First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Oscar Flub, The Vengeance of Trump? (An embarrassment of the opposition, is a political win for Trump)
qwueri 
23354 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 2/27/17
Trump really doesn't need any help looking petty. This thread: SAD!
28608 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/27/17 , edited 2/27/17
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/26/trump-supporters-set-boycott-oscars-protest-against-limousine/

...and then this happened...

http://deadline.com/2017/02/oscars-ratings-2017-down-best-picture-mistake-jimmy-kimmel-abc-1202009034/


It was definitely politically charged from what I watched of it. A lot of sour grapes and salt. It was divine.
1795 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Azeroth
Offline
Posted 2/27/17 , edited 2/27/17

DeadlyOats wrote:

I'm sorry... But even I can't make the correlation.... An Oscar awards ceremony disaster is a vindication for the Trump Administration. You are reaching with one of these:

I understand your sentiment, but.... I just can't see the connection, here.


It isn't necessarily "vindication" per se, just vengeance. Hence, thread title. "Getting back at them"/humiliation in a way, after a whole night of directed insults. Was it his doing? Probably not, but that is besides the point. The score, "settled".

Perhaps, the humor of the irony has been lost on you; no worries nevertheless...
13491 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
50 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 2/27/17

TheGrandAlliance wrote:

Lots of incomplete thoughts; fake news, or just complete "alternative facts" from the left below. Time to "fact-check the fact-checkers".


neugenx wrote:

Simply put, Muhammed Ali Jr., an American Citizen, was stopped and asked specifically if he as a Muslim and detained for hours when answering yes due to the "Not a religiously exclusive" travel ban which let those coming in claiming to be Christian or Catholic straight through.
A clear violation of the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments all at once. Can you argue that fact?


...because it didn't happen? These claims are being made by lawyers representing, and are not substantiated with evidence.


neugenx wrote:
Also despite what many are led to believe "illegal immigrants" actually have the same rights as citizens of the U.S under the 14th Amendment (as determined by the Supreme Court in 1896).


You are referring to this...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a child born in the United States of Chinese citizens, who had at the time a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and who were carrying on business there other than for the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.


This case is in reference to people born in USA, not illegal immigration. You are tyring to conflate people running over the border with people who where born here (from non-citizens). Generally referred to as "anchor babies".

Real illegal immigrants, do not have citizen rights; else entire world could move here.


neugenx wrote:
(except Mitch McConnell whose wife got an Ambassadorship under Trump for his ass-kissing tactics during the campaign...talk about a huge conflict of interest that should be investigated by a bi-partisan committee).


His wife was appointed to be Transportation Secretary, not an ambassadorship. She held same position under Bush.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/muhammad-ali-jr-mother-detained-religion_us_58b44439e4b0a8a9b7847051
That's not a lawyer talking but Muhammed Ali Jr himself in the video ...

Actually the cases I'm speaking on are Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) and Wong Wing v. United States (1896).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/case.html
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/228/case.html
These are both settled law.

You're right on McConnell's wife though it's still clearly a conflict of interest. It was Newt Gingrich's Wife Callista I mixed Elaine up with. Callista is up for Ambassador to the Holy See.
1795 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Azeroth
Offline
Posted 2/27/17 , edited 2/27/17

neugenx wrote:

Actually the cases I'm speaking on are Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) and Wong Wing v. United States (1896).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/case.html
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/228/case.html
These are both settled law.

.



Yes, but I fail to see how these cases are relevant to issue of illegal immigration and Trump. In Yick Wo case, that was in regards to legal Chinese immigrant having laws targeting him strategically. Not that illegals are somehow legal.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


If you are talking about the "muslim ban", the executive order itself is focused on countries, determined by Obama, to not be vettable credentials. There is nothing "prejudicial" if the entire county are banned; people of a country do not have "right of entry" into US. Furthermore, the case for "religious minorities" is based upon direct risk to population groups.

In either case, both are beyond scope of this decision. This case deals with people in the country, with laws being applied to minorities and not white people. A blanket ban affects everyone; including "white people" who also happen to be from the affected countries thereof.


The second case, deals with an illegal immigrant being charged as such or otherwise, has due process 5/6 amendment rights of citizens. Such is in regards to immigration proceedings itself. That does not entitle them to entry or to stay, simply that for purposes of a crime (illegal entry), have rights to lawyer/stuff.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Wing_v._United_States

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for non citizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.


So I fail to see where you are going with such, therefore...

13491 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
50 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 2/27/17

TheGrandAlliance wrote:


neugenx wrote:

Actually the cases I'm speaking on are Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) and Wong Wing v. United States (1896).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/case.html
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/228/case.html
These are both settled law.

.



Yes, but I fail to see how these cases are relevant to issue of illegal immigration and Trump. In Yick Wo case, that was in regards to legal Chinese immigrant having laws targeting him strategically. Not that illegals are somehow legal.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


If you are talking about the "muslim ban", the executive order itself is focused on countries, determined by Obama, to not be vettable credentials. There is nothing "prejudicial" if the entire county are banned; people of a country do not have "right of entry" into US. Furthermore, the case for "religious minorities" is based upon direct risk to population groups.

In either case, both are beyond scope of this decision. This case deals with people in the country, with laws being applied to minorities and not white people. A blanket ban affects everyone; including "white people" who also happen to be from the affected countries thereof.


The second case, deals with an illegal immigrant being charged as such or otherwise, has due process 5/6 amendment rights of citizens. Such is in regards to immigration proceedings itself. That does not entitle them to entry or to stay, simply that for purposes of a crime (illegal entry), have rights to lawyer/stuff.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Wing_v._United_States

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for non citizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.


So I fail to see where you are going with such, therefore...



Actually, with Obama it was never about banning just a few weeks delay to vet and it was never about "banning" nor attacking legal immigrants already here. Trump crossed that line and made it a "racial" ban the moment he told his people to let Catholics and Christians through unimpeded. As for the list of countries, Obama listed them as hotspots baring watching while it was Trump who labelled them the most dangerous in the World and called for the ba on Muslims even going as far as going after citizens with greencards/visa...something if you noticed...Obama NEVER did.

If you had an employer, who was responsible for throwing business your way and gave his wife a lucrative position in your company it's a conflict of interest. This is the same relationship with McConnell and Trump obviously.
21781 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 2/27/17 , edited 2/27/17
Wait, people actually watch the academy awards?
Most of those award shows are so damn boring, its just celebrities kissing each other's butts.
I mean, I can understand music award shows since you might get some live performances, but come on.
Posted 2/27/17

neugenx wrote:



Trump crossed that line and made it a "racial" ban the moment he told his people to let Catholics and Christians through unimpeded.


>racial
>catholics and christians
Religion != race
Ejanss 
17017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/27/17 , edited 2/27/17

TheGrandAlliance wrote:
It isn't necessarily "vindication" per se, just vengeance. Hence, thread title. "Getting back at them"/humiliation in a way, after a whole night of directed insults. Was it his doing? Probably not, but that is besides the point. The score, "settled".


Remember after the big New Orleans hurricane, when bad-Iran tried to get our goat by claiming "victory", saying "Haha, Americans drowned in hurricane, we're laughing because it serves you right, etc.".
Like, what, they had hired it??

That's sort of what you're trying to defend here. Really, really, really.................reaching.
48601 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 2/27/17

TheGrandAlliance wrote:

Because Trump's opposition loves the claim to be (intellectually) infallible: Everything about liberalism is perfect, of course. But yet, they "mess up ", too. And Bigly. Whereas, if Trump "reportedly" messes up, the /skyisfalling



Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. Reading the wrong name at the Oscars is on par with messing up on things that have worldwide implications?
1795 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Azeroth
Offline
Posted 2/27/17
48601 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 2/27/17


Ok yeah, you don't make any sense. This is one of the dumbest reaches I've seen in a while.
1795 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Azeroth
Offline
Posted 2/27/17

rawratl wrote:

Ok yeah, you don't make any sense. This is one of the dumbest reaches I've seen in a while.




Yes, but again... You're not a self-centered Hollywood elitist; to whom only care about their career, either. The point, indeed...
Ejanss 
17017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/27/17

TheGrandAlliance wrote:


rawratl wrote:

Ok yeah, you don't make any sense. This is one of the dumbest reaches I've seen in a while.


Yes, but again... You're not a self-centered Hollywood elitist; to whom only care about their career, either. The point, indeed...


...IS MISSING!! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? (<- rhetoric, actual answers not obligated)
1795 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Azeroth
Offline
Posted 2/27/17 , edited 2/27/17

Ejanss wrote:

...IS MISSING!! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? (<- rhetoric, actual answers not obligated)


IDK..... Perhaps the answer to all great wisdom...

Wake up, and enjoy the smell of Napalm in the moring. The only winning move is not to play. Fly the Friendly Skies. Some things money can't buy. Time to C-food differently. The answer to life's most savoury question...



And of course...


You Should Be Watching...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.