said Ramadan was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood including Ahmad Bahefzallah, the boss of Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton's aide) [.]"

Should this connection give us pause?

...

Huma Abedin has never been properly vetted and this takes on even greater urgency now that Clinton is running for the presidency. The mainstream media continues to cover up the Muslim Brotherhood's enormous clout in the Obama administration. Each day brings new revelations about the financial influence and "access" the Saudis have exerted on the Clinton team. Patrick Poole, a national security analyst asserts that "[t]here are massive conflicts of interest. It's beyond comprehension."

So is it wrong to impugn Khan's motives? He appears to be a man in mourning for his son. Was Mr. Khan merely being used by the Clinton campaign to advance their own agenda? Or is there an even larger issue concerning the influence such people as Abedin and Khan exert concerning Clinton's bid for the highest office in the land?

...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...hizr_khan_and_donald_trump.html#ixzz4G5NEN7KB

 

[toubab]

Drumpf racially disparaged the parents of a fallen US soldier killed fighting for the right for that dried cantaloupe to run for office.

He (along with miles, as always) needs to STFU.

Where did he racially disparage anyone? You Trump haters should stop making shit up. There is such a thing as backlash.

 

[toubab]

Bumpety bump: 46% to 39%, Clinton. CBS News poll. 2bob to soon come along to dispute the polling methods.

Funny, I could have sworn I saw 47-41. And 43-38. They did two, you know.

 

[Adre]

Funny, I could have sworn I saw 47-41. And 43-38. They did two, you know.

Last week’s Democratic National Convention has vaulted Hillary Clinton back into the lead in the presidential race, according to a new poll released Monday.
The former secretary of state leads her Republican opponent Donald Trump by seven percentage points, 46 percent to 39 percent, in a fresh CBS News national poll. Clinton’s seven-point lead comes just one week after last week’s poll, in which she and Trump were tied at 42. Since then, Clinton’s support among poll respondents grew by four points while Trump’s dropped by three.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/cbs-poll-226493#ixzz4G5QYNBAQ
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

 

[toubab]

Last week’s Democratic National Convention has vaulted Hillary Clinton back into the lead in the presidential race, according to a new poll released Monday.
The former secretary of state leads her Republican opponent Donald Trump by seven percentage points, 46 percent to 39 percent, in a fresh CBS News national poll. Clinton’s seven-point lead comes just one week after last week’s poll, in which she and Trump were tied at 42. Since then, Clinton’s support among poll respondents grew by four points while Trump’s dropped by three.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/cbs-poll-226493#ixzz4G5QYNBAQ
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

RealClear Politics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

47-41 and 43-38.

 

[Conager]

RealClear Politics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

47-41 and 43-38.

An electorate that would tell pollsters by a 50 point margin that the country is on the wrong track and also consider a vote for a member of the presiding administration deserves more of the same.

 

[Adre]

An electorate that would tell pollsters by a 50 point margin that the country is on the wrong track and also consider a vote for a member of the presiding administration deserves more of the same.

Well, maybe there's wrong track, worse track, and fuck no to that track.

 

[toubab]

An electorate that would tell pollsters by a 50 point margin that the country is on the wrong track and also consider a vote for a member of the presiding administration deserves more of the same.

I agree. You have to remember half the population of the country is below the median in intelligence. That fact explains many things.

 

[Adre]

I agree. You have to remember half the population of the country is below the median in intelligence. That fact explains many things.

Including Trump's substantial lead among non-college whites?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Including Trump's substantial lead among non-college whites?

True enough.

Trump leads here by 23% or so.

But....

Hillary lead non whit/non college by over 50%.


Anyone happy with either is a fucking moron.

Difference is republicans can admit it.

 

[Adre]

True enough.

Trump leads here by 23% or so.

But....

Hillary lead non whit/non college by over 50%.


Anyone happy with either is a fucking moron.

Difference is republicans can admit it.

Then how to account for the thousands of wildly cheering republicans in Trump hats and tee shirts at the recent coronation?

 

[Wrong Element]

True enough.

Trump leads here by 23% or so.

But....

Hillary lead non whit/non college by over 50%.


Anyone happy with either is a fucking moron.

Difference is republicans can admit it.

I haven't noticed a lot of people on Lit touting Clinton independently of the fact that she isn't Trump. Every time so far I've had the option to vote for her, I've declined.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Then how to account for the thousands of wildly cheering republicans in Trump hats and tee shirts at the recent coronation?

Read my post again.

Slowly this time.

 

[Adre]

Read my post again.

Slowly this time.

They all admit to being morons? I didn't know.

 

[xbb]

Then how to account for the thousands of wildly cheering republicans in Clinton hats and tee shirts at the recent coronation?

I dunno, tell us