1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on July 16, 2025, 09:03:36 PM »

But Donald Trump is separate under Citrix.  Citrix is a security software.

Interesting, no?

No, not very interesting.  Citrix is virtualization software, not necessarily security software.

Yes, I am aware.  It's virtualization, primarily for security these days.

Now...why would he have it written on the address book page in big letters?  He wasn't a computer person and the word is unrelated to anything he did, as far as I know.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-pamela-bondi-releases-first-phase-declassified-epstein-files



It's not the only page with it but it's odd to note.
Also of note: some of the writing has been erased by whoever copied it.  Look at page 81.  There's a fragment of text hand written but the rest is unexpectedly cut off.  Why?

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by markjo on July 16, 2025, 08:28:49 PM »

But Donald Trump is separate under Citrix.  Citrix is a security software.

Interesting, no?

No, not very interesting.  Citrix is virtualization software, not necessarily security software.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on July 16, 2025, 04:31:32 PM »

So I went into the contacts book that the DoJ released in February.

He has Robert and Blaine Trump (clearly not updated in years)
Ivana Trump, Ivanka Trump,
But Donald Trump is separate under Citrix.  Citrix is a security software.

Interesting, no?

4

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« Last post by Shane on July 16, 2025, 03:39:32 PM »

i know you love stories about immigrants but did you really have to post the same in two threads

did you really have to post this?

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Shane on July 16, 2025, 03:24:25 PM »

He was never a big factor in terms of life.

6

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« Last post by juner on July 16, 2025, 03:02:15 PM »

i know you love stories about immigrants but did you really have to post the same in two threads

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by garygreen on July 16, 2025, 01:58:50 PM »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/16/donald-trump-dismisses-inquiry-into-jeffrey-epstein-as-boring

“I don’t understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday night when asked why his supporters are so interested in the case. “It’s pretty boring stuff. It’s sordid, but it’s boring, and I don’t understand why it keeps going.

“I think really only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going,” he added. “But credible information, let them give it. Anything that is credible, I would say, let them have it.”

lol

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by AATW on July 16, 2025, 07:01:25 AM »

“Credible”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgl4dl334go

So…he means the stuff he’s not in, right?

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by markjo on July 16, 2025, 12:55:02 AM »

The Constitution doesn't say whether it can be taken away or not. Anything not in the Constitution is for the government to decide. It also doesn't say that Citizenship is a right, like the right to free speech and the right to bare arms. If it were a right it would have been explicitly described that way with the other rights. Instead, it merely outlines who qualifies for citizenship.

Perhaps you should take another gander at the 14th amendment:

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It says that if you're born in the US, then you are a citizen.  That sounds like a right to me.  On the other hand, citizenship through immigration is a privilege that can be revoked under certain conditions.  If the constitution doesn't say that birthright citizenship can be revoked, then you shouldn't assume that it can.

This whole Rosie O'Donnell nonsense is just that, nonsense.  It's just another attempt to distract from the Epstein fiasco.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Tom Bishop on July 16, 2025, 12:20:30 AM »

Being granted a license isn't a guarantee that you get to keep the license regardless of how you conduct yourself. Being granted a certificate of land ownership isn't a guarantee that you get to keep the land forever, regardless of how you conduct your finances or eminent domain considerations. There are a hundred examples where designations are not permanent.

I don't think there's any controversy there. Yes, of course there are situations where citizenship can and should be revoked.
But someone being an outspoken criticism of the leader of a country isn't one of them. You're supposed to be a democracy in which people have free speech.
Removing people who criticise the administration is a bit...dictatory.
Come on, dude, you surely see there are dangers here. Although all that said it doesn't sound like Trump actually has unilateral power to do this, so there are some checks and balances.

That's not the reason Trump gave for why Rosie O'Donnell should be stripped of citizenship. Stop making things up.

The keyword is that someone is granted citenship.

Citizenship is a right granted by the constitution, therefore only the constitution can revoke citizenship.  Please show me where the constitution outlines the process for revoking citizenship.

The Constitution doesn't say whether it can be taken away or not. Anything not in the Constitution is for the government to decide. It also doesn't say that Citizenship is a right, like the right to free speech and the right to bare arms. If it were a right it would have been explicitly described that way with the other rights. Instead, it merely outlines who qualifies for citizenship.