1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 06:48:27 PM »

That's unfortunate for pretty much everyone. But yes, a largely stupid population voted for a stupid thing for stupid reasons. The fact you think that's a good thing is...odd.
I mean, Trump is pretty funny. But if you think that someone being voted in to power because they're funny is a good thing then you're part of the problem.

Humor is used for multiple puropses beyond the sake of humor. I gave an example of the Kim Jong Un summit and how humor was used to gain the upper hand. Trump's use of humor has won him multiple debates, in final striking blows against his opponents, showing that he is the smartest and most dymanic candiate for the job.

I've read the Constitution. It's not that long. It says who gets citizenship. It doesn't say that anyone specifically has a right to keep their citizenship, or that it can't be stripped away from them. There is nothing about "must be kept" or "must be maintained". This would go to the Supreme Court.

Actually, it has gone before the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case. You know, Trump’s challenge to the 14th amendment.

While you’re reading the Constitution, please point out where revoking citizenship is a power granted to the president in particular or the executive branch in general.

Here is Google AI's interpretation of the 1898 case:

"The landmark Supreme Court case regarding birthright citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898. This case affirmed that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause grants automatic citizenship to anyone born within the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. "

The keyword is that someone is granted citenship. 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.

Further, a US Citizen can choose to give up their US Citizenship, proving that citizenship isn't absolute. If it were absolute you would not be able to give it up.

Please don't use AI.  It's stupid.

Also, you can give up your right to remain silent.  But it can't be taken.
Same with citizenship.  No where does it say it can be taken away.  Given away, yes, but not taken.

Otherwise, the next dem could take away Trump's citizenship and deport him to El Salvador.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by markjo on Today at 06:15:26 PM »

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.

Further, a US Citizen can choose to give up their US Citizenship, proving that citizenship isn't absolute. If it were absolute you would not be able to give it up.

Being able to give up a right is not the same as having that right taken away.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 05:08:08 PM »

Claiming acts of driving and tax payments are somehow analogous to acts of banging an intern at the office

That's not what I said, but look, whatever. Nothing I'm saying is getting through to you, so if you really want to believe that Clinton is a left-wing totalitarian because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky, then fine, go ahead. The rest of the world knows you're wrong.

On the other hand, there is a compelling argument to be made that the far left should be stripped of citizenship and deported.

No, there really isn't. It's blatantly unconstitutional on the face of it and horrific on an ethical level. That being said, if he wants to do it, then he'll do it. The courts won't stop him, Congress won't stop him, and his fans won't stop supporting him. They will never stop supporting him. That's why I'm not excited about the backlash Trump is getting over Epstein. His fans will fall in line within a week or so.

Yeah but if Dems get back in power, revenge time.

Like, the next dem president could execute Trump at the inauguration for reasons of him being a domestic threat, arrest and deport every maga member, deny allowing any voting to be secret ballot, then, to top it all off, have ICE protect itself by killing any protesters.

Which is all the apparent power Trump now has.  Or he assumes he does.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by honk on Today at 04:13:45 PM »

Claiming acts of driving and tax payments are somehow analogous to acts of banging an intern at the office

That's not what I said, but look, whatever. Nothing I'm saying is getting through to you, so if you really want to believe that Clinton is a left-wing totalitarian because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky, then fine, go ahead. The rest of the world knows you're wrong.

On the other hand, there is a compelling argument to be made that the far left should be stripped of citizenship and deported.

No, there really isn't. It's blatantly unconstitutional on the face of it and horrific on an ethical level. That being said, if he wants to do it, then he'll do it. The courts won't stop him, Congress won't stop him, and his fans won't stop supporting him. They will never stop supporting him. That's why I'm not excited about the backlash Trump is getting over Epstein. His fans will fall in line within a week or so.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by AATW on Today at 03:29:14 PM »

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.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 03:22:22 PM »

That's unfortunate for pretty much everyone. But yes, a largely stupid population voted for a stupid thing for stupid reasons. The fact you think that's a good thing is...odd.
I mean, Trump is pretty funny. But if you think that someone being voted in to power because they're funny is a good thing then you're part of the problem.

Humor is used for multiple puropses beyond the sake of humor. I gave an example of the Kim Jong Un summit and how humor was used to gain the upper hand. Trump's use of humor has won him multiple debates, in final striking blows against his opponents, showing that he is the smartest and most dymanic candiate for the job.

I've read the Constitution. It's not that long. It says who gets citizenship. It doesn't say that anyone specifically has a right to keep their citizenship, or that it can't be stripped away from them. There is nothing about "must be kept" or "must be maintained". This would go to the Supreme Court.

Actually, it has gone before the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case. You know, Trump’s challenge to the 14th amendment.

While you’re reading the Constitution, please point out where revoking citizenship is a power granted to the president in particular or the executive branch in general.

Here is Google AI's interpretation of the 1898 case:

"The landmark Supreme Court case regarding birthright citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898. This case affirmed that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause grants automatic citizenship to anyone born within the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. "

The keyword is that someone is granted citenship. 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.

Further, a US Citizen can choose to give up their US Citizenship, proving that citizenship isn't absolute. If it were absolute you would not be able to give it up.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by markjo on Today at 03:12:29 PM »

I've read the Constitution. It's not that long. It says who gets citizenship. It doesn't say that anyone specifically has a right to keep their citizenship, or that it can't be stripped away from them. There is nothing about "must be kept" or "must be maintained". This would go to the Supreme Court.

Actually, it has gone before the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case. You know, Trump’s challenge to the 14th amendment.

While you’re reading the Constitution, please point out where revoking citizenship is a power granted to the president in particular or the executive branch in general.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by AATW on Today at 03:03:05 PM »

Unfortunately for your opinion, the people liked Trump's jokes and he was partially voted into a position of power because of it.

That's unfortunate for pretty much everyone. But yes, a largely stupid population voted for a stupid thing for stupid reasons. The fact you think that's a good thing is...odd.
I mean, Trump is pretty funny. But if you think that someone being voted in to power because they're funny is a good thing then you're part of the problem.
I want leaders who are competent, not funny. No bad thing if they're both I guess but Trump clearly isn't. In brief:



You lot don't have a monopoly on stupid of course. We voted for Brexit and Boris Johnson over here. There are growing rumblings that we could vote for Farage. This man, who thinks that our Prime Minister at the time was called "Joris Bohnson", was able to vote and did so. It makes my head spin.

There have been calls that the USA should also deport the far left like many countries throughout history have deported its enemies.

I think you'll find history has a pretty dim view of those countries. And the issue is your cult leader is telling you that these people are the enemies when they're not. But, being cult members, you believe the cult leader. Again, troubling.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 03:00:34 PM »

I've read the Constitution. It's not that long. It says who gets citizenship. It doesn't say that anyone specifically has a right to keep their citizenship, or that it can't be stripped away from them. There is nothing about "must be kept" or "must be maintained". This would go to the Supreme Court.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by markjo on Today at 02:49:57 PM »

Sorry, but Trump does not have the power to unilaterally revoke someone’s citizenship.  It’s a constitutionally guaranteed right, not a privilege that can be taken away. Then again, we all know how Trump feels about the constitution.

If you are a U.S. citizen because of having been born in the United States, you can give up your U.S. citizenship by performing certain acts, but the U.S. government can’t just take it away from you. Citizenship is yours for life.