• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

Andy_Ross said:
WELKER: Lawmakers say the two men appeared to raise their arms potentially to signal a surrender. Why did Admiral Bradley interpret these actions as anything other than them trying to survive?

TOM COTTON: They were sitting or standing on top of a capsized boat. They weren't floating helplessly in the water. I don't think it matters all that much what they were trying to do

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997685923555803188
Click to expand...


I would suggest that a capsized boat isn't in any position to be a threat to anyone. But someone might argue that it was floating on it's infrastructure...
 
Andy_Ross said:
WELKER: Isn't it possible that even the act of taking off a t shirt could've been part of an attempt to get attention for help?

TOM COTTON: Or it could've been an attempt to signal to another cartel boat to come pick them up and pick up the cargo

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997686334467555648
Click to expand...
Andy_Ross said:
WELKER: Is there any hard evidence showing this particular boat was headed to the US?

TOM COTTON: That didn't come up in my briefing

WELKER: Are you comfortable having the US target a boat that you're not sure is heading to the US?

COTTON: I'm not just comfortable with it -- I want to continue it

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997687376974434308
Click to expand...

Andy_Ross said:
WELKER: Lawmakers say the two men appeared to raise their arms potentially to signal a surrender. Why did Admiral Bradley interpret these actions as anything other than them trying to survive?

TOM COTTON: They were sitting or standing on top of a capsized boat. They weren't floating helplessly in the water. I don't think it matters all that much what they were trying to do

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997685923555803188
Click to expand...

Andy_Ross said:
BERMAN: Did you see any evidence of them trying to use a radio in the video you saw?

TOM COTTON: Well I saw lots of evidence of them standing on the boat that had been capsized

BERMAN: That wasn't my question. Did you see any evidence?

COTTON: No, I didn't

https://twitter.com/x/status/1996964960895733957
Click to expand...
Attempting to justify murder. Scum.
 
Andy_Ross said:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you support this pardon of the former Honduran president?

ERIC SCHMITT: I'm not familiar with the facts or circumstances

STEPHANOPOULOS: What do you mean you're not familiar with the facts? It's been front page news

SCHMITT: You spew Democrat talking points every single week, which is probably why your ratings are so bad

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997682023129821281
Click to expand...
Name corrected.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
I would suggest that a capsized boat isn't in any position to be a threat to anyone. But someone might argue that it was floating on it's infrastructure...
Click to expand...
There could have been a nuclear bomb under it!!! Or enough fentanyl to kill a million cops if they saw it!!! Best not to take chances.
 
Andy_Ross said:
JD Vance
@JDVance
Mass migration is theft of the American Dream. It has always been this way, and every position paper, think tank piece, and econometric study suggesting otherwise is paid for by the people getting rich off of the old system.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997703409408032937
Click to expand...

Well, Terry, how the ◊◊◊◊ do you think you and your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ boss got there if it wasn't for mass ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ migration?
 
shemp said:
I had three grandparents born outside the U.S. (two Canada, one U.K.) My ancestry through my father's father has been in the U.S. since about 1650. If U.S. citizenship laws become like the Nuremburg Laws, I would NOT be considered a birthright citizen. I would be similar to being 3/4 Jewish.
Click to expand...
You're not at the top of the list yet. You'll have time to buy a new suitcase.
 
Andy_Ross said:
WELKER: Isn't it possible that even the act of taking off a t shirt could've been part of an attempt to get attention for help?

TOM COTTON: Or it could've been an attempt to signal to another cartel boat to come pick them up and pick up the cargo

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997686334467555648
Click to expand...
Of course, adding to the stupidity here: Let us imagine, generously, that the shipwrecked survivors were actually signalling for help from another cartel boat. If the forces involved actually honestly believed that, and actually honestly were trying to destroy the cartel, it seems abundantly obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the survivors should have been allowed to continue signalling, since we know for sure that the wrecked boat was already close enough for visual contact, and soon would be right smack dab in the range of the missiles were known to work in. So obviously if another cartel boat showed up there, the US forces could have blown it up too. That they did not lure that other boat in so they could do what they had proven was possible to do, seems as so often is the case in conservative arguments these days, to result in two possibilities. Either they are lying or they're too stupid to do their job properly.

Instead, they massacred the survivors, insuring of course that no evidence or testimony would be possible, but also insuring that if there had been another cartel boat in the vicinity it would have left unharmed.
 
bruto said:
Of course, adding to the stupidity here: Let us imagine, generously, that the shipwrecked survivors were actually signalling for help from another cartel boat. If the forces involved actually honestly believed that, and actually honestly were trying to destroy the cartel, it seems abundantly obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the survivors should have been allowed to continue signalling, since we know for sure that the wrecked boat was already close enough for visual contact, and soon would be right smack dab in the range of the missiles were known to work in. So obviously if another cartel boat showed up there, the US forces could have blown it up too. That they did not lure that other boat in so they could do what they had proven was possible to do, seems as so often is the case in conservative arguments these days, to result in two possibilities. Either they are lying or they're too stupid to do their job properly.

Instead, they massacred the survivors, insuring of course that no evidence or testimony would be possible, but also insuring that if there had been another cartel boat in the vicinity it would have left unharmed.
Click to expand...
Or, or, or . . . They could've taken the survivors into custody and interrogated them for more intel. None of the narrative makes sense unless one understands that the whole point is to establish a protocol in which executing anyone whom this corrupt administration deems as terrorist. This will eventually include antifa, BLM, progressives, democrats, people they just don't like . . .
 
bruto said:
Yes, I agree that if the law attempts to be ex post facto, it would be potentially an utter disaster. If it's retroactive for one generation it's retroactive for all, and would technically require certification of everyone's parents and their parents back to the founding of the nation. Or at least it would open up any native born citizen's citizenship to be challenged. On the other hand, if you allow the very idea of naturalized citizens, then birthright is irrelevant to them. Since it's part and parcel of naturalization that you were NOT born in the US, and NOT previously a citizen of the US, naturalization is inherently exempt from the complications of birthright citizenship. You can challenge their citizenship only if you can prove that they cheated in the process. So in a sense, the only people whose citizenship would be immune to the documentation challenge should be those who were naturalized!
Click to expand...
And who "naturalised" these non-citizens? Why, it was non-citizens who did that! So that doesn't count either.
bruto said:
If not only the citizenship but the legal residence of a person born in the US is dependent on the status of one's parents, it is a naturally endless process. If your ancestors were not documented immigrants at the time the United States was founded, none of their descendants can ever be. Now of course that is flamboyantly, flagrantly, floridly crazy, utterly ridiculous and unthinkably stupid, and in a rational world we would probably not have to wait and see, but we'd better wait and see.
Click to expand...
My point entirely.
bruto said:
Now of course, aside from the fact that such a law would be flagrantly unconstitutional as ex post facto, I could imagine that you could argue that a law basing the citizenship of a native-born American on the status of their parents would be effectively a bill of attainder, also forbidden. Of course I would not put it past the stable geniuses in charge of all this to opine that although a fetus is an innocent and fully vested citizen, the very act of being born makes them law breakers in their own right.
Click to expand...
Or more succinctly, these so-called Perry Masons are just racist nutters.
bruto said:
Of course any such legal denial of citizenship is never meant to apply to everyone. It is, from the get-go, a transparently selective, targeted law, unenforceable in the main while ready and waiting for the dictator's enemies.
Click to expand...
 
Richard Stengel
@stengel
Just to note, other than canceling the two holidays that are important to Black Americans as national park days, the only other country that has their current leader's birthday as a national holiday is North Korea
 
Andy_Ross said:
WELKER: Isn't it possible that even the act of taking off a t shirt could've been part of an attempt to get attention for help?

TOM COTTON: Or it could've been an attempt to signal to another cartel boat to come pick them up and pick up the cargo
Click to expand...

Hey, genius, if there had been another boat within tee-shirt-waving distance, don't you think the navy would have blown them to pieces too?
 
Andy_Ross said:
WELKER: Is there any hard evidence showing this particular boat was headed to the US?

TOM COTTON: That didn't come up in my briefing
Click to expand...

This is the disingenuous way to say no there is zero likelihood this little boat was going all the way to the US, it was just the first leg of some island-hopping route. Or maybe some guys fishing, whatever.
 
The White House
@WhiteHouse
“While the United States has other methods of charging TARIFFS against foreign countries, many of whom have, for YEARS, TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF OUR NATION, the current method of Tariffing before the United States Supreme Court is far more DIRECT...” - PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997757904037056523
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom