[Dr Van Nostrand]

BANGING INTERNS PORNSTARS IS CENTRIST MAGA

Fixed that for you

[Action80]

^kramer thinks banging a pornstar is something evil.

LMMFAO!!!

[Lord Dave]

^kramer thinks banging a pornstar is something evil.

LMMFAO!!!

Trump seems to think so, otherwise he would 't have tried to hide it.

Probably because he was married when he did it.  And not to the porn star.

[honk]

BANGING INTERNS IS CENTRIST

Nobody said that it was centrist, just that it wasn't left-wing. Clinton's affair with an intern had nothing to do with his political ideology. It wasn't left-wing, it wasn't right-wing, and it wasn't centrist. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp.

[juner]

Plenty of steps taken that were certainly not centrist.

Well, maybe. So give examples of those then.
Banging an intern isn’t one of them.

BANGING INTERNS IS CENTRIST

im going to allow this because it is simply funny to me but can we please at least to pretend to uphold the rules of the forum with a modicum of decorum

[Action80]

Sadaam, you clearly stated Clinton was a centrist.

Laws governing sexual conduct in the workplace are set by PLOTICIANS (spelling error purposeful).

Therefore, the behavior has everything to do with political ideology.

It was the act of a domineering totalitarian, certainly not a centrist.

LD, we've pretty much exhausted the Stormy Daniels story. She is a lying cunt.

[Lord Dave]

Sadaam, you clearly stated Clinton was a centrist.

Laws governing sexual conduct in the workplace are set by PLOTICIANS (spelling error purposeful).

Therefore, the behavior has everything to do with political ideology.

It was the act of a domineering totalitarian, certainly not a centrist.

LD, we've pretty much exhausted the Stormy Daniels story. She is a lying cunt.

Sexual harassment.
Not actual sex between two conscenting adults who both want it.

Unless you wish to show me the law prohibing sex in the workplace.

[honk]

Sadaam, you clearly stated Clinton was a centrist.

Yes.

Laws governing sexual conduct in the workplace are set by PLOTICIANS (spelling error purposeful).

Yes.

Therefore, the behavior has everything to do with political ideology.

No, that doesn't follow at all. You might as well say that laws governing taxes are set by politicians, and therefore filing my tax return indicates my political ideology. Or that laws governing traffic and the rules of the road are set by politicians, and therefore driving my car indicates my political ideology. Or any other number of absurd conclusions, really.

It was the act of a domineering totalitarian, certainly not a centrist.

I'm all for judging politicians based on their character and the lives they've lived, but you can't just take it for granted that their ethical flaws and misdeeds directly translate into their political ideology. Someone who constantly speeds can't therefore be assumed to be opposed to speed limits on an ideological level. Someone who cheats on their taxes can't therefore be assumed to be opposed to taxation on an ideological level. And someone who pursues an inappropriate relationship with an intern half their age who can't reasonably say no to them can't therefore be assumed to domineering or totalitarian on an ideological level. It's just not how these things work, and there are plenty of examples from history bearing this out. George W. Bush by all accounts is a loving husband and father, but his decision to launch a destructive war under false pretenses that cost countless lives so that he could advance his own political agenda and enrich his cronies in the private sector reeks of a deeply callous cruelty. Lyndon B. Johnson was an outspoken racist as a younger man, but he devoted his presidency to passing critical legislation protecting civil rights that probably wouldn't be able to be passed today. These things don't perfectly correlate into political ideology like that.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

How big of a pussy do you have to be to consider Rosie O'Donnell a threat to humanity?

“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her.”

[Lord Dave]

How big of a pussy do you have to be to consider Rosie O'Donnell a threat to humanity?

“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her.”

Isn't she a Trump supporter?

Also, how the fuck can anyone be ok with Trump just deciding American Citizens aren't citizens anymore?

[Action80]

Claiming acts of driving and tax payments are somehow analogous to acts of banging an intern at the office is exactly how fucked in the head many people are nowadays.

Astounding. Truly.

The Bushes and the Clintons are related and both happen to be totalitarians and criminals.

[Tom Bishop]

Trump is either making a joke, or he is using Rosie O'Donnell as testing for stripping the far left of citizenship. Either is okay with me.

Trump is a television star comedian, and has made a similar level of jokes during his campaign and as president. Such comments are expected from a comedian. This can be easily brushed off without consequence.

On the other hand, there is a compelling argument to be made that the far left should be stripped of citizenship and deported. They are promoting unamerican values, such as calls to defund the police and allowing illegal aliens to flood the country during the Biden reign unimpeded. Their other values seem to be close to pro-crime and pro-degeneracy as it can get. Democrats even hate themselves for being affiliated with the far left to the point of distancing themselves and claiming that they are not Democrats, despite voting for Democrat candidates during election time.

[AATW]

Trump is a television star comedian

Correct. I'm glad we agree that he shouldn't be in any position of power.

[AATW]

Also, how the fuck can anyone be ok with Trump just deciding American Citizens aren't citizens anymore?

I'm sure our resident cult member will be along any minute to...oh, there he is. As you were.

[Tom Bishop]

Trump is a television star comedian

Correct. I'm glad we agree that he shouldn't be in any position of power.

Unfortunately for your opinion, the people liked Trump's jokes and he was partially voted into a position of power because of it. Trump has an uncanny ability to troll his opposition to his benefit, such as making weight comments about Kim Jong Un during an official summit. He put himself into a position of power, dominating the discussions.

In this case, however, I suspect it is more than a joke. At the moment a deporation movement is increasing in momentum across the United States against illegal aliens. There have been calls that the USA should also deport the far left like many countries throughout history have deported its enemies. Rosie O'Donnell has already self-deported herself to Ireland, so stripping her citizenship is a lower bar, which could be suitable for a test case to create a precedent that the Executive can do this.

[markjo]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[AATW]

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.

[markjo]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.