Report the news, get a visit from Trump's jackbooted thugs:
|
| The Federal Communications Commission is investigating San
| Francisco-based KCBS for its coverage of immigration
| enforcement actions in San Jose last month, sparking
| concerns from press freedom advocates and drawing
| right-wing backlash to the radio station.
Report the news, get a visit from Trump's jackbooted thugs:
|
| The Federal Communications Commission is investigating San
| Francisco-based KCBS for its coverage of immigration
| enforcement actions in San Jose last month, sparking
| concerns from press freedom advocates and drawing
| right-wing backlash to the radio station.
| ...
<https://www.kqed.org/news/12025977/fcc-investigates-sf-radio-station-for-ice-reporting-sparking-press-freedom-fears>
--bks
Report the news, get a visit from Trump's jackbooted thugs:
|
| The Federal Communications Commission is investigating San
| Francisco-based KCBS for its coverage of immigration
| enforcement actions in San Jose last month, sparking
| concerns from press freedom advocates and drawing
| right-wing backlash to the radio station.
| ...
<https://www.kqed.org/news/12025977/fcc-investigates-sf-radio-station-for-ice-reporting-sparking-press-freedom-fears>
--bks
Report the news, get a visit from Trump's jackbooted thugs:
|
| The Federal Communications Commission is investigating San
| Francisco-based KCBS for its coverage of immigration
| enforcement actions in San Jose last month, sparking
| concerns from press freedom advocates and drawing
| right-wing backlash to the radio station.
|
| On his Truth Social account on Friday, Mr. Trump called for
| The Washington Post to fire Eugene Robinson, a Pulitzer
| Prize-winning columnist, and labeled him "incompetent."
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/business/media/trump-musk-attack-journalists.html>
--bks
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:48:47 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
Report the news, get a visit from Trump's jackbooted thugs:
|
| The Federal Communications Commission is investigating San
| Francisco-based KCBS for its coverage of immigration
| enforcement actions in San Jose last month, sparking
| concerns from press freedom advocates and drawing
| right-wing backlash to the radio station.
|
| On his Truth Social account on Friday, Mr. Trump called for
| The Washington Post to fire Eugene Robinson, a Pulitzer
| Prize-winning columnist, and labeled him "incompetent."
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/business/media/trump-musk-attack-journalists.html>
--bks
So Trump isn't allowed his First Amendment right to call the idiot an
idiot?
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 18:18:52 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
Report the news, get a visit from Trump's jackbooted thugs:
|
| The Federal Communications Commission is investigating San
| Francisco-based KCBS for its coverage of immigration
| enforcement actions in San Jose last month, sparking
| concerns from press freedom advocates and drawing
| right-wing backlash to the radio station.
| ...
<https://www.kqed.org/news/12025977/fcc-investigates-sf-radio-station-for-ice-reporting-sparking-press-freedom-fears>
--bks
Laughter.
You were fine with the government investigating parents who spoke up
at school board meetings.
From your article:
"In an interview on Fox News, Trump-appointed commission chair
Brendan
Carr said he opened the investigation after KCBS shared the live
locations and vehicle descriptions of immigration officials on Jan.
26."
That's illegal
No, it is not. The press have a first amendment right to publish
or broadcast any news they get their hands on by legal means.
-hh wrote:
�From your article:
"In an interview on Fox News, Trump-appointed commission chair
Brendan
Carr said he opened the investigation after KCBS shared the live
locations and vehicle descriptions of immigration officials on Jan.
26."
That's illegal
No, it is not. The press have a first amendment right to publish
or broadcast any news they get their hands on by legal means.
When Doc Phil and other goofballs act as 'embedded correspondents'
in ICE raids, is that illegal?
On 2/8/2025 7:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 18:18:52 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
Report the news, get a visit from Trump's jackbooted thugs:
|
| The Federal Communications Commission is investigating San
| Francisco-based KCBS for its coverage of immigration
| enforcement actions in San Jose last month, sparking
| concerns from press freedom advocates and drawing
| right-wing backlash to the radio station.
| ...
<https://www.kqed.org/news/12025977/fcc-investigates-sf-radio-station-for-ice-reporting-sparking-press-freedom-fears>
--bks
From your article:
"In an interview on Fox News, Trump-appointed commission chair Brendan
Carr said he opened the investigation after KCBS shared the live
locations and vehicle descriptions of immigration officials on Jan.
26."
That's illegal
No, it is not. The press have a first amendment right to publish or broadcast >any news they get their hands on by legal means.
On Jan. 26, the host of �KCBS Radio Weekend News� shared the location of
agents and the vehicles they were in based on information from the Rapid
Response Network in Santa Clara County, a community organization developed to
protect immigrant families from deportation threats.
�The County�s Response Network says agents in San Jose were in unmarked
vehicles,� the host said, describing the color, make and model of the
vehicles before listing the streets and locations where they were spotted.
�Stay with KCBS, we�ll be tracking it for you.�
The Communications Act of 1934 requires that broadcast licensees operate in
the �public interest, convenience and necessity.� The FCC reserves the right
to fine a station or revoke its license if it is found in violation of the
public interest standard.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-02-06/fcc-investigating-san-francisco-radio-station-that-shared-location-of-undercover-ice-agents
The information was lawfully obtained, and it was in the public interest for the
radio station to broadcast it.
On 2/8/2025 7:29 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:48:47 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
Report the news, get a visit from Trump's jackbooted thugs:
|
| The Federal Communications Commission is investigating San
| Francisco-based KCBS for its coverage of immigration
| enforcement actions in San Jose last month, sparking
| concerns from press freedom advocates and drawing
| right-wing backlash to the radio station.
|
| On his Truth Social account on Friday, Mr. Trump called for
| The Washington Post to fire Eugene Robinson, a Pulitzer
| Prize-winning columnist, and labeled him "incompetent."
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/business/media/trump-musk-attack-journalists.html>
--bks
So Trump isn't allowed his First Amendment right to call the idiot an
idiot?
No one said he wasn't, idiot. So others aren't allowed to criticize the Nazi >tyrant for calling for the firing of someone whose opinions he doesn't like?
Why did you edit my response to omit the portion "It puts the agent's
lives in danger"?
Isn't the media going crazy about the naming of the FBI agents who investigated Jan 6'er?
Make up your mind already.
| On his Truth Social account on Friday, Mr. Trump called for
| The Washington Post to fire Eugene Robinson, a Pulitzer
| Prize-winning columnist, and labeled him "incompetent."
| On his Truth Social account on Friday, Mr. Trump called for
| The Washington Post to fire Eugene Robinson, a Pulitzer
| Prize-winning columnist, and labeled him "incompetent."
|
| President Donald Trump angered some of his Christian
| supporters on Friday when he named a televangelist who even
| some conservative evangelicals have labeled a "heretic" as
| part of his White House administration.
| ...
| White-Cain, 58, is a megachurch preacher from Florida who
| has endorsed biblical interpretations that some evangelical
| Christians believe go too far.
| ... <https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-enrages-christian-maga-naming-224833273.html>
--bks
NoBody wrote:
Why did you edit my response to omit the portion "It puts the agent's
lives in danger"?
Isn't the media going crazy about the naming of the FBI agents who
investigated Jan 6'er?
Make up your mind already.
'shared the location of agents and the vehicles'
Ah! The names of the agents are 'location' and 'vehicles'.
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 07:34:04 -0800, Siri CruiseNo it doesn't. The hard-working immigrants the agents intend to arrest don't want any confrontation with them at all. They want to avoid them altogether. The
<[email protected]> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
Why did you edit my response to omit the portion "It puts the agent's
lives in danger"?
Isn't the media going crazy about the naming of the FBI agents who
investigated Jan 6'er?
Make up your mind already.
'shared the location of agents and the vehicles'
Ah! The names of the agents are 'location' and 'vehicles'.
Revealing the location of the vehicles endangers the live of the
agents.
| On his Truth Social account on Friday, Mr. Trump called for
| The Washington Post to fire Eugene Robinson, a Pulitzer
| Prize-winning columnist, and labeled him "incompetent."
|
| A.P. Accuses White House of Violating First Amendment
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/business/media/associated-press-gulf-of-america.html>
--bks
| On his Truth Social account on Friday, Mr. Trump called for
| The Washington Post to fire Eugene Robinson, a Pulitzer
| Prize-winning columnist, and labeled him "incompetent."
|
| The White House blocked an Associated Press reporter from
| an event in the Oval Office on Tuesday after demanding the
| news agency alter its style on the Gulf of Mexico, which
| President Donald Trump has ordered renamed the Gulf of
| America.
| ...
<https://apnews.com/article/trump-ap-journalism-first-amendment-8a83d8b506053249598e807f8e91e1ae>
--bks
NoBody wrote:
Why did you edit my response to omit the portion "It puts the agent's
lives in danger"?
Isn't the media going crazy about the naming of the FBI agents who
investigated Jan 6'er?
Make up your mind already.
'shared the location of agents and the vehicles'
Ah! The names of the agents are 'location' and 'vehicles'.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:37:31 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| A.P. Accuses White House of Violating First Amendment
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/business/media/associated-press-gulf-of-america.html>
--bks
Laughter.
No one has a right to attend a press event. They are invited guests.
Cry some more.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:37:31 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| A.P. Accuses White House of Violating First Amendment
| ... >><https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/business/media/associated-press-gulf-of-america.html>
--bks
Laughter.
No one has a right to attend a press event. They are invited guests.
Cry some more.
NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:37:31 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.Biden destroyed America by talking to Facebook.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| A.P. Accuses White House of Violating First Amendment
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/business/media/associated-press-gulf-of-america.html>
--bks
Laughter.
No one has a right to attend a press event. They are invited guests.
Cry some more.
| A.P. Accuses White House of Violating First Amendment
|
| Elon Musk Says "60 Minutes" Journalists "Deserve a Long
| Prison Sentence" after Airing Critical Report; Where are
| the Free Speech Organizations on the Right Condemning this
| Intimidation of Journalists by Government Official?
| ...
<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=148650>
--bks
|
| Elon Musk Says "60 Minutes" Journalists "Deserve a Long
| Prison Sentence" after Airing Critical Report; Where are
| the Free Speech Organizations on the Right Condemning this
| Intimidation of Journalists by Government Official?
| ...
<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=148650>
--bks
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:10:10 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Elon Musk Says "60 Minutes" Journalists "Deserve a Long
| Prison Sentence" after Airing Critical Report; Where are
| the Free Speech Organizations on the Right Condemning this
| Intimidation of Journalists by Government Official?
| ...
<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=148650>
--bks
Laughter.
You were good with lawfair but are so outraged about something that
isn't actually happening.
| Elon Musk Says "60 Minutes" Journalists "Deserve a Long
| Prison Sentence" after Airing Critical Report; Where are
| the Free Speech Organizations on the Right Condemning this
| Intimidation of Journalists by Government Official?
| Elon Musk Says "60 Minutes" Journalists "Deserve a Long
| Prison Sentence" after Airing Critical Report; Where are
| the Free Speech Organizations on the Right Condemning this
| Intimidation of Journalists by Government Official?
| The Associated Press is suing three Trump administration
| officials in federal court for banning AP reporters from
| some of President Trump's events, the Oval Office, and Air
| Force One.
| Elon Musk Says "60 Minutes" Journalists "Deserve a Long
| Prison Sentence" after Airing Critical Report; Where are
| the Free Speech Organizations on the Right Condemning this
| Intimidation of Journalists by Government Official?
| The Associated Press is suing three Trump administration
| officials in federal court for banning AP reporters from
| some of President Trump's events, the Oval Office, and Air
| Force One.
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
--bks
| Elon Musk Says "60 Minutes" Journalists "Deserve a Long
| Prison Sentence" after Airing Critical Report; Where are
| the Free Speech Organizations on the Right Condemning this
| Intimidation of Journalists by Government Official?
|
| The Associated Press is suing three Trump administration
| officials in federal court for banning AP reporters from
| some of President Trump's events, the Oval Office, and Air
| Force One.
|
| The AP alleges that the ban violates the First Amendment as
| well as the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/21/media/ap-sues-trump-administration>
--bks
| Elon Musk Says "60 Minutes" Journalists "Deserve a Long
| Prison Sentence" after Airing Critical Report; Where are
| the Free Speech Organizations on the Right Condemning this
| Intimidation of Journalists by Government Official?
| The Associated Press is suing three Trump administration
| officials in federal court for banning AP reporters from
| some of President Trump's events, the Oval Office, and Air
| Force One.
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
--bks
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| Elon Musk Says "60 Minutes" Journalists "Deserve a Long
| Prison Sentence" after Airing Critical Report; Where are
| the Free Speech Organizations on the Right Condemning this
| Intimidation of Journalists by Government Official?
| The Associated Press is suing three Trump administration
| officials in federal court for banning AP reporters from
| some of President Trump's events, the Oval Office, and Air
| Force One.
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ... >><https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
--bks
Laughter.
Liberal tears are the sweetest.
...
Laughter.
...
Kremlin Girl <[email protected]> wrote:
...
Laughter.
...
We're laughing at you, Kremlin Girl, not with you.
--bks
At one point, McCormick, who represents the state’s 7th
Congressional District, was pointedly asked about the firings of
hundreds of workers at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, which is based in Atlanta: “Why is a supposedly
conservative party taking such a radical and extremist and sloppy
approach to this?”
Laughter.
Liberal tears are the sweetest.
Kremlin Girl <[email protected]> wrote:
...
Laughter.
...
We're laughing at you, Kremlin Girl, not with you.
--bks
On 2025-02-22, NoBody <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| Elon Musk Says "60 Minutes" Journalists "Deserve a Long
| Prison Sentence" after Airing Critical Report; Where are
| the Free Speech Organizations on the Right Condemning this
| Intimidation of Journalists by Government Official?
| The Associated Press is suing three Trump administration
| officials in federal court for banning AP reporters from
| some of President Trump's events, the Oval Office, and Air
| Force One.
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ... >>><https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
--bks
Laughter.
Liberal tears are the sweetest.
These same crybabies didn't utter a peep when Biden was asked predetermined >questions from predetermined reporters.
And the corpse gave the sham away every time by holding up his notes and saying aloud
something like "ok, who am I supposed to call on next".
Nothing from the democrats at all.
The mostly left wing media blew it big time.
They had a chance to tone down the attacks on Trump but instead doubled down >on them so it's Trump's news conferences and he can determine who is allowed >to attend.
Besides, there is always a pool reporter on site so the AP can get their information that way.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 22:01:09 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| Elon Musk Says "60 Minutes" Journalists "Deserve a Long
| Prison Sentence" after Airing Critical Report; Where are
| the Free Speech Organizations on the Right Condemning this
| Intimidation of Journalists by Government Official?
|
| The Associated Press is suing three Trump administration
| officials in federal court for banning AP reporters from
| some of President Trump's events, the Oval Office, and Air
| Force One.
|
| The AP alleges that the ban violates the First Amendment as
| well as the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/21/media/ap-sues-trump-administration>
--bks
Laughter.
There is no right for a specific media group to be invited to cover
the President.
Due process??? It's an invitation dummy.
You seriously need to get out of Russia as you're turning into a
complete moron.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's
not slander and libel.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:49:27 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-22, NoBody <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| Elon Musk Says "60 Minutes" Journalists "Deserve a Long
| Prison Sentence" after Airing Critical Report; Where are
| the Free Speech Organizations on the Right Condemning this
| Intimidation of Journalists by Government Official?
| The Associated Press is suing three Trump administration
| officials in federal court for banning AP reporters from
| some of President Trump's events, the Oval Office, and Air
| Force One.
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ... >>>><https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
--bks
Laughter.
Liberal tears are the sweetest.
These same crybabies didn't utter a peep when Biden was asked predetermined >>questions from predetermined reporters.
And the corpse gave the sham away every time by holding up his notes and saying aloud
something like "ok, who am I supposed to call on next".
Nothing from the democrats at all.
The mostly left wing media blew it big time.
They had a chance to tone down the attacks on Trump but instead doubled down >>on them so it's Trump's news conferences and he can determine who is allowed >>to attend.
Besides, there is always a pool reporter on site so the AP can get their information that way.
Did you notice rather than address what I said, Bradley chose to
attack me personally? It's all liberals have.
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's
not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's
not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's
not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's
not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's
not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
No it's not. Trump is not obligated to allow specific organizations
to his meetings. If this were so then every media outlet that wants
in would have to be let in.
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's
not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White
House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you
from my press events.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's
not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
No it's not. Trump is not obligated to allow specific organizations
to his meetings.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White
House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you
from my press events.
On 2/24/2025 9:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me >>>>>> hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White
House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you
from my press events.
You didn't read the links, did you?
On 2/24/2025 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's
not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
No it's not. Trump is not obligated to allow specific organizations
to his meetings. If this were so then every media outlet that wants
in would have to be let in.
You did not read either link, did you (both links address your concern)?
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White
House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you
from my press events.
On 2/24/2025 9:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me >>>>>> hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White
House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you
from my press events.
You didn't read the links, did you?
On 2025-02-24 09:43, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me >>>>>> hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White
House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you
from my press events.
Ummmmm...no.
It is NOT just "freedom of speech":
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or >prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Freedom of the press is in the literal text.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:47:19 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 9:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me >>>>>>> hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White
House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you
from my press events.
You didn't read the links, did you?
Yeah, I did, but like I said, the AP has access to the same
information because the events are broadcast on TV and Radio and the >internet. The only difference is that they don't get to ask the
questions.
Oh yes, by the way, your cites are only opinions.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:47:19 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 9:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me >>>>>>> hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White
House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you
from my press events.
You didn't read the links, did you?
Yeah, I didbut like I said, the AP has access to the same
information because the events are broadcast on TV and Radio and the internet. The only difference is that they don't get to ask the
questions.
Oh yes, by the way, your cites are only opinions.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 08:45:56 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
No it's not. Trump is not obligated to allow specific organizations
to his meetings. If this were so then every media outlet that wants
in would have to be let in.
You did not read either link, did you (both links address your concern)?
I said is absolute fact. People bitching and moaning that they
believe they have a right to be there will spin away trying to justify
their demandsj.
I just glanced at your second link.
There is no right to due process
at being uninvited from a press briefing. This is something solely at
the President's discretion.
On 2/24/2025 1:24 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:47:19 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 9:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press >>>>>>>>> | journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me >>>>>>>> hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White >>>> House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you
from my press events.
You didn't read the links, did you?
Yeah, I didbut like I said, the AP has access to the same
information because the events are broadcast on TV and Radio and the
internet. The only difference is that they don't get to ask the
questions.
Oh yes, by the way, your cites are only opinions.
No Shit, Sherlock. But, they are informed opinions based in precedent.
The first link, which provides a descriptive overview of both sides of
the argument is particularly helpful.
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 07:52:07 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 1:24 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:47:19 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 9:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two >>>>>>>>>> | separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump >>>>>>>>>> | administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press >>>>>>>>>> | journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me >>>>>>>>> hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>>>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White >>>>> House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you >>>>> from my press events.
You didn't read the links, did you?
Yeah, I didbut like I said, the AP has access to the same
information because the events are broadcast on TV and Radio and the
internet. The only difference is that they don't get to ask the
questions.
Oh yes, by the way, your cites are only opinions.
No Shit, Sherlock. But, they are informed opinions based in precedent.
The first link, which provides a descriptive overview of both sides of
the argument is particularly helpful.
A federal judge trumps their opinion.
"He said the news organization “can get access to the same
information” from the pool notes that are given to all members of the
White House Correspondents’ Association even if it’s barred from being
at the events where that news is made."
They don't get to ask questions, but it's the speakers choice of who
gets to ask questions. Biden did it all the time with his lists of who
he was allowed to address.
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 07:52:07 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 1:24 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:47:19 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 9:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two >>>>>>>>>> | separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump >>>>>>>>>> | administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press >>>>>>>>>> | journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me >>>>>>>>> hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>>>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White >>>>> House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you >>>>> from my press events.
You didn't read the links, did you?
Yeah, I didbut like I said, the AP has access to the same
information because the events are broadcast on TV and Radio and the
internet. The only difference is that they don't get to ask the
questions.
Oh yes, by the way, your cites are only opinions.
No Shit, Sherlock. But, they are informed opinions based in precedent.
The first link, which provides a descriptive overview of both sides of
the argument is particularly helpful.
A federal judge trumps their opinion.
"He said the news organization “can get access to the same
information” from the pool notes that are given to all members of the
White House Correspondents’ Association even if it’s barred from being
at the events where that news is made."
They don't get to ask questions, but it's the speakers choice of who
gets to ask questions. Biden did it all the time with his lists of who
he was allowed to address.
On 2/25/2025 12:48 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 07:52:07 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 1:24 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:47:19 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 9:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected]
(Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different >>>>>>>>>> then me
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two >>>>>>>>>>> | separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump >>>>>>>>>>> | administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press >>>>>>>>>>> | journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap- >>>>>>>>>>> white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/> >>>>>>>>>>
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want >>>>>>>>>> that's
not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-
journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-
journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-
events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The
White
House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you >>>>>> from my press events.
You didn't read the links, did you?
Yeah, I didbut like I said, the AP has access to the same
information because the events are broadcast on TV and Radio and the
internet. The only difference is that they don't get to ask the
questions.
Oh yes, by the way, your cites are only opinions.
No Shit, Sherlock. But, they are informed opinions based in precedent.
The first link, which provides a descriptive overview of both sides of
the argument is particularly helpful.
A federal judge trumps their opinion.
"He said the news organization “can get access to the same
information” from the pool notes that are given to all members of the
White House Correspondents’ Association even if it’s barred from being >> at the events where that news is made."
He did not rule on the merits. He ruled on whether the AP should get emergency relief, concluding no because there is no irreparable harm
from waiting on a ruling on the merits.
On the merits, the judge said the issue required further explanation.
But he did say "AP has shown a likelihood of success here."
It's complicated.
They don't get to ask questions, but it's the speakers choice of who
gets to ask questions. Biden did it all the time with his lists of who
he was allowed to address.
That's not what AP sued over. They sued to not be left pout of the Oval office.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 15:02:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/28/2025 10:00 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 07:53:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 10:11 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:06:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 4:29 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:22:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 8:16 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:11:15 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 8:03 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:50:25 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 7:37 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:18:39 -0800, Josh RosenbluthNot always (you can't see everything live from Air Force One or the Oval
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 2:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:14:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
Very few people get to go in the Oval Office. The AP wants to be in
the press room, but there's many, many who don't get to be there. It's
not that big a room.
Of course space is limited and some will be left out. But, the
complicated question remains whether a person or organization can be
barred based on their viewpoint.
Batrred for what? Asking questions?
No. Barred from being in the press pool.
Which only prevents them from asking questions.
It prevents them from having first-hand knowledge of press events.
<LOL> Nonsense. they can watch it live on TV and the internet. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Office). And they don't get the same perspective even if they can watch
it remotely.
The link explains the complication. Try reading it this time. >>>>>>>>>>>>Go back and read this link:"Complicated" is when you can't come up with a real reply >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/
It says the issue is complicated even though it is clear that Trump can
ignore the AP, thus barring them from asking questions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The
Nonsense. There may have been consequences back before the TV and >>>>>>>>>>> internet coverage, but not today. Today it only keeps them from asking
questions, which is what Biden did.
I should have said complication instead of consequences. I'm not >>>>>>>>> paying much attention to your arguments because of their
insignificance.
You didn't read the link, did you?
Oh, yes I did. A bunch of old issues (complications) that don't apply >>>>>>>>> anymore.
The link lists three appellate-court precedents that disagree with you.
One is old (1977), the other two are not (2021 and 2022).
"that recognize a right not to be excluded based on viewpoint from >>>>>>> large press conferences that are generally open to a wide range of >>>>>>> reporters."
`
The Oval office, the white house press room and Air Force one are not >>>>>>> open to a wide range of reporters. The space is very limited.
Going on from the link:
"But what about in-between events, which are open only to a small set of >>>>>> reporters? Air Force One apparently has 13 press seats, and I take it >>>>>> the Oval Office is likewise limited."
"John K. Maciver Inst. seems to suggest that even for such events, >>>>>> reporters can't be selected in viewpoint-based ways"
"I'm not sure this is right: I would think that when "only some members >>>>>> of the press are invited" the government official should be able to pick >>>>>> and choose those with whom he wants to have a conversation."
"I think that for Air Force One and Oval Office appearances, the best I >>>>>> can say is that the First Amendment analysis is unsettled."
It's complicated.
At least for you and the guy that wrote that article.
It's not complicated if your opinion, and the opinions of those who
agree with you, are the only ones that matter.
There you go....
Yes, you are a self-centered troll.
Sorry, I'm just not on the AP's side. They have no more right to be
included in the White House pressors than you and I.
|
| Voice of America, the federally funded broadcaster to the
| world, has long prided itself on serving as an accurate and
| fair source of news and on being independent of whichever
| president and party are in power in the United States.
|
| Since the election of President Trump, that independence is
| increasingly being tested.
|
| In recent months, Voice of America's parent organization,
| the U.S. Agency for Global Media, has opened
| human-resources investigations into Voice of America
| journalists for reporting on criticism of Mr. Trump or for
| making comments that were perceived as critical of him,
| according to several employees. Some journalists raised
| concerns about the investigations in a meeting this week
| with the broadcaster's director.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/business/voice-of-america-trump.html>
--bks
On 2025-02-28 03:58, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:50:25 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 7:37 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:18:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 2:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:14:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
Very few people get to go in the Oval Office. The AP wants to be in >>>>>>>>>> the press room, but there's many, many who don't get to be there. It's
not that big a room.
Of course space is limited and some will be left out. But, the >>>>>>>>> complicated question remains whether a person or organization can be >>>>>>>>> barred based on their viewpoint.
Batrred for what? Asking questions?
No. Barred from being in the press pool.
Which only prevents them from asking questions.
It prevents them from having first-hand knowledge of press events.
<LOL> Nonsense. they can watch it live on TV and the internet.
Not always (you can't see everything live from Air Force One or the Oval >>> Office). And they don't get the same perspective even if they can watch
it remotely.
Go back and read this link:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/
It says the issue is complicated even though it is clear that Trump can >>>>> ignore the AP, thus barring them from asking questions.
"Complicated" is when you can't come up with a real reply
The link explains the complication. Try reading it this time.
The
There's no need to be rude. The opinion piece does not change
reality. Not everyone who wants to attend can.
Get over it.
So once you're down to a single "reporter" from Fox (and TASS of
course), you'll be fine with that?
On 2025-02-28, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote inWouldn't bother me at all.
news:vpsg2m$3lver$[email protected]:
On 2025-02-28, Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA>
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 02:55:35 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in >>>>>news:[email protected]:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:22:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 8:16 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:11:15 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 8:03 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:50:25 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 7:37 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:18:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 2:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:14:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
Batrred for what? Asking questions?Very few people get to go in the Oval Office. The AP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to be in the press room, but there's many, many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who don't get to be there. It's not that big a room. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of course space is limited and some will be left out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, the complicated question remains whether a person >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or organization can be barred based on their viewpoint. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No. Barred from being in the press pool.
Which only prevents them from asking questions.
It prevents them from having first-hand knowledge of press >>>>>>>>>>>>> events.
<LOL> Nonsense. they can watch it live on TV and the
internet.
Not always (you can't see everything live from Air Force One >>>>>>>>>>> or the Oval Office). And they don't get the same perspective >>>>>>>>>>> even if they can watch it remotely.
The link explains the complication. Try reading it this time. >>>>>>>>>>>Go back and read this link:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-jo >>>>>>>>>>>>> urn
alists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists- >>>>>>>>>>>>> spe ech/
It says the issue is complicated even though it is clear >>>>>>>>>>>>> that Trump can ignore the AP, thus barring them from asking >>>>>>>>>>>>> questions.
"Complicated" is when you can't come up with a real reply >>>>>>>>>>>
The
Nonsense. There may have been consequences back before the TV >>>>>>>>>> and internet coverage, but not today. Today it only keeps them >>>>>>>>>> from asking questions, which is what Biden did.
I should have said complication instead of consequences. I'm not >>>>>>>> paying much attention to your arguments because of their
insignificance.
You didn't read the link, did you?
Oh, yes I did. A bunch of old issues (complications) that don't >>>>>>>> apply anymore.
The link lists three appellate-court precedents that disagree with >>>>>>>you. One is old (1977), the other two are not (2021 and 2022).
"that recognize a right not to be excluded based on viewpoint from >>>>>> large press conferences that are generally open to a wide range of >>>>>> reporters."
`
The Oval office, the white house press room and Air Force one are
not open to a wide range of reporters. The space is very limited. >>>>>>
But is big enough for Trump to use
it to film a commercial for one of his
donors.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-president-is-shillin >>>>>g- beans
OMG, did you call the cops?
LOL !
The libbys box of straws is being depleted quickly.
What's next?
The POTUS motorcade exceeding the speed limit?
Can you imagine the rightwing outrage
if a democratic president were to use the
Oval Office to pitch a donor's product?
Besides, who would be a better spokesperson for onset dementia than Joey Biden?
On 2/27/2025 10:11 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:06:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 4:29 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:22:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 8:16 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:11:15 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 8:03 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:50:25 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 7:37 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:18:39 -0800, Josh RosenbluthNot always (you can't see everything live from Air Force One or the Oval
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 2:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:<LOL> Nonsense. they can watch it live on TV and the internet. >>>>>>>>>
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:14:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
Very few people get to go in the Oval Office. The AP wants to be in
the press room, but there's many, many who don't get to be there. It's
not that big a room.
Of course space is limited and some will be left out. But, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated question remains whether a person or organization can be
barred based on their viewpoint.
Batrred for what? Asking questions?
No. Barred from being in the press pool.
Which only prevents them from asking questions.
It prevents them from having first-hand knowledge of press events. >>>>>>>>>>
Office). And they don't get the same perspective even if they can watch
it remotely.
Go back and read this link:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/
It says the issue is complicated even though it is clear that Trump can
ignore the AP, thus barring them from asking questions.
"Complicated" is when you can't come up with a real reply
The link explains the complication. Try reading it this time. >>>>>>>>>
The
Nonsense. There may have been consequences back before the TV and >>>>>>>> internet coverage, but not today. Today it only keeps them from asking >>>>>>>> questions, which is what Biden did.
I should have said complication instead of consequences. I'm not
paying much attention to your arguments because of their
insignificance.
You didn't read the link, did you?
Oh, yes I did. A bunch of old issues (complications) that don't apply >>>>>> anymore.
The link lists three appellate-court precedents that disagree with you. >>>>> One is old (1977), the other two are not (2021 and 2022).
"that recognize a right not to be excluded based on viewpoint from
large press conferences that are generally open to a wide range of
reporters."
`
The Oval office, the white house press room and Air Force one are not
open to a wide range of reporters. The space is very limited.
Going on from the link:
"But what about in-between events, which are open only to a small set of >>> reporters? Air Force One apparently has 13 press seats, and I take it
the Oval Office is likewise limited."
"John K. Maciver Inst. seems to suggest that even for such events,
reporters can't be selected in viewpoint-based ways"
"I'm not sure this is right: I would think that when "only some members
of the press are invited" the government official should be able to pick >>> and choose those with whom he wants to have a conversation."
"I think that for Air Force One and Oval Office appearances, the best I
can say is that the First Amendment analysis is unsettled."
It's complicated.
At least for you and the guy that wrote that article.
It's not complicated if your opinion, and the opinions of those who
agree with you, are the only ones that matter.
On 2/28/2025 10:00 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 07:53:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 10:11 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:06:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 4:29 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:22:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 8:16 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:11:15 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 8:03 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:50:25 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 7:37 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:18:39 -0800, Josh RosenbluthNot always (you can't see everything live from Air Force One or the Oval
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 2:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:14:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
Very few people get to go in the Oval Office. The AP wants to be in
the press room, but there's many, many who don't get to be there. It's
not that big a room.
Of course space is limited and some will be left out. But, the
complicated question remains whether a person or organization can be
barred based on their viewpoint.
Batrred for what? Asking questions?
No. Barred from being in the press pool.
Which only prevents them from asking questions.
It prevents them from having first-hand knowledge of press events.
<LOL> Nonsense. they can watch it live on TV and the internet. >>>>>>>>>>>
Office). And they don't get the same perspective even if they can watch
it remotely.
The link explains the complication. Try reading it this time. >>>>>>>>>>>Go back and read this link:"Complicated" is when you can't come up with a real reply >>>>>>>>>>>
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/
It says the issue is complicated even though it is clear that Trump can
ignore the AP, thus barring them from asking questions. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The
Nonsense. There may have been consequences back before the TV and >>>>>>>>>> internet coverage, but not today. Today it only keeps them from asking
questions, which is what Biden did.
I should have said complication instead of consequences. I'm not >>>>>>>> paying much attention to your arguments because of their
insignificance.
You didn't read the link, did you?
Oh, yes I did. A bunch of old issues (complications) that don't apply >>>>>>>> anymore.
The link lists three appellate-court precedents that disagree with you. >>>>>>> One is old (1977), the other two are not (2021 and 2022).
"that recognize a right not to be excluded based on viewpoint from >>>>>> large press conferences that are generally open to a wide range of >>>>>> reporters."
`
The Oval office, the white house press room and Air Force one are not >>>>>> open to a wide range of reporters. The space is very limited.
Going on from the link:
"But what about in-between events, which are open only to a small set of >>>>> reporters? Air Force One apparently has 13 press seats, and I take it >>>>> the Oval Office is likewise limited."
"John K. Maciver Inst. seems to suggest that even for such events,
reporters can't be selected in viewpoint-based ways"
"I'm not sure this is right: I would think that when "only some members >>>>> of the press are invited" the government official should be able to pick >>>>> and choose those with whom he wants to have a conversation."
"I think that for Air Force One and Oval Office appearances, the best I >>>>> can say is that the First Amendment analysis is unsettled."
It's complicated.
At least for you and the guy that wrote that article.
It's not complicated if your opinion, and the opinions of those who
agree with you, are the only ones that matter.
There you go....
Yes, you are a self-centered troll.
|
| Voice of America, the federally funded broadcaster to the
| world, has long prided itself on serving as an accurate and
| fair source of news and on being independent of whichever
| president and party are in power in the United States.
|
| Since the election of President Trump, that independence is
| increasingly being tested.
|
| In recent months, Voice of America's parent organization,
| the U.S. Agency for Global Media, has opened
| human-resources investigations into Voice of America
| journalists for reporting on criticism of Mr. Trump or for
| making comments that were perceived as critical of him,
| according to several employees. Some journalists raised
| concerns about the investigations in a meeting this week
| with the broadcaster's director.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/business/voice-of-america-trump.html>
--bks
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:18:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 2:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:14:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
Very few people get to go in the Oval Office. The AP wants to be in >>>>>>> the press room, but there's many, many who don't get to be there. It's >>>>>>> not that big a room.
Of course space is limited and some will be left out. But, the
complicated question remains whether a person or organization can be >>>>>> barred based on their viewpoint.
Batrred for what? Asking questions?
No. Barred from being in the press pool.
Which only prevents them from asking questions.
It prevents them from having first-hand knowledge of press events.
So then everyone who says they need this should be required to be
allowed in?
Go back and read this link: >>https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/
It says the issue is complicated even though it is clear that Trump can >>ignore the AP, thus barring them from asking questions.
It's not complicated at all and the thought process is ridiculous. Why
is the AP more special then every other news publisher who isn't
there?
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 12:40:34 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Voice of America, the federally funded broadcaster to the
| world, has long prided itself on serving as an accurate and
| fair source of news and on being independent of whichever
| president and party are in power in the United States.
|
| Since the election of President Trump, that independence is
| increasingly being tested.
|
| In recent months, Voice of America's parent organization,
| the U.S. Agency for Global Media, has opened
| human-resources investigations into Voice of America
| journalists for reporting on criticism of Mr. Trump or for
| making comments that were perceived as critical of him,
| according to several employees. Some journalists raised
| concerns about the investigations in a meeting this week
| with the broadcaster's director.
| ... >><https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/business/voice-of-america-trump.html>
--bks
What ind of a moron would trust a government run news media?
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in >news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 12:40:34 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Voice of America, the federally funded broadcaster to the
| world, has long prided itself on serving as an accurate and
| fair source of news and on being independent of whichever
| president and party are in power in the United States.
|
| Since the election of President Trump, that independence is
| increasingly being tested.
|
| In recent months, Voice of America's parent organization,
| the U.S. Agency for Global Media, has opened
| human-resources investigations into Voice of America
| journalists for reporting on criticism of Mr. Trump or for
| making comments that were perceived as critical of him,
| according to several employees. Some journalists raised
| concerns about the investigations in a meeting this week
| with the broadcaster's director.
| ... >>><https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/business/voice-of-america-trump.html> >>>
--bks
What ind of a moron would trust a government run news media?
Like White House press briefings?
That's what we call straight from the horse's mouth, but, it was
indeed hard to make sense out was said by Gibberish Joe and Word Salad
Kammy
In article <vpvggh$apc8$[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
That's what we call straight from the horse's mouth, but, it was
indeed hard to make sense out was said by Gibberish Joe and Word Salad
Kammy
How many years until idjt becomes responsible?
How many before you admit Joe was inept?
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
That's what we call straight from the horse's mouth, but, it was
indeed hard to make sense out was said by Gibberish Joe and Word Salad Kammy
How many years until idjt becomes responsible?
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67c3529f$0$18 $[email protected]:
In article <vpvggh$apc8$[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
That's what we call straight from the horse's mouth, but, it was
indeed hard to make sense out was said by Gibberish Joe and Word Salad >> > Kammy
How many years until idjt becomes responsible?
Well?
How many before you admit Joe was inept?
Joe was never a convicted felon.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67c3529f$0$18
$[email protected]:
In article <vpvggh$apc8$[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
That's what we call straight from the horse's mouth, but, it was
indeed hard to make sense out was said by Gibberish Joe and Word
Salad Kammy
How many years until idjt becomes responsible?
Well?
Responsable for what?
How many before you admit Joe was inept?
Joe was never a convicted felon.
Only because he was covered by crooked people.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 07:53:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 10:11 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:06:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 4:29 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:22:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 8:16 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:11:15 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 8:03 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:50:25 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 7:37 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:18:39 -0800, Josh RosenbluthNot always (you can't see everything live from Air Force One or the Oval
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 2:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:<LOL> Nonsense. they can watch it live on TV and the internet. >>>>>>>>>>
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:14:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
Very few people get to go in the Oval Office. The AP wants to be in
the press room, but there's many, many who don't get to be there. It's
not that big a room.
Of course space is limited and some will be left out. But, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated question remains whether a person or organization can be
barred based on their viewpoint.
Batrred for what? Asking questions?
No. Barred from being in the press pool.
Which only prevents them from asking questions.
It prevents them from having first-hand knowledge of press events. >>>>>>>>>>>
Office). And they don't get the same perspective even if they can watch
it remotely.
The link explains the complication. Try reading it this time. >>>>>>>>>>Go back and read this link:"Complicated" is when you can't come up with a real reply >>>>>>>>>>
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/
It says the issue is complicated even though it is clear that Trump can
ignore the AP, thus barring them from asking questions. >>>>>>>>>>>
The
Nonsense. There may have been consequences back before the TV and >>>>>>>>> internet coverage, but not today. Today it only keeps them from asking
questions, which is what Biden did.
I should have said complication instead of consequences. I'm not >>>>>>> paying much attention to your arguments because of their
insignificance.
You didn't read the link, did you?
Oh, yes I did. A bunch of old issues (complications) that don't apply >>>>>>> anymore.
The link lists three appellate-court precedents that disagree with you. >>>>>> One is old (1977), the other two are not (2021 and 2022).
"that recognize a right not to be excluded based on viewpoint from
large press conferences that are generally open to a wide range of
reporters."
`
The Oval office, the white house press room and Air Force one are not >>>>> open to a wide range of reporters. The space is very limited.
Going on from the link:
"But what about in-between events, which are open only to a small set of >>>> reporters? Air Force One apparently has 13 press seats, and I take it
the Oval Office is likewise limited."
"John K. Maciver Inst. seems to suggest that even for such events,
reporters can't be selected in viewpoint-based ways"
"I'm not sure this is right: I would think that when "only some members >>>> of the press are invited" the government official should be able to pick >>>> and choose those with whom he wants to have a conversation."
"I think that for Air Force One and Oval Office appearances, the best I >>>> can say is that the First Amendment analysis is unsettled."
It's complicated.
At least for you and the guy that wrote that article.
It's not complicated if your opinion, and the opinions of those who
agree with you, are the only ones that matter.
True but what about anyone other than you and your two opinion pieces?
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
That's what we call straight from the horse's mouth, but, it was
indeed hard to make sense out was said by Gibberish Joe and Word Salad
Kammy
How many years until idjt becomes responsible?
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 10:40:44 -0800, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-28 03:58, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:50:25 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 7:37 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:18:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 2:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:14:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
Very few people get to go in the Oval Office. The AP wants to be in >>>>>>>>>>> the press room, but there's many, many who don't get to be there. It's
not that big a room.
Of course space is limited and some will be left out. But, the >>>>>>>>>> complicated question remains whether a person or organization can be >>>>>>>>>> barred based on their viewpoint.
Batrred for what? Asking questions?
No. Barred from being in the press pool.
Which only prevents them from asking questions.
It prevents them from having first-hand knowledge of press events.
<LOL> Nonsense. they can watch it live on TV and the internet.
Not always (you can't see everything live from Air Force One or the Oval >>>> Office). And they don't get the same perspective even if they can watch >>>> it remotely.
Go back and read this link:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/
It says the issue is complicated even though it is clear that Trump can >>>>>> ignore the AP, thus barring them from asking questions.
"Complicated" is when you can't come up with a real reply
The link explains the complication. Try reading it this time.
The
There's no need to be rude. The opinion piece does not change
reality. Not everyone who wants to attend can.
Get over it.
So once you're down to a single "reporter" from Fox (and TASS of
course), you'll be fine with that?
Nowhere did I say that.
Do try to stick with what I *did* say.
|
| CDC Staff Prohibited From Co-Authoring Papers With World
| Health Organization Personnel
|
| It's just the latest "Orwellian" crackdown on government
| scientists.
| ... <https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cdc-who-publication-memo_n_67c1eb34e4b0bf54864084cf>
--bks
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 09:35:13 -0800, Siri Cruise
<[email protected]> wrote:
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
That's what we call straight from the horse's mouth, but, it was
indeed hard to make sense out was said by Gibberish Joe and Word Salad
Kammy
How many years until idjt becomes responsible?
At least one - or if a result can be directly attributable to a Trump decision.
Why do you ask?
|
| CDC Staff Prohibited From Co-Authoring Papers With World
| Health Organization Personnel
|
| It's just the latest "Orwellian" crackdown on government
| scientists.
| ...
<https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cdc-who-publication-memo_n_67c1eb34e4b0bf54864084cf>
--bks
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 15:02:55 -0800, Josh RosenbluthEvery right-wingnut posting to a.f.r-l. is nothing but a troll.
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/28/2025 10:00 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 07:53:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 10:11 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:06:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 4:29 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:22:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 8:16 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:11:15 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 8:03 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:50:25 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 7:37 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:18:39 -0800, Josh RosenbluthNot always (you can't see everything live from Air Force One or the Oval
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/27/2025 2:43 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:14:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
Very few people get to go in the Oval Office. The AP wants to be in
the press room, but there's many, many who don't get to be there. It's
not that big a room.
Of course space is limited and some will be left out. But, the
complicated question remains whether a person or organization can be
barred based on their viewpoint.
Batrred for what? Asking questions?
No. Barred from being in the press pool.
Which only prevents them from asking questions.
It prevents them from having first-hand knowledge of press events.
<LOL> Nonsense. they can watch it live on TV and the internet. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Office). And they don't get the same perspective even if they can watch
it remotely.
The link explains the complication. Try reading it this time. >>>>>>>>>>>>Go back and read this link:"Complicated" is when you can't come up with a real reply >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/
It says the issue is complicated even though it is clear that Trump can
ignore the AP, thus barring them from asking questions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The
Nonsense. There may have been consequences back before the TV and >>>>>>>>>>> internet coverage, but not today. Today it only keeps them from asking
questions, which is what Biden did.
I should have said complication instead of consequences. I'm not >>>>>>>>> paying much attention to your arguments because of their
insignificance.
You didn't read the link, did you?
Oh, yes I did. A bunch of old issues (complications) that don't apply >>>>>>>>> anymore.
The link lists three appellate-court precedents that disagree with you.
One is old (1977), the other two are not (2021 and 2022).
"that recognize a right not to be excluded based on viewpoint from >>>>>>> large press conferences that are generally open to a wide range of >>>>>>> reporters."
`
The Oval office, the white house press room and Air Force one are not >>>>>>> open to a wide range of reporters. The space is very limited.
Going on from the link:
"But what about in-between events, which are open only to a small set of >>>>>> reporters? Air Force One apparently has 13 press seats, and I take it >>>>>> the Oval Office is likewise limited."
"John K. Maciver Inst. seems to suggest that even for such events, >>>>>> reporters can't be selected in viewpoint-based ways"
"I'm not sure this is right: I would think that when "only some members >>>>>> of the press are invited" the government official should be able to pick >>>>>> and choose those with whom he wants to have a conversation."
"I think that for Air Force One and Oval Office appearances, the best I >>>>>> can say is that the First Amendment analysis is unsettled."
It's complicated.
At least for you and the guy that wrote that article.
It's not complicated if your opinion, and the opinions of those who
agree with you, are the only ones that matter.
There you go....
Yes, you are a self-centered troll.
Laughter. So everyone who disagrees with you is this.
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house- >>>>> trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me
hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-
press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates- >>> first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
So you don't trust it with Trump in charge?
On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 14:56:06 -0500, Moron-a-lago
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 08:43:43 -0500, Blue Lives Matter >><Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 12:40:34 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>Sherman) wrote:
|
| Voice of America, the federally funded broadcaster to the
| world, has long prided itself on serving as an accurate and
| fair source of news and on being independent of whichever
| president and party are in power in the United States.
|
| Since the election of President Trump, that independence is
| increasingly being tested.
|
| In recent months, Voice of America's parent organization,
| the U.S. Agency for Global Media, has opened
| human-resources investigations into Voice of America
| journalists for reporting on criticism of Mr. Trump or for
| making comments that were perceived as critical of him,
| according to several employees. Some journalists raised
| concerns about the investigations in a meeting this week
| with the broadcaster's director.
| ... >>>><https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/business/voice-of-america-trump.html> >>>>
--bks
What ind of a moron would trust a government run news media?
So you don't trust it with Trump in charge?
Nope.. They all lie.
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 08:43:43 -0500, Blue Lives Matter ><Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 12:40:34 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Voice of America, the federally funded broadcaster to the
| world, has long prided itself on serving as an accurate and
| fair source of news and on being independent of whichever
| president and party are in power in the United States.
|
| Since the election of President Trump, that independence is
| increasingly being tested.
|
| In recent months, Voice of America's parent organization,
| the U.S. Agency for Global Media, has opened
| human-resources investigations into Voice of America
| journalists for reporting on criticism of Mr. Trump or for
| making comments that were perceived as critical of him,
| according to several employees. Some journalists raised
| concerns about the investigations in a meeting this week
| with the broadcaster's director.
| ... >>><https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/business/voice-of-america-trump.html> >>>
--bks
What ind of a moron would trust a government run news media?
So you don't trust it with Trump in charge?
|
| Trump and the Press
|
| The president wants journalists to parrot his views and
| face consequences if they don't.
| ...
| In recent years, the effort has gained momentum.
| Politicians and other public figures -- including Trump,
| Sarah Palin and the Republican megadonor Steve Wynn -- have
| asked judges to overturn or narrow the Sullivan precedents.
| At least two Supreme Court justices have endorsed that
| effort, though it's unclear whether any of their colleagues
| will join them. An intermediate option might be for the
| court to tighten the definition of who is a public figure
| so that more famous people could win libel suits.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/03/briefing/donald-trump-press.html>
--bks
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:19:53 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Trump and the Press
|
| The president wants journalists to parrot his views and
| face consequences if they don't.
| ...
| In recent years, the effort has gained momentum.
| Politicians and other public figures -- including Trump,
| Sarah Palin and the Republican megadonor Steve Wynn -- have
| asked judges to overturn or narrow the Sullivan precedents.
| At least two Supreme Court justices have endorsed that
| effort, though it's unclear whether any of their colleagues
| will join them. An intermediate option might be for the
| court to tighten the definition of who is a public figure
| so that more famous people could win libel suits.
| ... >><https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/03/briefing/donald-trump-press.html>
--bks
Laughter.
If anything the definition of libel should be loosened.
| Trump and the Press
|
| The president wants journalists to parrot his views and
| face consequences if they don't.
| Trump and the Press
|
| The president wants journalists to parrot his views and
| face consequences if they don't.
|
| ACLU Strongly Condemns Unlawful Arrest and Detention of
| Columbia Student Activist
| ...
<https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-strongly-condemns-unlawful-arrest-and-detention-of-columbia-student-activist>
--bks
Bluegirl <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote:
...
| ACLU Strongly Condemns Unlawful Arrest and Detention of...
| Columbia Student Activist
NObody with half a wit cares what the ACLU says any longer.
See Subject line.
--bks
...
| ACLU Strongly Condemns Unlawful Arrest and Detention of...
| Columbia Student Activist
NObody with half a wit cares what the ACLU says any longer.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 20:53:34 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
Bluegirl <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote:
...
| ACLU Strongly Condemns Unlawful Arrest and Detention of...
| Columbia Student Activist
NObody with half a wit cares what the ACLU says any longer.
See Subject line.
--bks
Nobody with half a wit cares what any lefist fruitcake says.
There's something wrong with [the democrats]
--Trump
In article <[email protected]>,
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 20:53:34 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
Bluegirl <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote:
...
| ACLU Strongly Condemns Unlawful Arrest and Detention of...
| Columbia Student Activist
NObody with half a wit cares what the ACLU says any longer.
See Subject line.
--bks
Nobody with half a wit cares what any lefist fruitcake says.
Whereas only halfwits care what any rightist buffoon says.
There's something wrong with [the democrats]
--Trump
See what I mean everyone?
| Trump and the Press
|
| The president wants journalists to parrot his views and
| face consequences if they don't.
|
| ACLU Strongly Condemns Unlawful Arrest and Detention of
| Columbia Student Activist
| ...
<https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-strongly-condemns-unlawful-arres >t-and-detention-of-columbia-student-activist>
--bks
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza
| violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General
| Todd Blanche said today.
|
| Donald Trump once again lashed out at the media, calling
| CNN and MSNBC "corrupt" and "illegal" for reporting
| negatively about him.
| ...
<https://deadline.com/2025/03/trump-cnn-msnbc-illegal-1236327237/>
--bks
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza
| violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General
| Todd Blanche said today.
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza
| violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General
| Todd Blanche said today.
|
| First They Came for Columbia
| ...
<https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/14/enos-levitsky-harvard-columbia-trump/>
--bks
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza
| violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General
| Todd Blanche said today.
|
| Donald Trump once again lashed out at the media, calling
| CNN and MSNBC "corrupt" and "illegal" for reporting
| negatively about him.
| ...
<https://deadline.com/2025/03/trump-cnn-msnbc-illegal-1236327237/>
--bks
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:03:28 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza
| violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General
| Todd Blanche said today.
|
| First They Came for Columbia
| ...
<https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/14/enos-levitsky-harvard-columbia-trump/>
--bks
Promoting terrorist activities is illegal.
On 3/15/2025 1:45 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:03:28 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza
| violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General
| Todd Blanche said today.
|
| First They Came for Columbia
| ...
<https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/14/enos-levitsky-harvard-columbia-trump/>
--bks
Promoting terrorist activities is illegal.
The First Amendment protects citizen-uttered speech in support of
terrorism.
Whether it protects a non-citizen is an unsettled legal issue.
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza
| violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General
| Todd Blanche said today.
| First They Came for Columbia
| Donald Trump once again lashed out at the media, calling
| CNN and MSNBC "corrupt" and "illegal" for reporting
| negatively about him.
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza
| violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General
| Todd Blanche said today.
|
| Donald Trump once again lashed out at the media, calling
| CNN and MSNBC "corrupt" and "illegal" for reporting
| negatively about him.
| ...
<https://deadline.com/2025/03/trump-cnn-msnbc-illegal-1236327237/>
--bks
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:06:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 1:45 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:03:28 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza
| violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General
| Todd Blanche said today.
|
| First They Came for Columbia
| ...
<https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/14/enos-levitsky-harvard-columbia-trump/>
--bks
Promoting terrorist activities is illegal.
The First Amendment protects citizen-uttered speech in support of
terrorism.
In your opinion, anyway. The hard fact is that freedom of speech does
have limitations. One such limit is disturbing the peace, another is
using fighting words.
Whether it protects a non-citizen is an unsettled legal issue.
At any rate, it seems that we'll find out.
On 3/15/2025 10:58 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:06:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 1:45 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:03:28 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza
| violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General
| Todd Blanche said today.
|
| First They Came for Columbia
| ...
<https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/14/enos-levitsky-harvard-columbia-trump/>
--bks
Promoting terrorist activities is illegal.
The First Amendment protects citizen-uttered speech in support of
terrorism.
In your opinion, anyway. The hard fact is that freedom of speech does
have limitations. One such limit is disturbing the peace, another is
using fighting words.
Khalil is not being charged with disturbing the peace nor using fighting >words.
Whether it protects a non-citizen is an unsettled legal issue.
At any rate, it seems that we'll find out.
On 3/16/2025 10:24 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 10:58 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:06:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 1:45 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:03:28 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza
| violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General
| Todd Blanche said today.
|
| First They Came for Columbia
| ...
<https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/14/enos-levitsky-harvard-columbia-trump/>
--bks
Promoting terrorist activities is illegal.
The First Amendment protects citizen-uttered speech in support of
terrorism.
In your opinion, anyway. The hard fact is that freedom of speech does
have limitations. One such limit is disturbing the peace, another is
using fighting words.
Khalil is not being charged with disturbing the peace nor using fighting >>> words.
Whether it protects a non-citizen is an unsettled legal issue.
At any rate, it seems that we'll find out.
No, you poor thing. Those are limitations of free speech.
SFW. Khalil is not being charged with anything that is limitation of
freedom of speech.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 10:58 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:06:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 1:45 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:03:28 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza
| violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General
| Todd Blanche said today.
|
| First They Came for Columbia
| ...
<https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/14/enos-levitsky-harvard-columbia-trump/>
--bks
Promoting terrorist activities is illegal.
The First Amendment protects citizen-uttered speech in support of
terrorism.
In your opinion, anyway. The hard fact is that freedom of speech does
have limitations. One such limit is disturbing the peace, another is
using fighting words.
Khalil is not being charged with disturbing the peace nor using fighting
words.
Whether it protects a non-citizen is an unsettled legal issue.
At any rate, it seems that we'll find out.
No, you poor thing. Those are limitations of free speech.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 15:21:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:24 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 10:58 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:06:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 1:45 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:03:28 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student
| protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza >>>>>>>>>> | violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General >>>>>>>>>> | Todd Blanche said today.
|
| First They Came for Columbia
| ...
<https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/14/enos-levitsky-harvard-columbia-trump/>
--bks
Promoting terrorist activities is illegal.
The First Amendment protects citizen-uttered speech in support of
terrorism.
In your opinion, anyway. The hard fact is that freedom of speech does >>>>> have limitations. One such limit is disturbing the peace, another is >>>>> using fighting words.
Khalil is not being charged with disturbing the peace nor using fighting >>>> words.
Whether it protects a non-citizen is an unsettled legal issue.
At any rate, it seems that we'll find out.
No, you poor thing. Those are limitations of free speech.
SFW. Khalil is not being charged with anything that is limitation of
freedom of speech.
Actually, he doesn't even need to be charged. The first Amendment does
not protect him from being deported.
On 3/16/2025 3:47 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 15:21:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:24 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 10:58 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:06:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 1:45 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:03:28 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student >>>>>>>>>>> | protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza >>>>>>>>>>> | violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General >>>>>>>>>>> | Todd Blanche said today.
|
| First They Came for Columbia
| ...
<https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/14/enos-levitsky-harvard-columbia-trump/>
--bks
Promoting terrorist activities is illegal.
The First Amendment protects citizen-uttered speech in support of >>>>>>> terrorism.
In your opinion, anyway. The hard fact is that freedom of speech does >>>>>> have limitations. One such limit is disturbing the peace, another is >>>>>> using fighting words.
Khalil is not being charged with disturbing the peace nor using fighting >>>>> words.
Whether it protects a non-citizen is an unsettled legal issue.
At any rate, it seems that we'll find out.
No, you poor thing. Those are limitations of free speech.
SFW. Khalil is not being charged with anything that is limitation of
freedom of speech.
Actually, he doesn't even need to be charged. The first Amendment does
not protect him from being deported.
As I already said, that's not settled law.
On 3/16/2025 3:47 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 15:21:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:24 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 10:58 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:06:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 1:45 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:03:28 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student >>>>>>>>>>> | protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza >>>>>>>>>>> | violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General >>>>>>>>>>> | Todd Blanche said today.
|
| First They Came for Columbia
| ...
<https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/14/enos-levitsky-harvard-columbia-trump/>
--bks
Promoting terrorist activities is illegal.
The First Amendment protects citizen-uttered speech in support of >>>>>>> terrorism.
In your opinion, anyway. The hard fact is that freedom of speech does >>>>>> have limitations. One such limit is disturbing the peace, another is >>>>>> using fighting words.
Khalil is not being charged with disturbing the peace nor using fighting >>>>> words.
Whether it protects a non-citizen is an unsettled legal issue.
At any rate, it seems that we'll find out.
No, you poor thing. Those are limitations of free speech.
SFW. Khalil is not being charged with anything that is limitation of
freedom of speech.
Actually, he doesn't even need to be charged. The first Amendment does
not protect him from being deported.
As I already said, that's not settled law.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 17:10:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 3:47 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 15:21:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:24 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 10:58 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:06:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 1:45 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:03:28 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
| The US Justice Department is examining whether student >>>>>>>>>>>> | protests at Columbia University over the genocide in Gaza >>>>>>>>>>>> | violated federal terrorism laws, Deputy Attorney General >>>>>>>>>>>> | Todd Blanche said today.
|
| First They Came for Columbia
| ...
<https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/14/enos-levitsky-harvard-columbia-trump/>
--bks
Promoting terrorist activities is illegal.
The First Amendment protects citizen-uttered speech in support of >>>>>>>> terrorism.
In your opinion, anyway. The hard fact is that freedom of speech does >>>>>>> have limitations. One such limit is disturbing the peace, another is >>>>>>> using fighting words.
Khalil is not being charged with disturbing the peace nor using fighting >>>>>> words.
Whether it protects a non-citizen is an unsettled legal issue.
At any rate, it seems that we'll find out.
No, you poor thing. Those are limitations of free speech.
SFW. Khalil is not being charged with anything that is limitation of
freedom of speech.
Actually, he doesn't even need to be charged. The first Amendment does
not protect him from being deported.
As I already said, that's not settled law.
Deporting him definitely settles the matter...
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
|
| Valerie Costa never expected to be directly in Elon Musk's
| crosshairs, but here she is.
|
| Costa, 43, is a community organizer in Seattle who
| co-founded an environmental activist group called the
| Troublemakers. Recently, she has helped organize peaceful
| local protests as part of Tesla Takedown, demonstrations
| happening worldwide objecting to Tesla CEO Elon Musk's
| campaign of slashing and disrupting the federal government.
|
| In a post on X about the protest movement, Musk claimed
| Costa's Seattle group was backed by Act Blue, an online
| fundraising platform for Democrats.
|
| She was baffled.
|
| "I was like, uh, we're not Act Blue funded. We don't use
| Act Blue. We have no connection to Act Blue. We have like
| $3,000 in our bank account. I could tell you every single
| person who donated," Costa said.
|
| Before Costa could figure out how to respond, Musk fired
| off another post. This time it was even more personal and
| inflammatory. It said: "Costa is committing crimes," with a
| video clip of her appearing on a podcast.
|
| Musk's post provided no evidence or specific allegations,
| but the message was clear: Musk was falsely blaming Costa
| for violence directed at Tesla cars and facilities since
| President Trump's inauguration and Musk assumed an
| influential perch in the White House.
| ...
<https://www.npr.org/2025/03/17/nx-s1-5328626/elon-musk-protests-tesla-takedown>
--bks
| Valerie Costa never expected to be directly in Elon Musk's
| crosshairs, but here she is.
|
| Costa, 43, is a community organizer in Seattle who
| co-founded an environmental activist group called the
| Troublemakers. Recently, she has helped organize peaceful
| local protests as part of Tesla Takedown, demonstrations
| happening worldwide objecting to Tesla CEO Elon Musk's
| campaign of slashing and disrupting the federal government.
|
| In a post on X about the protest movement, Musk claimed
| Costa's Seattle group was backed by Act Blue, an online
| fundraising platform for Democrats.
|
| She was baffled.
|
| "I was like, uh, we're not Act Blue funded. We don't use
| Act Blue. We have no connection to Act Blue. We have like
| $3,000 in our bank account. I could tell you every single
| person who donated," Costa said.
|
| Before Costa could figure out how to respond, Musk fired
| off another post. This time it was even more personal and
| inflammatory. It said: "Costa is committing crimes," with a
| video clip of her appearing on a podcast.
| Musk's post provided no evidence or specific allegations,
| but the message was clear: Musk was falsely blaming Costa
| for violence directed at Tesla cars and facilities since
| President Trump's inauguration and Musk assumed an
| influential perch in the White House.
| ... <https://www.npr.org/2025/03/17/nx-s1-5328626/elon-musk-protests-tesla-takedown>
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in >news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
| Musk's post provided no evidence or specific allegations,<LOL> Pecefull protests....
| but the message was clear: Musk was falsely blaming Costa
| for violence directed at Tesla cars and facilities since
| President Trump's inauguration and Musk assumed an
| influential perch in the White House.
| ...
<https://www.npr.org/2025/03/17/nx-s1-5328626/elon-musk-protests-tesla-takedown>
--bks
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one. Don't ask what it is. If you don't know, look it up.
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
| Musk's post provided no evidence or specific allegations,<LOL> Pecefull protests....
| but the message was clear: Musk was falsely blaming Costa
| for violence directed at Tesla cars and facilities since
| President Trump's inauguration and Musk assumed an
| influential perch in the White House.
| ...
<https://www.npr.org/2025/03/17/nx-s1-5328626/elon-musk-protests-tesla-takedown>
--bks
When we still had a Constitution an accusation needed evidence.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 07:05:45 -0400, NoBody <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 17:10:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, he doesn't even need to be charged. The first Amendment does >>>> not protect him from being deported.
As I already said, that's not settled law.
Deporting him definitely settles the matter...
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one. Don't ask what it is. If you don't know, look it up.
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
On 3/17/2025 4:21 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 07:05:45 -0400, NoBody <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 17:10:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
Actually, he doesn't even need to be charged. The first Amendment does >>>>> not protect him from being deported.
As I already said, that's not settled law.
Deporting him definitely settles the matter...
He hasn't been deported. A judge forbade the administration from doing so while
the case is being litigated.
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one. Don't ask what it is. If you don't know, look it up.
The reason was his advocacy for Hamas. If a citizen did that, they are protected
by the First Amendment from punishment. Again (why do I have to repeat myself),
whether (as a green-card holder) he can be deported for it is unsettled law.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
A person born to a citizen. Duh!
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:17:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in >>news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
Birthright citenship has not "yet" been modified, but as always, the
US judicial system will decide.
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in news:[email protected]:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:17:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in >>news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
Birthright citenship has not "yet" been modified, but as always, the
US judicial system will decide.
The justicial system Trump already ignores.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 07:14:48 -0700, Siri Cruise
<[email protected]> wrote:
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
| Musk's post provided no evidence or specific allegations,<LOL> Pecefull protests....
| but the message was clear: Musk was falsely blaming Costa
| for violence directed at Tesla cars and facilities since
| President Trump's inauguration and Musk assumed an
| influential perch in the White House.
| ...
<https://www.npr.org/2025/03/17/nx-s1-5328626/elon-musk-protests-tesla-takedown>
--bks
When we still had a Constitution an accusation needed evidence.
Nonsense.. I accuse you of being a half wit.
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in >news:[email protected]:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:17:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in >>>news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
Birthright citenship has not "yet" been modified, but as always, the
US judicial system will decide.
The justicial system Trump already ignores.
The justicial system Trump already ignores.
Not so far, anyway...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in news:[email protected]:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:17:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
Birthright citenship has not "yet" been modified, but as always, the
US judicial system will decide.
The justicial system Trump already ignores.
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
The justicial system Trump already ignores.
Not so far, anyway...
You cannot take those prisonners to a gulag.
Already done.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d8531d$7$18
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
A person born to a citizen. Duh!
What makes that person a citizen
without birthright?
Nice try, you are a troll with no real ammo.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:17:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
Birthright citenship has not "yet" been modified, but as always, the
US judicial system will decide.
The justicial system Trump already ignores.
The same system that wants to protect illegal gang members?
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d8725d$2$22 $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:17:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
Birthright citenship has not "yet" been modified, but as always, the
US judicial system will decide.
The justicial system Trump already ignores.
The same system that wants to protect illegal gang members?
Yep.
"The Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the
United States, including aliens, whether their presence is
lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."
The US Supreme Court, Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) <http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-7791.html>
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d87285$3$15 $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d8531d$7$18
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this >> >> > case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
A person born to a citizen. Duh!
What makes that person a citizen
without birthright?
Nice try, you are a troll with no real ammo.
Just answer the question.
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
| Musk's post provided no evidence or specific allegations,<LOL> Pecefull protests....
| but the message was clear: Musk was falsely blaming Costa
| for violence directed at Tesla cars and facilities since
| President Trump's inauguration and Musk assumed an
| influential perch in the White House.
| ...
<https://www.npr.org/2025/03/17/nx-s1-5328626/elon-musk-protests-tesla-takedown>
--bks
When we still had a Constitution an accusation needed evidence.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:17:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
Birthright citenship has not "yet" been modified, but as always, the
US judicial system will decide.
The justicial system Trump already ignores.
The same system that wants to protect illegal gang members?
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 07:14:48 -0700, Siri Cruise
<[email protected]> wrote:
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
| Musk's post provided no evidence or specific allegations,<LOL> Pecefull protests....
| but the message was clear: Musk was falsely blaming Costa
| for violence directed at Tesla cars and facilities since
| President Trump's inauguration and Musk assumed an
| influential perch in the White House.
| ...
<https://www.npr.org/2025/03/17/nx-s1-5328626/elon-musk-protests-tesla-takedown>
--bks
When we still had a Constitution an accusation needed evidence.
Nonsense.. I accuse you of being a half wit.
On 3/17/2025 4:21 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 07:05:45 -0400, NoBody <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 17:10:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
Actually, he doesn't even need to be charged. The first Amendment does >>>>> not protect him from being deported.
As I already said, that's not settled law.
Deporting him definitely settles the matter...
He hasn't been deported. A judge forbade the administration from doing
so while the case is being litigated.
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but in this
case he has one. Don't ask what it is. If you don't know, look it up.
The reason was his advocacy for Hamas. If a citizen did that, they are >protected by the First Amendment from punishment. Again (why do I have
to repeat myself), whether (as a green-card holder) he can be deported
for it is unsettled law.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d87285$3$15
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d8531d$7$18
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote
in news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but
in this case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
A person born to a citizen. Duh!
What makes that person a citizen
without birthright?
Nice try, you are a troll with no real ammo.
Just answer the question.
They cross legally and follow the rules and earn it.
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d8d9e0$7$2788$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d87285$3$15
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d8531d$7$18
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote
in news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but
in this case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
A person born to a citizen. Duh!
What makes that person a citizen
without birthright?
Nice try, you are a troll with no real ammo.
Just answer the question.
They cross legally and follow the rules and earn it.
What makes YOU an American citizen?
|<https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungarys-orban-vows-fast-crackdown-media-ngos-over-foreign-funding-2025-03-15/>
| Trump's Attempts to Muzzle the Press Look Familiar
|
| Much of what the U.S. president has done to curb
| independent media echoes the Hungarian autocrat Viktor
| Orban's playbook.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:36:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
The reason was his advocacy for Hamas. If a citizen did that, they are
protected by the First Amendment from punishment. Again (why do I have
to repeat myself), whether (as a green-card holder) he can be deported
for it is unsettled law.
"One of the most common reasons a green card holder can be deported is
for committing certain criminal acts. These can range from aggravated felonies to crimes involving moral turpitude (such as fraud or theft).
Some of the offenses that could trigger removal proceedings include:
Drug crimes
Violent crimes, including domestic violence
Firearms offenses
Crimes involving fraud or theft
Human trafficking or involvement in gang-related activities
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
|<https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungarys-orban-vows-fast-crackdow n-media-ngos-over-foreign-funding-2025-03-15/>
| Trump's Attempts to Muzzle the Press Look Familiar
|
| Much of what the U.S. president has done to curb
| independent media echoes the Hungarian autocrat Viktor
| Orban's playbook.
BUDAPEST, March 15 (Reuters) - Tens of thousands rallied in
Budapest against Prime Minister Viktor Orban on Saturday, waving
the national flag as the leader of the surging opposition Tisza
party pledged to make Hungary part of a strong Europe and end
Orban's 15-year rule.
Peter Magyar, a former government insider, launched his movement a
year ago, and his Tisza party - named after Hungary's second
biggest river - leads Orban's Fidesz in most polls, a year before
elections in 2026 and as the economy struggles.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected][email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d8d9e0$7$2788$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d87285$3$15
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d8531d$7$18
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote
in news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but
in this case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
A person born to a citizen. Duh!
What makes that person a citizen
without birthright?
Nice try, you are a troll with no real ammo.
Just answer the question.
They cross legally and follow the rules and earn it.
What makes YOU an American citizen?
Idiot.
On 3/18/2025 4:21 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:36:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
The reason was his advocacy for Hamas. If a citizen did that, they are
protected by the First Amendment from punishment. Again (why do I have
to repeat myself), whether (as a green-card holder) he can be deported
for it is unsettled law.
"One of the most common reasons a green card holder can be deported is
for committing certain criminal acts. These can range from aggravated
felonies to crimes involving moral turpitude (such as fraud or theft).
Some of the offenses that could trigger removal proceedings include:
Drug crimes
Violent crimes, including domestic violence
Firearms offenses
Crimes involving fraud or theft
Human trafficking or involvement in gang-related activities
None of which are protected by the First Amendment. What is unsettled
law is whether a green-card holder can be deported for speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrc1po$2ngpu$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/18/2025 4:21 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:36:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
The reason was his advocacy for Hamas. If a citizen did that, they are >>>> protected by the First Amendment from punishment. Again (why do I have >>>> to repeat myself), whether (as a green-card holder) he can be deported >>>> for it is unsettled law.
"One of the most common reasons a green card holder can be deported is
for committing certain criminal acts. These can range from aggravated
felonies to crimes involving moral turpitude (such as fraud or theft).
Some of the offenses that could trigger removal proceedings include:
Drug crimes
Violent crimes, including domestic violence
Firearms offenses
Crimes involving fraud or theft
Human trafficking or involvement in gang-related activities
None of which are protected by the First Amendment. What is unsettled
law is whether a green-card holder can be deported for speech that is
protected by the First Amendment.
Since the First Amendment specificallyThe first amendment does not mention people in any way. It says:
protects PEOPLE, not citizens, it seens the
issue is settled.
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d98441$0$1783 $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected][email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d8d9e0$7$2788$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d87285$3$15
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d8531d$7$18 >>>>>>> $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote >>>>>>>>> in news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but >>>>>>>>>> in this case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
A person born to a citizen. Duh!
What makes that person a citizen
without birthright?
Nice try, you are a troll with no real ammo.
Just answer the question.
They cross legally and follow the rules and earn it.
What makes YOU an American citizen?
Idiot.
Tell us what makes you a citizen*All* citizenship law references birth.
without referencing your birth.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrc1po$2ngpu$1@dont- >email.me:
On 3/18/2025 4:21 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:36:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
The reason was his advocacy for Hamas. If a citizen did that, they are >>>> protected by the First Amendment from punishment. Again (why do I have >>>> to repeat myself), whether (as a green-card holder) he can be deported >>>> for it is unsettled law.
"One of the most common reasons a green card holder can be deported is
for committing certain criminal acts. These can range from aggravated
felonies to crimes involving moral turpitude (such as fraud or theft).
Some of the offenses that could trigger removal proceedings include:
Drug crimes
Violent crimes, including domestic violence
Firearms offenses
Crimes involving fraud or theft
Human trafficking or involvement in gang-related activities
None of which are protected by the First Amendment. What is unsettled
law is whether a green-card holder can be deported for speech that is
protected by the First Amendment.
Since the First Amendment specifically
protects PEOPLE, not citizens, it seens the
issue is settled.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrc1po$2ngpu$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/18/2025 4:21 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:36:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
The reason was his advocacy for Hamas. If a citizen did that, they are >>>> protected by the First Amendment from punishment. Again (why do I have >>>> to repeat myself), whether (as a green-card holder) he can be deported >>>> for it is unsettled law.
"One of the most common reasons a green card holder can be deported is
for committing certain criminal acts. These can range from aggravated
felonies to crimes involving moral turpitude (such as fraud or theft).
Some of the offenses that could trigger removal proceedings include:
Drug crimes
Violent crimes, including domestic violence
Firearms offenses
Crimes involving fraud or theft
Human trafficking or involvement in gang-related activities
None of which are protected by the First Amendment. What is unsettled
law is whether a green-card holder can be deported for speech that is
protected by the First Amendment.
Since the First Amendment specifically
protects PEOPLE, not citizens, it seens the
issue is settled.
Since the First Amendment specifically
protects PEOPLE, not citizens, it seens the
issue is settled.
No, it is not settled law.
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d98441$0$1783 $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected][email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d8d9e0$7$2788$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d87285$3$15
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d8531d$7$18 >>>>>>> $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote >>>>>>>>> in news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but >>>>>>>>>> in this case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
A person born to a citizen. Duh!
What makes that person a citizen
without birthright?
Nice try, you are a troll with no real ammo.
Just answer the question.
They cross legally and follow the rules and earn it.
What makes YOU an American citizen?
Idiot.
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d98441$0$1783 $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected][email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d8d9e0$7$2788$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d87285$3$15
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d8531d$7$18
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote
in news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, but
in this case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
A person born to a citizen. Duh!
What makes that person a citizen
without birthright?
Nice try, you are a troll with no real ammo.
Just answer the question.
They cross legally and follow the rules and earn it.
What makes YOU an American citizen?
Idiot.
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:25:31 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrc1po$2ngpu$1@dont- >>email.me:No Dummy, it's not settled. The "First" has many exceptions.
On 3/18/2025 4:21 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:36:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
The reason was his advocacy for Hamas. If a citizen did that, they
are protected by the First Amendment from punishment. Again (why
do I have to repeat myself), whether (as a green-card holder) he
can be deported for it is unsettled law.
"One of the most common reasons a green card holder can be deported
is for committing certain criminal acts. These can range from
aggravated felonies to crimes involving moral turpitude (such as
fraud or theft). Some of the offenses that could trigger removal
proceedings include:
Drug crimes
Violent crimes, including domestic violence
Firearms offenses
Crimes involving fraud or theft
Human trafficking or involvement in gang-related activities
None of which are protected by the First Amendment. What is
unsettled law is whether a green-card holder can be deported for
speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
Since the First Amendment specifically
protects PEOPLE, not citizens, it seens the
issue is settled.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d98441$0$1783
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected][email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d8d9e0$7$2788$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d87285$3$15 $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d8531d$7$18 $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA>
wrote in news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens,
but in this case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
A person born to a citizen. Duh!
What makes that person a citizen
without birthright?
Nice try, you are a troll with no real ammo.
Just answer the question.
They cross legally and follow the rules and earn it.
What makes YOU an American citizen?
Idiot.
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d98441$0$1783
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected][email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d8d9e0$7$2788$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d87285$3$15 $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d8531d$7$18 $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA>
wrote in news:[email protected]:
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens,
but in this case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
A person born to a citizen. Duh!
What makes that person a citizen
without birthright?
Nice try, you are a troll with no real ammo.
Just answer the question.
They cross legally and follow the rules and earn it.
What makes YOU an American citizen?
Idiot.
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in >news:[email protected]:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:25:31 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrc1po$2ngpu$1@dont- >>>email.me:No Dummy, it's not settled. The "First" has many exceptions.
On 3/18/2025 4:21 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:36:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
The reason was his advocacy for Hamas. If a citizen did that, they >>>>>> are protected by the First Amendment from punishment. Again (why
do I have to repeat myself), whether (as a green-card holder) he
can be deported for it is unsettled law.
"One of the most common reasons a green card holder can be deported
is for committing certain criminal acts. These can range from
aggravated felonies to crimes involving moral turpitude (such as
fraud or theft). Some of the offenses that could trigger removal
proceedings include:
Drug crimes
Violent crimes, including domestic violence
Firearms offenses
Crimes involving fraud or theft
Human trafficking or involvement in gang-related activities
None of which are protected by the First Amendment. What is
unsettled law is whether a green-card holder can be deported for
speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
Since the First Amendment specifically
protects PEOPLE, not citizens, it seens the
issue is settled.
Nothing in the First limits it's protections to citizens.
|
| Trump's Attempts to Muzzle the Press Look Familiar
|
| Much of what the U.S. president has done to curb
| independent media echoes the Hungarian autocrat Viktor
| Orban's playbook.
| ...
<https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/03/trumps-press-freedom-hungary-orban/682060/>
--bks
On 3/18/2025 4:21 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:36:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
The reason was his advocacy for Hamas. If a citizen did that, they are
protected by the First Amendment from punishment. Again (why do I have
to repeat myself), whether (as a green-card holder) he can be deported
for it is unsettled law.
"One of the most common reasons a green card holder can be deported is
for committing certain criminal acts. These can range from aggravated
felonies to crimes involving moral turpitude (such as fraud or theft).
Some of the offenses that could trigger removal proceedings include:
Drug crimes
Violent crimes, including domestic violence
Firearms offenses
Crimes involving fraud or theft
Human trafficking or involvement in gang-related activities
None of which are protected by the First Amendment. What is unsettled
law is whether a green-card holder can be deported for speech that is >protected by the First Amendment.
On 3/18/2025 10:25 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrc1po$2ngpu$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/18/2025 4:21 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:36:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
The reason was his advocacy for Hamas. If a citizen did that, they are >>>>> protected by the First Amendment from punishment. Again (why do I have >>>>> to repeat myself), whether (as a green-card holder) he can be deported >>>>> for it is unsettled law.
"One of the most common reasons a green card holder can be deported is >>>> for committing certain criminal acts. These can range from aggravated
felonies to crimes involving moral turpitude (such as fraud or theft). >>>> Some of the offenses that could trigger removal proceedings include:
Drug crimes
Violent crimes, including domestic violence
Firearms offenses
Crimes involving fraud or theft
Human trafficking or involvement in gang-related activities
None of which are protected by the First Amendment. What is unsettled
law is whether a green-card holder can be deported for speech that is
protected by the First Amendment.
Since the First Amendment specifically
protects PEOPLE, not citizens, it seens the
issue is settled.
No, it is not settled law.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/03/may-aliens-be-deported-based-on-their-speech/
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:00:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/18/2025 4:21 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:36:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
{snip}
The reason was his advocacy for Hamas. If a citizen did that, they are >>>> protected by the First Amendment from punishment. Again (why do I have >>>> to repeat myself), whether (as a green-card holder) he can be deported >>>> for it is unsettled law.
"One of the most common reasons a green card holder can be deported is
for committing certain criminal acts. These can range from aggravated
felonies to crimes involving moral turpitude (such as fraud or theft).
Some of the offenses that could trigger removal proceedings include:
Drug crimes
Violent crimes, including domestic violence
Firearms offenses
Crimes involving fraud or theft
Human trafficking or involvement in gang-related activities
None of which are protected by the First Amendment. What is unsettled
law is whether a green-card holder can be deported for speech that is
protected by the First Amendment.
The word you missed is "some". Advocating violence could be consiered
a violent crime.
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:19:42 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Trump's Attempts to Muzzle the Press Look Familiar
|
| Much of what the U.S. president has done to curb
| independent media echoes the Hungarian autocrat Viktor
| Orban's playbook.
| ... >><https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/03/trumps-press-freedom-hungary-orban/682060/>
--bks
Laughter. No wonder Trump refused to speak to that rag.
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67d98441$0$1783
$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected][email protected]
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d8d9e0$7$2788$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d87285$3$15 $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
says...
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d8531d$7$18 $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA>
wrote in news:[email protected]: >>>>>>>>>>>
And Rubio doesn't need a reason to deport non-citizens, >>>>>>>>>>>> but in this case he has one.
With no more birthright citizenship
who determines who is a citizen?
A person born to a citizen. Duh!
What makes that person a citizen
without birthright?
Nice try, you are a troll with no real ammo.
Just answer the question.
They cross legally and follow the rules and earn it.
What makes YOU an American citizen?
Idiot.
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps,
no, you had to present your birth certificate to get it. Next?You've been instructed on this many times. /jus soli/ birthright citizenship is not the only way to demonstrate citizenship. *NO* European nation has /jus soli/
None of which are protected by the First Amendment. What is unsettledThe word you missed is "some". Advocating violence could be consiered
law is whether a green-card holder can be deported for speech that is
protected by the First Amendment.
a violent crime.
|
| The FBI is moving to criminalize groups like Habitat for
| Humanity for receiving grants from the Environmental
| Protection Agency under the Biden administration.
|
| Citibank revealed in a court filing Wednesday that it was
| told to freeze the groups' bank accounts at the FBI's
| request. The reason? The FBI alleges that the groups are
| involved in "possible criminal violations," including
| "conspiracy to defraud the United States."
| ... <https://newrepublic.com/post/192660/trump-fbi-charge-climate-organizations>
--bks
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a citizen.
There are many options for doing so including having a new field
on the birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen
at birth (or not).
Why are you so stubborn about this, when you are clearly wrong?
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without birthright
citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a citizen. There are many
options for doing so including having a new field on the birth
certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen at birth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data error
proving I am not a citizen.
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
citizen. There are many options for doing so including having a
new field on the birth certificate that indicates whether you
were a citizen at birth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data
error proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a citizen.
There are many options for doing so including having a new field on
the birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen at
birth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data error
proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth certificates
and file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a citizen.
There are many options for doing so including having a new field on
the birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen at
birth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data error
proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth certificates
and file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born before
the change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
|
| The FBI is moving to criminalize groups like Habitat for
| Humanity for receiving grants from the Environmental
| Protection Agency under the Biden administration.
|
| Citibank revealed in a court filing Wednesday that it was
| told to freeze the groups' bank accounts at the FBI's
| request. The reason? The FBI alleges that the groups are
| involved in "possible criminal violations," including
| "conspiracy to defraud the United States."
| ...
<https://newrepublic.com/post/192660/trump-fbi-charge-climate-organizations>
--bks
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
{snip}
����� Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
��� Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without birthright
citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a citizen. There are many
options for doing so including having a new field on the birth
certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen at birth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data error
proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
|
| France's research minister said a French scientist was
| denied entry to the US this month after immigration
| officers at an airport searched his phone and found
| messages in which he had expressed criticism of the Trump
| administration.
| ...
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-musk-french-scie ntist-detained>
--bks
[email protected] (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in news:vrh3il$9cu$[email protected]:
|
| France's research minister said a French scientist was
| denied entry to the US this month after immigration
| officers at an airport searched his phone and found
| messages in which he had expressed criticism of the Trump
| administration.
| ... <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-musk-french-scie ntist-detained>
--bks
Even Putin doesn't go that far.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a citizen. >>>>>> There are many options for doing so including having a new field on >>>>>> the birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen at >>>>>> birth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data error >>>>> proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth certificates
and file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born before
the change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a citizen. >>>>>> There are many options for doing so including having a new field on >>>>>> the birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen at >>>>>> birth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data error >>>>> proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth certificates
and file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born before
the change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025.
For everyone born in America after that:They are issued a new identity document — either an entirely new identity document, or a birth certificate with a new citizenship box or field — that indicates their citizenship. If one or both parents is a U.S. citizen, then the baby's citizenship is marked as U.S. citizen. The U.S. citizen parent proves his
How do they prove their citizenship?
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a citizen. >>>>>>> There are many options for doing so including having a new field on >>>>>>> the birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen at >>>>>>> birth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data error >>>>>> proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth certificates >>>> and file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born before
the change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 on will have a
new field which states whether the child was a citizen at birth. If at least one
parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., a traditional pre-2025 birth
certificate), then the field is marked "yes."
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens at birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving they are a citizen
(the field says "yes").
Ah now Bradley comes out in favor of defrauding the government....
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:citizenship box
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
citizen. There are many options for doing so including having a
new field on the birth certificate that indicates whether you
were a citizen at birth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data
error proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
certificates and file them correctly in all the counties and then
redo all the databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born
before the change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025.
There are two concepts of birthright citizenship. Why can you not
learn this?
For everyone born in America after that:They are issued a new identity document — either an entirely new
How do they prove their citizenship?
identity document, or a --> birth <--- certificate with a new
or field — that indicates their citizenship. If one or both parentsU.S.,
is a U.S. citizen, then the baby's citizenship is marked as U.S.
citizen. The U.S. citizen parent proves his or her citizenship by
showing a pre-2026 U.S. ---> birth <---certificate showing birth in the
or a U.S. passport, or American naturalization documents. The parent
having established U.S. citizenship, the baby's is established as
well.
That's how every European country, and many other countries around the
world, does it. It works.
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:citizen.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
onThere are many options for doing so including having a new field
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data
certificatesproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at birth."yes."
If at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., a traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens at
birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving they
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:citizen.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
onThere are many options for doing so including having a new field
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data
certificatesproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at birth."yes."
If at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., a
traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens at
birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving they
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own
or thru a parent.
That is still citizenship based on birth.
Even the Trump xenophobes cannot come up
with an alternative to that
Lou Bricano <[email protected]> wrote in news:bTXCP.57245$[email protected]:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:citizenship box
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
citizen. There are many options for doing so including having a >>>>>>>> new field on the birth certificate that indicates whether you
were a citizen at birth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data
error proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
certificates and file them correctly in all the counties and then
redo all the databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born
before the change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025.
There are two concepts of birthright citizenship. Why can you not
learn this?
For everyone born in America after that:They are issued a new identity document — either an entirely new
How do they prove their citizenship?
identity document, or a --> birth <--- certificate with a new
or field — that indicates their citizenship. If one or both parentsU.S.,
is a U.S. citizen, then the baby's citizenship is marked as U.S.
citizen. The U.S. citizen parent proves his or her citizenship by
showing a pre-2026 U.S. ---> birth <---certificate showing birth in the
or a U.S. passport, or American naturalization documents. The parent
having established U.S. citizenship, the baby's is established as
well.
Your proposals all hinge on birthright
citizenshoip. Either directly or thru a
parent.
When high school senior Theodore Cleaver
goes to the Social Security office for an
SS Card
need to bring with him?
Well, Holman?That's how every European country, and many other countries around the
world, does it. It works.
That's right. It's called /jus sanguinis/ birthright citizenship,
as I have instructed you literally dozens of times. Look them up:
/jus sanguinis/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
/jus soli/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Holman knows there is no technical impediment to this. He favors
/jus soli/ birthright citizenship for political reasons, not
because /jus sanguinis/ is infeasible. But he knows he can't make
a case for /jus soli/ on its merits. Maybe someone can, but Holman
can't, so he uses fictional infeasibility as a stalking horse.
That's how every European country, and many other countries around
the world, does it. It works.
U.S. Theodore's children or grandchildren born *after* the
beneficial change in the law that I propose would have to bring a
birth certificate or some other document that shows their American citizenship at birth.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:citizen.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
onThere are many options for doing so including having a new field
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data
certificatesproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at birth."yes."
If at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., a
traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens at
birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving they
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Even the Trump xenophobes cannot come up
with an alternative to that..........
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:citizen.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
onThere are many options for doing so including having a new field
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data
certificatesproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at birth."yes."
If at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., a
traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens at
birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving they
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
The anchor baby loophole needs to be stopped.
Women waddling into the country and dropping a kid 2 days after they arrive need to somehow be regulated.
And no, I don't know how but I do know it's fraud and it's very widespread.
On 3/20/2025 10:57 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:@dont-
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1
fieldcitizen.email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
There are many options for doing so including having a new
birth.on
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data
certificatesproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no >>>>>>> birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at
theyIf at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., a"yes."
traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens at
birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
On 3/20/2025 10:57 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:citizen.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
onThere are many options for doing so including having a new
field
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a
citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data
certificatesproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to
no birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at"yes."
birth. If at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen
(e.g., a traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is
marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens at
birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving
they are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own
No, not after our current court-imposed citizenship regime is changed.
or thru a parent.
Not "or" — *exclusively* through a parent. A child is born a citizen
if at least one parent is a citizen. Note that that's true even if the
child is born abroad, as long as the citizen parent has lived enough
time in the U.S.
That is still citizenship based on birth.
That's right. It's called /jus sanguinis/ birthright citizenship, as I
have instructed you literally dozens of times. Look them up:
/jus sanguinis/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
/jus soli/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Even the Trump xenophobes cannot come up
with an alternative to that
They have. They propose /jus sanguinis/ only.
On 3/20/2025 11:09 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Lou Bricano <[email protected]> wrote in
news:bTXCP.57245$[email protected]:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:citizenship box
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
citizen. There are many options for doing so including having >>>>>>>>> a new field on the birth certificate that indicates whether
you were a citizen at birth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data >>>>>>>> error proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to
no birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
certificates and file them correctly in all the counties and then
redo all the databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born
before the change would need only provide today's birth
certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025.
There are two concepts of birthright citizenship. Why can you not
learn this?
For everyone born in America after that:They are issued a new identity document — either an entirely new
How do they prove their citizenship?
identity document, or a --> birth <--- certificate with a new
or field — that indicates their citizenship. If one or bothU.S.,
parents is a U.S. citizen, then the baby's citizenship is marked as
U.S. citizen. The U.S. citizen parent proves his or her citizenship
by showing a pre-2026 U.S. ---> birth <---certificate showing birth
in the
or a U.S. passport, or American naturalization documents. The parent
having established U.S. citizenship, the baby's is established as
well.
Your proposals all hinge on birthright
citizenshoip. Either directly or thru a
parent.
No — *only* through a parent.
When high school senior Theodore Cleaver
goes to the Social Security office for an
SS Card
Children born in recent decades have no need to go to a SSA office to
obtain a social security card. They are issued at birth.
what proof of citizenship does he
need to bring with him?
Because his U.S. birth certificate was issued prior to the salutary
and salubrious change in the law that I propose, he need bring only
his birth certificate showing birth in the U.S.
Theodore's children or
grandchildren born *after* the beneficial change in the law that I
propose would have to bring a birth certificate or some other document
that shows their American citizenship at birth.
On 2025-03-20, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:citizen.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
onThere are many options for doing so including having a new
field
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a
citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data
certificatesproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to
no birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at"yes."
birth. If at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen
(e.g., a traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is
marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens at
birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving
they are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Even the Trump xenophobes cannot come up
with an alternative to that..........
The anchor baby loophole needs to be stopped.
Women waddling into the country and dropping a kid 2 days after they
arrive need to somehow be regulated.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1@dont- email.me:
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
And it is your job to find them.
|
| France's research minister said a French scientist was
| denied entry to the US this month after immigration
| officers at an airport searched his phone and found
| messages in which he had expressed criticism of the Trump
| administration.
| ...
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-musk-french-scientist-detained>
--bks
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
����� Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
��� Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a citizen. >>>>>>> There are many options for doing so including having a new field on >>>>>>> the birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen at >>>>>>> birth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data error >>>>>> proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no
birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth certificates >>>> and file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born before
the change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 on will
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at birth.
If at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., a >traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is marked "yes."
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens at
birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving they
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens atWouldn't that have to go through congress? Why don't I see Dems
birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving they
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
voting for this?
Laughter.
On 3/20/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1@dont-
email.me:
{snip}
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
FFS. Are you really this stupid? Your parents are the proof and a field
is added to your birth certificate to confirm your citizenship.
And it is your job to find them.
They are there when you are born. There could be exceptions for
abandoned babies where the status of the parents is unknown.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrim5a$jhsl$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/20/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1@dont-
email.me:
{snip}
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
FFS. Are you really this stupid? Your parents are the proof and a field
is added to your birth certificate to confirm your citizenship.
And it is your job to find them.
They are there when you are born. There could be exceptions for
abandoned babies where the status of the parents is unknown.
That is just an extra layer of complexity.
Bush maternity wards do not have time to
track down the birth certificates of women in
labor. Nor can teenagers do it 18 years later.
And if the parents are from different countries
what is the nationality of the American-born
child?
What is wrong with the current system?
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrim5a$jhsl$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/20/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1@dont-
email.me:
{snip}
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
FFS. Are you really this stupid? Your parents are the proof and a field
is added to your birth certificate to confirm your citizenship.
And it is your job to find them.
They are there when you are born. There could be exceptions for
abandoned babies where the status of the parents is unknown.
That is just an extra layer of complexity.
Bush maternity wards do not have time to
track down the birth certificates of women in
labor. Nor can teenagers do it 18 years later.
And if the parents are from different countries
what is the nationality of the American-born
child?
What is wrong with the current system?
On 3/20/2025 10:57 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:Holman fundamentally doesn't know what birthright citizenship is.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:citizen.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1@dont- >>>> email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
onThere are many options for doing so including having a new field
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data
certificatesproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no >>>>>>> birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the
databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at birth."yes."
If at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., a
traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens at
birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving they
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
On 3/20/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:All European countries that have a /jus sanguinis/ citizenship policy have provisions for conferring citizenship on foundlings. They also have such provisions for children who would otherwise be stateless because their parents come from despotic shitholes that can strip people of citizenship.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1@dont-
email.me:
{snip}
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
FFS. Are you really this stupid? Your parents are the proof and a field is added
to your birth certificate to confirm your citizenship.
And it is your job to find them.
They are there when you are born. There could be exceptions for abandoned babies
where the status of the parents is unknown.
On 3/21/2025 5:54 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:@dont-
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrim5a$jhsl$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/20/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1
fieldemail.me:
{snip}
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
FFS. Are you really this stupid? Your parents are the proof and a
is added to your birth certificate to confirm your citizenship.
And it is your job to find them.
They are there when you are born. There could be exceptions for
abandoned babies where the status of the parents is unknown.
That is just an extra layer of complexity.
Bush maternity wards do not have time to
track down the birth certificates of women in
labor. Nor can teenagers do it 18 years later.
And if the parents are from different countries
what is the nationality of the American-born
child?
What is wrong with the current system?
With the exception of the children born to tourists, I support the
current system. I am (agan for the millionth time) merely saying your
"it's not practical" argument is crap.
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1@dont- email.me:If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish their U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If not, then the child and/or
On 3/20/2025 10:57 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:@dont-
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1
fieldcitizen.email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without >>>>>>>>>> birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
There are many options for doing so including having a new
birth.on
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a data
certificatesproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to no >>>>>>>> birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA.
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all the >>>>>>> databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA is
revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at
theyIf at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., a"yes."
traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens at
birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
On 3/20/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/20/2025 10:57 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:@dont-
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1
fieldcitizen.email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without >>>>>>>>>>> birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
There are many options for doing so including having a new
birth.on
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a
citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a
data
certificatesAre you going to make 300 million correct copies of birthproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to >>>>>>>>> no birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA. >>>>>>>>
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all
the databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA
is revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone
born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026
on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at
theyIf at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g.,"yes."
a traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is
marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens
at birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate
proving
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish their
U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If not, then
the child and/or the parents have some work cut out for them later.
Why do you think it's a good thing for aliens to be able to create a
new U.S. citizen without our permission?
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:01:09 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.Fact
Sherman) wrote:
|
| France's research minister said a French scientist was
| denied entry to the US this month after immigration
| officers at an airport searched his phone and found
| messages in which he had expressed criticism of the Trump
| administration.
| ...
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-musk-french-scientist-detained>
--bks
So they and the Guardian claims.
Lou Bricano <[email protected]> wrote in
news:T8hDP.1161785$[email protected]:
On 3/20/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/20/2025 10:57 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:@dont-
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1
fieldcitizen.email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without >>>>>>>>>>> birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
There are many options for doing so including having a new
birth.on
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a >>>>>>>>>>> citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a >>>>>>>>>> data
certificatesAre you going to make 300 million correct copies of birthproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to >>>>>>>>> no birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA. >>>>>>>>
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all >>>>>>>> the databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA >>>>>>> is revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone >>>>>>> born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026
on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at
theyIf at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., >>>>> a traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is"yes."
marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens
at birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate
proving
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish their
U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If not, then
the child and/or the parents have some work cut out for them later.
There is nothing to work out. Born
here, you are a citizen here. America
has always benefitted from immigrants
moving here and making new Americans
here. You are fighting a problem that
doesn't exist.
Why do you think it's a good thing for aliens to be able to create a
new U.S. citizen without our permission?
Yes. America is in a serious population
decline. Empty schools, colleges closing,
dead shopping malls, crops rotting in the
fields, town after deserted small town.
We need more people. If young people from
other countries want to move here and
start families here what is the problem?
Still More Room to Grow: Immigrants Can
Reverse the U.S. Population Decline and
its Economic Consequences
January 29, 2024 https://immigrationforum.org/article/still-more-room-to-grow-immigrants- can-reverse-the-u-s-population-decline-and-its-economic-consequences/
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish
their U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If
not, then the child and/or the parents have some work cut out for
them later.
Why do you think it's a good thing for aliens to be able to create
a new U.S. citizen without our permission? Answer the question.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Then do it legally.
Lou Bricano <[email protected]> wrote in
news:T8hDP.1161785$[email protected]:
On 3/20/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/20/2025 10:57 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:@dont-
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1
fieldcitizen.email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
     Tell us what makes you a citizen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
   Opps, no, you had to present your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without >>>>>>>>>>>>> birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
There are many options for doing so including having a new
birth.on
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a >>>>>>>>>>>>> citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a >>>>>>>>>>>> data
certificatesAre you going to make 300 million correct copies of birthproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to >>>>>>>>>>> no birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA. >>>>>>>>>>
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all >>>>>>>>>> the databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA >>>>>>>>> is revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone >>>>>>>>> born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate. >>>>>>>>
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 >>>>>>> on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at
theyIf at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., >>>>>>> a traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is"yes."
marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens >>>>>>> at birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate
proving
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish their
U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If not, then
the child and/or the parents have some work cut out for them later.
There is nothing to work out. Born
here, you are a citizen here. America
has always benefitted from immigrants
moving here and making new Americans
here. You are fighting a problem that
doesn't exist.
Why do you think it's a good thing for aliens to be able to create a
new U.S. citizen without our permission?
Yes. America is in a serious population
decline. Empty schools, colleges closing,
dead shopping malls, crops rotting in the
fields, town after deserted small town.
We need more people. If young people from
other countries want to move here and
start families here what is the problem?
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrjt1l$1o938$1@dont- email.me:
With the exception of the children born to tourists, I support the
current system. I am (agan for the millionth time) merely saying your
"it's not practical" argument is crap.
The current system is working just
fine. If tourists have babies here that
is fine too. Birthright citizenship for
all.
On 3/21/2025 10:49 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrjt1l$1o938$1@dont-
email.me:
With the exception of the children born to tourists, I support the
current system. I am (agan for the millionth time) merely saying your
"it's not practical" argument is crap.
The current system is working just
fine. If tourists have babies here that
is fine too. Birthright citizenship for
all.
SFW. That is not responsive to my observation that "I am (again for the millionth time) merely saying your "it's not practical" argument is crap."
Lou Bricano wrote:
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish their U.S.
citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If not, then the child and/
or the parents have some work cut out for them later.
A birth certificate is not citizenship.
It is just an easy way to prove it for most americans. Born here is citizenship.
Why do you think it's a good thing for aliens to be able to create a new U.S. citizen without our permission? Answer the question.
Yes.
Why do you imply it is not?
You do not want to live with people who do not look like you?
No. Citizens of a country have an inalienable right to give birth to new citizens.a new U.S. citizen without our permission? Answer the question.
Everyone in the USA should require a license to create a new US citizen.
On 3/21/25 15:30, Skeeter wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Then do it legally.
Lou Bricano <[email protected]> wrote in
news:T8hDP.1161785$[email protected]:
On 3/20/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1@dont- >>>> email.me:
On 3/20/2025 10:57 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:field
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1 >>>> @dont-
email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without >>>>>>>>>>>>> birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a >>>>>> citizen.
There are many options for doing so including having a new
birth.on
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a >>>>>>>>>>>>> citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a >>>>>>>>>>>> data
certificatesAre you going to make 300 million correct copies of birthproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to >>>>>>>>>>> no birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA. >>>>>>>>>>
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all >>>>>>>>>> the databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA >>>>>>>>> is revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone >>>>>>>>> born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate. >>>>>>>>
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 >>>>>>> on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at
theyIf at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., >>>>>>> a traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is"yes."
marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens >>>>>>> at birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate
proving
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish their
U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If not, then
the child and/or the parents have some work cut out for them later.
There is nothing to work out. Born
here, you are a citizen here. America
has always benefitted from immigrants
moving here and making new Americans
here. You are fighting a problem that
doesn't exist.
Why do you think it's a good thing for aliens to be able to create a
new U.S. citizen without our permission?
Yes. America is in a serious population
decline. Empty schools, colleges closing,
dead shopping malls, crops rotting in the
fields, town after deserted small town.
We need more people. If young people from
other countries want to move here and
start families here what is the problem?
Roughly 400,000 people do.
Problem is that more want to, and the USA now has an annual quota that's
less than 10% of past historical relative rates of immigration.
There's MAGA's who try to claim that this is justified under a claim of "we're full!" but these are the very same folk that are banning women's' healthcare rights to try to increase domestic birthrates (hypocrite
much?).
-hh
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]@dont-
says...
Lou Bricano <[email protected]> wrote in
news:T8hDP.1161785$[email protected]:
On 3/20/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1
$1email.me:
On 3/20/2025 10:57 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk
to@dont-
fieldcitizen.email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
There are many options for doing so including having a new
on
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a
citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a
data
proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched
USA.no birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the
(e.g.,birth.certificates
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all
the databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA
is revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone
born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026
on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at
If at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen
Then do it legally.theya traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is"yes."
marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens
at birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate
proving
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish their
U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If not, then
the child and/or the parents have some work cut out for them later.
There is nothing to work out. Born
here, you are a citizen here. America
has always benefitted from immigrants
moving here and making new Americans
here. You are fighting a problem that
doesn't exist.
Why do you think it's a good thing for aliens to be able to create a
new U.S. citizen without our permission?
Yes. America is in a serious population
decline. Empty schools, colleges closing,
dead shopping malls, crops rotting in the
fields, town after deserted small town.
We need more people. If young people from
other countries want to move here and
start families here what is the problem?
immigrants-
Still More Room to Grow: Immigrants Can
Reverse the U.S. Population Decline and
its Economic Consequences
January 29, 2024
https://immigrationforum.org/article/still-more-room-to-grow-
can-reverse-the-u-s-population-decline-and-its-economic-consequences/
On 3/21/2025 1:28 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Lou Bricano wrote:
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish their
U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If not, then
the child and/ or the parents have some work cut out for them later.
A birth certificate is not citizenship.
No one said a birth certificate "is" citizenship, Narcissist Girl, you
stupid whore.
It is just an easy way to prove it for most americans. Born here is
citizenship.
No, it isn't.
Born here subject to the complete political jurisdiction of the U.S. *establishes* citizenship.
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:67ddbdff$0$1787 $[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]@dont-
says...
Lou Bricano <[email protected]> wrote in
news:T8hDP.1161785$[email protected]:
On 3/20/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1
$1email.me:
On 3/20/2025 10:57 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk
to@dont-
fieldcitizen.email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:[email protected]
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
{snip}
Tell us what makes you a citizen
without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
Opps, no, you had to present your
birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without
birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a
There are many options for doing so including having a new
on
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a
citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a
data
proving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched
USA.no birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the
(e.g.,birth.certificates
Are you going to make 300 million correct copies of birth
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all
the databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA
is revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone
born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate.
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026
on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at
If at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen
Then do it legally.theya traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is"yes."
marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens
at birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate
proving
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish their
U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If not, then
the child and/or the parents have some work cut out for them later.
There is nothing to work out. Born
here, you are a citizen here. America
has always benefitted from immigrants
moving here and making new Americans
here. You are fighting a problem that
doesn't exist.
Why do you think it's a good thing for aliens to be able to create a
new U.S. citizen without our permission?
Yes. America is in a serious population
decline. Empty schools, colleges closing,
dead shopping malls, crops rotting in the
fields, town after deserted small town.
We need more people. If young people from
other countries want to move here and
start families here what is the problem?
They ARE doing it legally.
Trump is trying change the law, remember?
immigrants-
Still More Room to Grow: Immigrants Can
Reverse the U.S. Population Decline and
its Economic Consequences
January 29, 2024
https://immigrationforum.org/article/still-more-room-to-grow-
can-reverse-the-u-s-population-decline-and-its-economic-consequences/
Lou Bricano <[email protected]> wrote in news:FklDP.676981$[email protected]:
On 3/21/2025 1:28 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Lou Bricano wrote:
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish their
U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If not, then
the child and/ or the parents have some work cut out for them later.
A birth certificate is not citizenship.
No one said a birth certificate "is" citizenship, Narcissist Girl, you
stupid whore.
It is just an easy way to prove it for most americans. Born here is
citizenship.
No, it isn't.
Born here subject to the complete political jurisdiction of the U.S.
*establishes* citizenship.
Everyone in America is "subject to the jurisdiction"
Tourists and illegal immigrants are only partially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., Holman.They are subject to the jurisdiction
of our ordinary criminal and civil laws, but they do not owe *direct and immediate allegiance* to the U.S. And since they don't, nor do their U.S.-born children.
Holman doesn't know that Native Americans are not citizens of the U.S.
based upon the 14th amendment. They *are* citizens, but nothing to do
with the 14th amendment.
On 3/21/2025 6:57 PM, Lou Bricano wrote:
{snip}
Tourists and illegal immigrants are only partially subject to the jurisdiction
of the U.S., Holman.They are subject to the jurisdiction of our ordinary
criminal and civil laws, but they do not owe *direct and immediate allegiance*
to the U.S. And since they don't, nor do their U.S.-born children.
The same logic applies to lawfully present aliens including green card holders.
So long as Wong Kim Ark is good law, this argument cannot succeed.
Holman doesn't know that Native Americans are not citizens of the U.S. based >> upon the 14th amendment. They *are* citizens, but nothing to do with the 14th
amendment.
Members of Indian tribes were not fully subject to US law. For crimes committed
by Indians against each other or on reservations (which are in the USA), state
and federal courts had no jurisdiction.
On 3/21/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Lou Bricano <[email protected]> wrote in
news:FklDP.676981$[email protected]:
On 3/21/2025 1:28 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Lou Bricano wrote:
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish
their U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If
not, then the child and/ or the parents have some work cut out for
them later.
A birth certificate is not citizenship.
No one said a birth certificate "is" citizenship, Narcissist Girl,
you stupid whore.
It is just an easy way to prove it for most americans. Born here is
citizenship.
No, it isn't.
Born here subject to the complete political jurisdiction of the U.S.
*establishes* citizenship.
Everyone in America is "subject to the jurisdiction"
Aliens who are here are not subject to the *complete* jurisdiction of
the U.S., Holman.
They have to obey our laws
— aliens are not
permitted to murder or rob banks — but they do not owe the country allegiance.
You keep snipping out — *unethically* — the citation
from Elk v. Wilkins that proves you wrong:
The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth
amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a
difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as
to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How.
393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black,
and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the
United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should
be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they
reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West
Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two
sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be
citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident
meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect
or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but
*completely subject to their political jurisdiction*, and *owing
them* *direct and immediate allegiance*. [emphasis added]
Tourists and illegal immigrants are only partially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., Holman. They are subject to the jurisdiction
of our ordinary criminal and civil laws, but they do not owe *direct
and immediate allegiance* to the U.S. And since they don't, nor do
their U.S.-born children.
Holman doesn't know that Native Americans are not citizens of the
U.S. based upon the 14th amendment. They *are* citizens, but
nothing to do with the 14th amendment.
Lou Bricano wrote:
Holman doesn't know that Native Americans are not citizens of the U.S. based >> upon the 14th amendment. They *are* citizens, but nothing to do with the 14th
amendment.
The 14th immediately applied to tax paying Indians. At that time some in the west did not and refused the authority of the US until cavalry killed them.
Lou Bricano <[email protected]> wrote in news:7OoDP.31663$[email protected]:
On 3/21/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Lou Bricano <[email protected]> wrote in
news:FklDP.676981$[email protected]:
On 3/21/2025 1:28 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Lou Bricano wrote:
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish
their U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If
not, then the child and/ or the parents have some work cut out for >>>>>> them later.
A birth certificate is not citizenship.
No one said a birth certificate "is" citizenship, Narcissist Girl,
you stupid whore.
It is just an easy way to prove it for most americans. Born here is
citizenship.
No, it isn't.
Born here subject to the complete political jurisdiction of the U.S.
*establishes* citizenship.
Everyone in America is "subject to the jurisdiction"
Aliens who are here are not subject to the *complete* jurisdiction of
the U.S., Holman.
Tell that all the aliens sitting in US jails and prisons.
They have to obey our laws
Thus they are subject to US jurisdiction.
— aliens are not
permitted to murder or rob banks — but they do not owe the country
allegiance.
The 14th Amendment says nothing about allegiance.
You keep snipping out — *unethically* — the citation
from Elk v. Wilkins that proves you wrong:
The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth
amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a
difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as
to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How.
393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black,
and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the
United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should
be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they
reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West
Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two
sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be
citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident
meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect
or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but
*completely subject to their political jurisdiction*, and *owing
them* *direct and immediate allegiance*. [emphasis added]
Tourists and illegal immigrants are only partially subject to the
jurisdiction of the U.S., Holman. They are subject to the jurisdiction
of our ordinary criminal and civil laws, but they do not owe *direct
and immediate allegiance* to the U.S. And since they don't, nor do
their U.S.-born children.
The 14th Amendment says nothing about allegiance.Elk v. Wilkins says you're wrong. Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee in 1866, says you're wrong.
On 3/21/2025 7:11 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/21/2025 6:57 PM, Lou Bricano wrote:
{snip}
Tourists and illegal immigrants are only partially subject to the
jurisdiction of the U.S., Holman.They are subject to the jurisdiction
of our ordinary criminal and civil laws, but they do not owe *direct
and immediate allegiance* to the U.S. And since they don't, nor do
their U.S.-born children.
The same logic applies to lawfully present aliens including green card
holders. So long as Wong Kim Ark is good law, this argument cannot
succeed.
There you go again making a normative judgment.
Gray got that wrong. He
completely misunderstood America's break with English common law. Gray's decision reverted us to be subjects, not citizens.
Scalia was onto something when he called Hamdi a "presumed" American
citizen.
Holman doesn't know that Native Americans are not citizens of the
U.S. based upon the 14th amendment. They *are* citizens, but nothing
to do with the 14th amendment.
Members of Indian tribes were not fully subject to US law. For crimes
committed by Indians against each other or on reservations (which are
in the USA), state and federal courts had no jurisdiction.
Not the point. The point is that Holman believes the citizenship clause
of the 14th amendment makes citizens out of Native Americans, even if
they were born on reservations. It does not. It was an act of Congress
in 1924 that conferred citizenship on all Native Americans in the U.S. I
like rubbing Holman's nose in his errors.
Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate
Judiciary committee in 1866, says you're wrong.
Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Judiciary
Committee and a key drafter of the 14th Amendment,
explained thejurisdiction requirement. “The provision is,
that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means
‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What
do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else.
That is what it means.
NoBody wrote:
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens atWouldn't that have to go through congress? Why don't I see Dems
birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate proving they
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
voting for this?
Laughter.
That tremor you felt was the mega-face palm.
In article <vrkku9$2cdaj$[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
On 3/21/25 15:30, Skeeter wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Then do it legally.
Lou Bricano <[email protected]> wrote in
news:T8hDP.1161785$[email protected]:
On 3/20/2025 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vriaja$avb3$1@dont- >>>>>> email.me:
On 3/20/2025 10:57 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:they
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vrhatu$3fj7n$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/19/2025 7:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:on
Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:vrfpo9$21sqk$1 >>>>>> @dont-
email.me:
On 3/19/2025 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/19/2025 10:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/18/2025 6:42 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:67d9fce6$39$18$[email protected]: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In article <[email protected]>, >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
{snip}
     Tell us what makes you a citizen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without referencing your birth.
My drivers license.
   Opps, no, you had to present your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> birth certificate to get it. Next?
There you go again with your ridiculous claim that without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> birthright citizenship, here is no way to prove you are a >>>>>>>> citizen.
There are many options for doing so including having a new >>>>>> field
atthe birth certificate that indicates whether you were a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizen
errorbirth (or not).
I have no such field. According to you and Elon that is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
certificatesAre you going to make 300 million correct copies of birthproving I am not a citizen.
FFS. It would be a field that could be added if we switched to >>>>>>>>>>>>> no birthright citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA. >>>>>>>>>>>>
beforeand file them correctly in all the counties and then redo all >>>>>>>>>>>> the databases correctly?
No. If birthright citizenship for solely being born in the USA >>>>>>>>>>> is revoked, it would apply only for prospective births. Anyone >>>>>>>>>>> born
willthe change would need only provide today's birth certificate. >>>>>>>>>>
OK, assume birthright citizenship
ends in 2025. For everyone born in
America after that:
How do they prove their citizenship?
Here is one possibility. Each birth certificate issued from 2026 >>>>>>>>> on
have a new field which states whether the child was a citizen at >>>>>> birth."yes."
If at least one parent has documentation they are a citizen (e.g., >>>>>>>>> a traditional pre-2025 birth certificate), then the field is >>>>>>>>> marked
The children of the person born after 2025 will also be citizens >>>>>>>>> at birth because the parent has a new-style birth certificate >>>>>>>>> proving
are a citizen (the field says "yes").
So the child has birthright citizenship
on his own or thru a parent. That is still
citizenship based on birth.
Of course it is. Trump supports the "thru a parent" part.
So your birth certificate does not
prove your citizenship but those of your
parents does.
If one or both parents of a newborn in the U.S. can establish their
U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth. If not, then >>>>> the child and/or the parents have some work cut out for them later.
There is nothing to work out. Born
here, you are a citizen here. America
has always benefitted from immigrants
moving here and making new Americans
here. You are fighting a problem that
doesn't exist.
Why do you think it's a good thing for aliens to be able to create a >>>>> new U.S. citizen without our permission?
Yes. America is in a serious population
decline. Empty schools, colleges closing,
dead shopping malls, crops rotting in the
fields, town after deserted small town.
We need more people. If young people from
other countries want to move here and
start families here what is the problem?
Roughly 400,000 people do.
Problem is that more want to, and the USA now has an annual quota that's
less than 10% of past historical relative rates of immigration.
There's MAGA's who try to claim that this is justified under a claim of
"we're full!" but these are the very same folk that are banning women's'
healthcare rights to try to increase domestic birthrates (hypocrite
much?).
-hh
Well cry a river.
There's MAGA's who try to claim that this is justified under a
claim of
"we're full!" but these are the very same folk that are banning
women's'
healthcare rights to try to increase domestic birthrates
(hypocrite
much?).
-hh
Well cry a river.
Yes, I am crying ... but it is because these MAGAs simply can't
see that they are flaming hypocrites: "BE BETTER".
On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Lou Bricano wrote:
On 3/21/2025 7:11 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/21/2025 6:57 PM, Lou Bricano wrote:There you go again making a normative judgment.
{snip}
Tourists and illegal immigrants are only partially subject to the
jurisdiction of the U.S., Holman.They are subject to the jurisdiction of our
ordinary criminal and civil laws, but they do not owe *direct and immediate
allegiance* to the U.S. And since they don't, nor do their U.S.-born children.
The same logic applies to lawfully present aliens including green card
holders. So long as Wong Kim Ark is good law, this argument cannot succeed. >>
"Good law" is not normative.
Gray got that wrong. He completely misunderstood America's break with English
common law. Gray's decision reverted us to be subjects, not citizens.
Scalia was onto something when he called Hamdi a "presumed" American citizen.
Holman doesn't know that Native Americans are not citizens of the U.S. based
upon the 14th amendment. They *are* citizens, but nothing to do with the >>>> 14th amendment.
Members of Indian tribes were not fully subject to US law. For crimes
committed by Indians against each other or on reservations (which are in the
USA), state and federal courts had no jurisdiction.
Not the point. The point is that Holman believes the citizenship clause of the
14th amendment makes citizens out of Native Americans, even if they were born
on reservations. It does not. It was an act of Congress in 1924 that conferred
citizenship on all Native Americans in the U.S. I like rubbing Holman's nose >> in his errors.
On 3/21/2025 9:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Lou Bricano wrote:
On 3/21/2025 7:11 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/21/2025 6:57 PM, Lou Bricano wrote:
{snip}
Tourists and illegal immigrants are only partially subject to the
jurisdiction of the U.S., Holman.They are subject to the
jurisdiction of our ordinary criminal and civil laws, but they do
not owe *direct and immediate allegiance* to the U.S. And since
they don't, nor do their U.S.-born children.
The same logic applies to lawfully present aliens including green
card holders. So long as Wong Kim Ark is good law, this argument
cannot succeed.
There you go again making a normative judgment.
"Good law" is not normative.
You're equivocating. It is normative as you're using it here.
On 3/22/2025 10:55 AM, Lou Bricano wrote:
On 3/21/2025 9:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Lou Bricano wrote:
On 3/21/2025 7:11 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/21/2025 6:57 PM, Lou Bricano wrote:
{snip}
Tourists and illegal immigrants are only partially subject to the
jurisdiction of the U.S., Holman.They are subject to the
jurisdiction of our ordinary criminal and civil laws, but they do
not owe *direct and immediate allegiance* to the U.S. And since
they don't, nor do their U.S.-born children.
The same logic applies to lawfully present aliens including green
card holders. So long as Wong Kim Ark is good law, this argument
cannot succeed.
There you go again making a normative judgment.
"Good law" is not normative.
You're equivocating. It is normative as you're using it here.
No. And you are an asshole for saying that.
|
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
|
| We don't have to imagine what Trump would do with wartime
| powers. He's already doing it, and U.S. citizens could be
| next.
| ...
<https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-free-speech-immigration-us-citizens-rcna199629>
--bks
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 00:36:18 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
|
| We don't have to imagine what Trump would do with wartime
| powers. He's already doing it, and U.S. citizens could be
| next.
| ...
<https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-free-speech-immigration-us-citizens-rcna199629>
--bks
MSNBC?
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 00:36:18 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
|
| We don't have to imagine what Trump would do with wartime
| powers. He's already doing it, and U.S. citizens could be
| next.
| ... >><https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-free-speech-immigration-us-citizens-rcna199629>
--bks
MSNBC? <LOL>
On 4/5/2025 1:49 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 00:36:18 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
|
| We don't have to imagine what Trump would do with wartime
| powers. He's already doing it, and U.S. citizens could be
| next.
| ...
<https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-free-speech-immigration-us-citizens-rcna199629>
--bks
MSNBC?
What about it, you stupid impotent cocksucker?
Why do all the impotent right-wingnut shitbags always engage in ad hominem?
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
WTF?
|
| Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government
| cites its power to deport people for beliefs
| ...
<https://apnews.com/article/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-university-trump-c60738368171289ae43177660def8d34>
--bks
Whither the "libertarians"?
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
| Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government
| cites its power to deport people for beliefs
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
| Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government
| cites its power to deport people for beliefs
|
| The Trump administration has ordered State Department
| employees to report on any instances of coworkers
| displaying "anti-Christian bias" as part of its effort to
| implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting
| employees of Christian faith working in the federal
| government.
| ...
[email protected] (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in news:vtdlbi$h43$[email protected]:
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
| Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government
| cites its power to deport people for beliefs
|
| The Trump administration has ordered State Department
| employees to report on any instances of coworkers
| displaying "anti-Christian bias" as part of its effort to
| implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting
| employees of Christian faith working in the federal
| government.
| ...
Any belief that requires government
enforcement is not worthy of belief.
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
| Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government
| cites its power to deport people for beliefs
|
| The Trump administration has ordered State Department
| employees to report on any instances of coworkers
| displaying "anti-Christian bias" as part of its effort to
| implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting
| employees of Christian faith working in the federal
| government.
| ...
<https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/11/state-report-anti-christian-bias-033535>
--bks
Whither the libertarians?
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
| Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government
| cites its power to deport people for beliefs
|
| The Trump administration has ordered State Department
| employees to report on any instances of coworkers
| displaying "anti-Christian bias" as part of its effort to
| implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting
| employees of Christian faith working in the federal
| government.
| ... <https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/11/state-report-anti-christian-bias-033535>
--bks
Whither the libertarians?
On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 12:12:35 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
| Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government
| cites its power to deport people for beliefs
|
| The Trump administration has ordered State Department
| employees to report on any instances of coworkers
| displaying "anti-Christian bias" as part of its effort to
| implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting
| employees of Christian faith working in the federal
| government.
| ... >><https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/11/state-report-anti-christian-bias-033535>
--bks
Whither the libertarians?
So why has it been that you could be anti-Christian or anti-Jewish
when everything else anti was swiftly punished?
Make up your mind already.
| The Trump administration has ordered State Department
| employees to report on any instances of coworkers
| displaying "anti-Christian bias" as part of its effort to
| implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting
| employees of Christian faith working in the federal
| government.
On 2025-02-24 09:43, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me >>>>>> hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White
House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you
from my press events.
Ummmmm...no.
It is NOT just "freedom of speech":
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Freedom of the press is in the literal text.
Alan wrote:
On 2025-02-24 09:43, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press
| journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house- >>>>>>>> trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL> Banning the AP from official events is no different then me >>>>>>> hanging up polsters. The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists- >>>>>> from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?
post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-
first-amendment
<LOL> Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL> It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White
House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you
from my press events.
Ummmmm...no.
It is NOT just "freedom of speech":
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Freedom of the press is in the literal text.
Not being invited to a press conference is no different that not being invited
to speak on CNN or MSNBC.
On 4/18/2025 12:20 PM, "Ken," dirty-diaper-wearing shit-encrusted geriatric lying Nazi fat fuck, lied:
Alan wrote:
On 2025-02-24 09:43, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:43:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/23/2025 12:14 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:59:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/21/2025 4:40 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:03:33 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| Earlier this week dozens of news organizations signed two
| separate letters to the White House that urged the Trump
| administration to reverse a policy barring Associated Press >>>>>>>> | journalists from official events.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/20/ap-white-house-
trump-associated-press-media-gulf-of-america/>
<LOL>� Banning the AP from official events is no different then me >>>>>>> hanging up polsters.� The AP is free to say anything they want that's >>>>>>> not slander and libel.
It's more complicated than that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/16/may-officials-exclude-journalists-
from-press-events-based-on-disapproval-of-journalists-speech/?
post_type=volokh-post
https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-
first-amendment
<LOL>� Nonsense..
How so?
<LOL>� It's freedom of speech, not freedom to ask questions. The White >>> House can deny the AP from it's press events just like I can deny you
from my press events.
Ummmmm...no.
It is NOT just "freedom of speech":
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Freedom of the press is in the literal text.
Not being invited to a press conference is no different that not being invited
to speak on CNN or MSNBC.
It's *completely* different, you shit-encrusted Alzheimer's idiot. AP isn't looking to speak, you goddamned fucking shit-4-braincell ? they're seeking to listen to what the asshole says and pose questions to him, like all the other news media reporters.
You've always been a fucking idiot, even before you began to experience dementia.
Not being invited to a press conference
On 18/4/25 12:20, Ken wrote:
Not being invited to a press conference
Court decision be damned.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 21:47:57 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/25 5:36 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
On 18/4/25 12:20, Ken wrote:
Not being invited to a press conference
Court decision be damned.
The left declared war on the BoR a long time ago,
Wokies doubled-down on that effort. How dare you
critique Trump.
I don't recall the left threatening private universities with the IRS
or putting themselves in charge of the White House Press Room.
On 4/18/25 11:02 PM, Governor Swill wrote:*toe*, you stupid illiterate motherfucker.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 21:47:57 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/25 5:36 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
On 18/4/25 12:20, Ken wrote:
Not being invited to a press conference
Court decision be damned.
The left declared war on the BoR a long time ago,
Wokies doubled-down on that effort. How dare you
critique Trump.
I don't recall the left threatening private universities with the IRS
or putting themselves in charge of the White House Press Room.
They threatened everyone if they didn't tow the
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 21:47:57 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/25 5:36 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
On 18/4/25 12:20, Ken wrote:
Not being invited to a press conference
Court decision be damned.
The left declared war on the BoR a long time ago,
Wokies doubled-down on that effort. How dare you
critique Trump.
I don't recall the left threatening private universities with the IRS
or putting themselves in charge of the White House Press Room.
They threatened everyone if they didn't tow the
hyper-lefty Wokie line ... remember the term
"cancelled" ?
On 4/18/2025 8:15 PM, c186282 wrote:
On 4/18/25 11:02 PM, Governor Swill wrote:*toe*, you stupid illiterate motherfucker.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 21:47:57 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/25 5:36 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
On 18/4/25 12:20, Ken wrote:
Not being invited to a press conference
Court decision be damned.
The left declared war on the BoR a long time ago,
Wokies doubled-down on that effort. How dare you
critique Trump.
I don't recall the left threatening private universities with the IRS
or putting themselves in charge of the White House Press Room.
They threatened everyone if they didn't tow the
And no, they didn't.
On 4/19/25 12:11 AM, Charlie Glock wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:15 PM, c186282 wrote:
On 4/18/25 11:02 PM, Governor Swill wrote:*toe*, you stupid illiterate motherfucker.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 21:47:57 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 4/18/25 5:36 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
On 18/4/25 12:20, Ken wrote:
Not being invited to a press conference
Court decision be damned.
The left declared war on the BoR a long time ago,
Wokies doubled-down on that effort. How dare you
critique Trump.
I don't recall the left threatening private universities with the IRS
or putting themselves in charge of the White House Press Room.
They threatened everyone if they didn't tow the
Fuck off Charlie ... go pick nits elsewhere ....
And no, they didn't.
Yes, they VERY MUCH did.
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 19:05:48 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| It's a terrifying time for free speech and civil liberties
| in Trump's America
WTF?
|
| Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government
| cites its power to deport people for beliefs
| ...
<https://apnews.com/article/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-university-trump-c60738368171289ae43177660def8d34>
Deport people for what they think? You can't get more Orwellian than
that.
Whither the "libertarians"?
Cowering.
|
| Attorney General Pam Bondi said Friday she is resuming the
| practice of attempting to seize reporters' phone records in
| order to smoke out leakers.
| ...
<https://www.axios.com/2025/04/25/bondi-doj-garland-subpoena-journalists>
--bks
|
| 'Vaguely Threatening': Federal Prosecutor Queries Leading
| Medical Journal
|
| The New England Journal of Medicine received a letter
| suggesting that it was biased and compromised by external
| pressure. Other journals have also received the letter.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/health/nejm-prosecutor-letter.html>
--bks
| Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government
| cites its power to deport people for beliefs
| Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government
| cites its power to deport people for beliefs
|
| Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil can fight wrongful
| detention case in federal court, judge rules
|
| The ruling rejected the Trump administration's argument
| that the Immigration and Nationality Act prevented the
| federal court from reviewing Khalil's claims.
| ...
<https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/palestinian-activist-khalil-mahmoud-can-fight-wrongful-detention-case-rcna203654>
--bks
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the
"World Press Freedom Index": ><https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
--bks
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:37:22 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the
"World Press Freedom Index": >><https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragili >>ty-leading-threat-press-freedom>
--bks
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that drivel?"
...
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the...
"World Press Freedom Index": >><https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that >drivel?"
LeftistDon'tMatter <[email protected]> wrote in >news:[email protected]:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:37:22 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the
"World Press Freedom Index": >>><https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragili >>>ty-leading-threat-press-freedom>
--bks
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that
drivel?"
Heaven forbid you deal with with a contrary fact.
WhiteGirl <[email protected]> wrote:
...
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the...
"World Press Freedom Index": >>><https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that >>drivel?"
Facts are like kryptonite to Trumplings.
--bks
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:37:22 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the
"World Press Freedom Index":
<https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
--bks
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that drivel?"
On 2/5/25 10:25, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:37:22 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the
"World Press Freedom Index":
<https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
--bks
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that
drivel?"
A closed mind gathers no thought.
On Fri, 2 May 2025 17:29:26 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
WhiteGirl <[email protected]> wrote:
...
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the...
"World Press Freedom Index":
<https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that
drivel?"
Facts are like kryptonite to Trumplings.
--bks
The only fact is that "RSF" is a far left disinformation group.
On 2/5/25 11:40, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 17:29:26 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
WhiteGirl <[email protected]> wrote:
...
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the...
"World Press Freedom Index":
<https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that >>>> drivel?"
Facts are like kryptonite to Trumplings.
--bks
The only fact is that "RSF" is a far left disinformation group.
How long have you known of its existence?
On Fri, 02 May 2025 13:45:40 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2/5/25 10:25, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:37:22 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the
"World Press Freedom Index":
<https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
--bks
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that
drivel?"
A closed mind gathers no thought.
I don't gather other people thoughts. I do my own thinking.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 14:19:39 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2/5/25 11:40, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 17:29:26 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
WhiteGirl <[email protected]> wrote:
...
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the...
"World Press Freedom Index":
<https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that >>>>> drivel?"
Facts are like kryptonite to Trumplings.
--bks
The only fact is that "RSF" is a far left disinformation group.
How long have you known of its existence?
Not long. I looked them uo when I saw the post I responded to.
On 2/5/25 14:30, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 14:19:39 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2/5/25 11:40, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 17:29:26 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
WhiteGirl <[email protected]> wrote:
...
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the...
"World Press Freedom Index":
<https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that >>>>>> drivel?"
Facts are like kryptonite to Trumplings.
--bks
The only fact is that "RSF" is a far left disinformation group.
How long have you known of its existence?
Not long. I looked them uo when I saw the post I responded to.
So based on your long and in depth research, you and you Macho
Thoughts knew it completely and could accurately characterise it.
(Do not tell him about MSF.)
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the
"World Press Freedom Index": ><https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
--bks
WhiteGirl <[email protected]> wrote:
...
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the...
"World Press Freedom Index": >>><https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that >>drivel?"
Facts are like kryptonite to Trumplings.
--bks
On 2/5/25 14:30, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 14:19:39 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2/5/25 11:40, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 17:29:26 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
WhiteGirl <[email protected]> wrote:
...
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the...
"World Press Freedom Index":
<https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that >>>>>> drivel?"
Facts are like kryptonite to Trumplings.
--bks
The only fact is that "RSF" is a far left disinformation group.
How long have you known of its existence?
Not long. I looked them uo when I saw the post I responded to.
So based on your long and in depth research, you and you Macho
Thoughts knew it completely and could accurately characterise it.
(Do not tell him about MSF.)
On Fri, 02 May 2025 13:45:40 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2/5/25 10:25, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:37:22 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the
"World Press Freedom Index":
<https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
--bks
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that
drivel?"
A closed mind gathers no thought.
I don't gather other people thoughts. I do my own thinking.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 15:03:30 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2/5/25 14:30, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 14:19:39 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2/5/25 11:40, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 17:29:26 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
WhiteGirl <[email protected]> wrote:
...
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the...
"World Press Freedom Index":
<https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that >>>>>>> drivel?"
Facts are like kryptonite to Trumplings.
--bks
The only fact is that "RSF" is a far left disinformation group.
How long have you known of its existence?
Not long. I looked them uo when I saw the post I responded to.
So based on your long and in depth research, you and you Macho
Thoughts knew it completely and could accurately characterise it.
(Do not tell him about MSF.)
I notice you're not providing any evidence that he's wrong.
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:37:22 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the
"World Press Freedom Index": >><https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
--bks
Their basic premise is beyond laughable but interesting that you
didn't report last year that under Biden they were only two slots
higher.
On 3/5/25 6:33, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 15:03:30 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>I notice I am not making an accusations.
wrote:
On 2/5/25 14:30, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 14:19:39 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2/5/25 11:40, LeftistDon'tMatter wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 17:29:26 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K. >>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
WhiteGirl <[email protected]> wrote:
...
The USA has fallen to 57th place out of 180 countries in the >>>>>>>>> "World Press Freedom Index":...
<https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom>
Reporters, Without Borders???????? Really? You expect me to read that >>>>>>>> drivel?"
Facts are like kryptonite to Trumplings.
--bks
The only fact is that "RSF" is a far left disinformation group.
How long have you known of its existence?
Not long. I looked them uo when I saw the post I responded to.
So based on your long and in depth research, you and you Macho
Thoughts knew it completely and could accurately characterise it.
(Do not tell him about MSF.)
I notice you're not providing any evidence that he's wrong.
|
| Former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil was freed
| from detention on Friday after a federal judge ordered his
| release, ruling that the government's efforts to keep him
| in custody were highly unusual and potentially a form of
| punishment for his political views.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/06/20/mahmoud-khalil-release/>
--bks
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 11:39:37 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.No insurrectionists did "nothing more than walk through the Capitol". They beat cops, committed massive vandalism to the building, smeared their shit on the walls. More of them should have been shot to death.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil was freed
| from detention on Friday after a federal judge ordered his
| release, ruling that the government's efforts to keep him
| in custody were highly unusual and potentially a form of
| punishment for his political views.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/06/20/mahmoud-khalil-release/>
--bks
Weren't you in favor of jailing the Jan 6'ers who did nothing more
than walk through the Capitol?
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 11:39:37 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil was freed
| from detention on Friday after a federal judge ordered his
| release, ruling that the government's efforts to keep him
| in custody were highly unusual and potentially a form of
| punishment for his political views.
| ... >><https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/06/20/mahmoud-khalil-release/> >>
--bks
Weren't you in favor of jailing the Jan 6'ers who did nothing more
than walk through the Capitol?
If it weren't for double standards you'd have no standards at all.
|
| Trump Threatens to Sue The Times and CNN Over Iran Reporting
|
| The president has criticized media coverage of a
| preliminary classified report that ran counter to his
| assertion that U.S. strikes had "obliterated" Iran's
| nuclear program.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/business/media/trump-iran-new-york- times-cnn.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare>
--bks
|
| Trump Threatens to Sue The Times and CNN Over Iran Reporting
|
| The president has criticized media coverage of a
| preliminary classified report that ran counter to his
| assertion that U.S. strikes had "obliterated" Iran's
| nuclear program.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/business/media/trump-iran-new-york-times-cnn.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare>
--bks
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 11:43:07 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Trump Threatens to Sue The Times and CNN Over Iran Reporting
|
| The president has criticized media coverage of a
| preliminary classified report that ran counter to his
| assertion that U.S. strikes had "obliterated" Iran's
| nuclear program.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/business/media/trump-iran-new-york-times-cnn.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare>
--bks
The First Amendment does not protect for consequences of words.
Duh.
|
| ICE wants to work in secret. We shouldn't let it
| ...
<https://freedom.press/issues/ice-wants-to-work-in-secret-we-shouldnt-let-it/>
--bks
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 17:33:34 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| ICE wants to work in secret. We shouldn't let it
| ... >><https://freedom.press/issues/ice-wants-to-work-in-secret-we-shouldnt-l >>et-it/>
--bks
You can't do anything about it...
Reagan warned us about big government,
and now the GOP IS the big governemnt.
LeftistDon'tMatter <[email protected]> wrote in >news:[email protected]:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 17:33:34 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| ICE wants to work in secret. We shouldn't let it
| ... >>><https://freedom.press/issues/ice-wants-to-work-in-secret-we-shouldnt-l >>>et-it/>
--bks
You can't do anything about it...
Reagan warned us about big government,
and now the GOP IS the big governemnt.
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Reagan warned us about big government,
and now the GOP IS the big governemnt.
Now that the fascists are in charge their followers have pivoted from
their previous antigovernment stance to agreeing with everything the government says and does. I'm sure this includes the beer belly
militias.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 18:18:48 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
LeftistDon'tMatter <[email protected]> wrote in >>news:[email protected]:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 17:33:34 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| ICE wants to work in secret. We shouldn't let it
| ... >>>><https://freedom.press/issues/ice-wants-to-work-in-secret-we-shouldnt-l >>>>et-it/>
--bks
You can't do anything about it...
Reagan warned us about big government,
and now the GOP IS the big governemnt.
It's smaller than it was last year.
LeftistDon'tMatter <[email protected]> wrote in >news:[email protected]:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 18:18:48 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
LeftistDon'tMatter <[email protected]> wrote in >>>news:[email protected]:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 17:33:34 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| ICE wants to work in secret. We shouldn't let it
| ... >>>>><https://freedom.press/issues/ice-wants-to-work-in-secret-we-shouldnt-l >>>>>et-it/>
--bks
You can't do anything about it...
Reagan warned us about big government,
and now the GOP IS the big governemnt.
It's smaller than it was last year.
Nope.
May 31, 2025 23.59M
May 31, 2024 23.32M
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_government_employees
On Thu, 03 Jul 2025 01:51:49 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
LeftistDon'tMatter <[email protected]> wrote in >>news:[email protected]:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 18:18:48 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<[email protected]> wrote:
LeftistDon'tMatter <[email protected]> wrote in >>>>news:[email protected]:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 17:33:34 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| ICE wants to work in secret. We shouldn't let it
| ... >>>>>><https://freedom.press/issues/ice-wants-to-work-in-secret-we-should >>>>>>nt-l et-it/>
--bks
You can't do anything about it...
Reagan warned us about big government,
and now the GOP IS the big governemnt.
It's smaller than it was last year.
Nope.
May 31, 2025 23.59M
May 31, 2024 23.32M
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_government_employees
Yep, military enlistments are up now that they kicked out the tranny
freaks
|
| ICE wants to work in secret. We shouldn't let it
| ...
<https://freedom.press/issues/ice-wants-to-work-in-secret-we-shouldnt-let-it/>
--bks
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 17:33:34 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| ICE wants to work in secret. We shouldn't let it
| ... >><https://freedom.press/issues/ice-wants-to-work-in-secret-we-shouldnt-let-it/>
--bks
Freedom of speech does not include putting the lives of law enforcment
in danger.
Duh
Arkansas Bill Targets 'Gender Nonconforming' Haircuts for Kids
Mar 20, 2025
On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 16:45:17 -0700, "chine.bleu"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
Arkansas Bill Targets 'Gender Nonconforming' Haircuts for Kids
Mar 20, 2025
Like what Custer had.
And Jesus.
|
| Federal agents describe unusual run-up to arrests of
| Pro-Palestinian academics
|
| The revelations came in an ongoing trial on a lawsuit
| claiming the Trump administration is targeting
| pro-Palestinian academics for deportation over their speech.
|
| Four veteran Homeland Security agents who helped execute
| the Trump administration's arrests of pro-Palestinian
| foreign academics for deportation testified Tuesday that
| the orders they received were both highly unusual and
| described by senior officials as urgent.
| ...
<https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/15/pro-palestinian-academics-deportations-trial-00454324>
--bks
|
| Trump Was Attempting to Block Publication of Embarrassing
| WSJ Jeffrey Epstein Story
| ...
<https://variety.com/2025/politics/news/trump-attempted-block-publication-wsj-jeffrey-epstein-story-1236463201/>
--bks
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:57:35 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| Trump Was Attempting to Block Publication of Embarrassing
| WSJ Jeffrey Epstein Story
| ...
<https://variety.com/2025/politics/news/trump-attempted-block-publication-wsj-jeffrey-epstein-story-1236463201/>
--bks
Sure....
Laughter!
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
| Trump's Campaign to Crush the Media
|
| The president has launched a frontal assault on the
| journalism business. So far, he's winning.
| ...
<https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/donald-trump-campaign-media/683600/>
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to the
hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a king.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
| Trump's Campaign to Crush the Media
|
| The president has launched a frontal assault on the
| journalism business. So far, he's winning.
| ... >><https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/donald-trump-campaign-media/683600/>
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to the
hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a king.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 21:44:54 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to the
hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a king.
Untrue.
I disagree. Just this newsgroup has been flooded with complaints that
media shouldn't be allowed to criticize Trump.
MAGAs thrill to Trump banning media from the White House Press Corps.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 21:44:54 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-07-22, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
| Trump's Campaign to Crush the Media
|
| The president has launched a frontal assault on the
| journalism business. So far, he's winning.
| ...
<https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/donald-trump-campaign-media/683600/>
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to the
hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a king.
Untrue.
Free speech comes with some qualifications.
sure, you can stand in the middle of Times Square and claim that Hamas is
a friendly organization and Israel is to blame for everything.
That is an opinion and nobody is going to prevent you although some may do so.
A court of law would never rule against you.
Trump has filed a number of suits that work against the First. He
doesn't quite understand that to be President is to paint a target on
your chest. He had no problem lobbing defaming birtherism charges
against Obama. Did Obama sue him? No. Freedom of speech.
However, when you are a respected media outlet and you present an accusation against
a celebrity, or literally anyone, as fact, you will be required to prove that
accusation.
Regardless of MAGA squealing, the fact remains, the MAGA President has
filed a suit against a major media outlet, one of the most respected
in the world that is owned by a far right group that helped get Trump
elected twice.
Trump is an idiot. He thinks he can bite the hand that feeds him
anytime he likes.
Maybe the WSJ can do that.
Maybe they can't.
It doesn't matter. SCOTUS has already ruled that news media are not
required to relate only facts. They can also publish speculation and
even outright lies.
TBH at this point I personally don't care.
I used to have letters from ex boyfriends that had all kinds of salacious threats in
them.
This is pre Internet, but I didn't care.
Knock your socks off.
Then again I am not POTUS.
Let's see how it plays out.
Most likely it'll just go away. I very seriously doubt he'll be able
to proceed with this or any other of his suits.
|
| Trump's Campaign to Crush the Media
|
| The president has launched a frontal assault on the
| journalism business. So far, he's winning.
| ...
<https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/donald-trump-campaign-media/683600/>
--bks
On 2025-07-22, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
| Trump's Campaign to Crush the Media
|
| The president has launched a frontal assault on the
| journalism business. So far, he's winning.
| ... >>><https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/donald-trump-campaign-media/683600/>
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to the
hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a king.
Untrue.
Free speech comes with some qualifications.
sure, you can stand in the middle of Times Square and claim that Hamas is
a friendly organization and Israel is to blame for everything.
That is an opinion and nobody is going to prevent you although some may do so. >A court of law would never rule against you.
However, when you are a respected media outlet and you present an accusation against
a celebrity, or literally anyone, as fact, you will be required to prove that >accusation.
Maybe the WSJ can do that.
Maybe they can't.
TBH at this point I personally don't care.
I used to have letters from ex boyfriends that had all kinds of salacious threats in
them.
This is pre Internet, but I didn't care.
Knock your socks off.
Then again I am not POTUS.
Let's see how it plays out.
Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 21:44:54 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to the
hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a king.
Untrue.
I disagree. Just this newsgroup has been flooded with complaints that
media shouldn't be allowed to criticize Trump.
MAGAs thrill to Trump banning media from the White House Press Corps.
If the press had an integrity and any courage, they could fight back.
What if they gave a press conference and nobody came?
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 21:44:54 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to the
hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a king.
Untrue.
I disagree. Just this newsgroup has been flooded with complaints that
media shouldn't be allowed to criticize Trump.
MAGAs thrill to Trump banning media from the White House Press Corps.
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in
news:105qp53$b80o$[email protected]:
I do like that Trump is allowing more media influencers, podcasters
and such join the conferences. They are the future of media as legacy
media is no longer trusted and is falling apart.
Nothing adds to serious political issues
like input from teenage fashion influencers
and Scientologists and "killer vax" gurus and
chemtrail alarmists.
I do like that Trump is allowing more media influencers, podcasters
and such join the conferences. They are the future of media as legacy
media is no longer trusted and is falling apart.
On 2025-07-23, chine.bleu <[email protected]> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 21:44:54 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to the
hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a king.
Untrue.
I disagree. Just this newsgroup has been flooded with complaints that
media shouldn't be allowed to criticize Trump.
MAGAs thrill to Trump banning media from the White House Press Corps.
If the press had an integrity and any courage, they could fight back.
What if they gave a press conference and nobody came?
Biden
has already tried and done that.
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:105qp9c$b80o$[email protected]:
On 2025-07-23, chine.bleu <[email protected]> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 21:44:54 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to the >>>>>> hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a king.
Untrue.
I disagree. Just this newsgroup has been flooded with complaints that >>>> media shouldn't be allowed to criticize Trump.
MAGAs thrill to Trump banning media from the White House Press Corps.
If the press had an integrity and any courage, they could fight back.
What if they gave a press conference and nobody came?
Biden
But Biden!
has already tried and done that.
Has there EVER been a discussion
about Trump that you won't chime in
with your stale "but Biden" diversion?
On 7/23/2025 11:29 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in
news:105qp53$b80o$[email protected]:
I do like that Trump is allowing more media influencers, podcasters
and such join the conferences. They are the future of media as legacy
media is no longer trusted and is falling apart.
Nothing adds to serious political issues
like input from teenage fashion influencers
and Scientologists and "killer vax" gurus and
chemtrail alarmists.
And fuckwits who piss and moan about Zelensky not wearing a suit...
On 7/23/2025 11:33 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in
news:105qp9c$b80o$[email protected]:
On 2025-07-23, chine.bleu <[email protected]> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 21:44:54 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to
the hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a
king.
Untrue.
I disagree. Just this newsgroup has been flooded with complaints
that media shouldn't be allowed to criticize Trump.
MAGAs thrill to Trump banning media from the White House Press
Corps.
If the press had an integrity and any courage, they could fight
back. What if they gave a press conference and nobody came?
Biden
But Biden!
has already tried and done that.
Has there EVER been a discussion
about Trump that you won't chime in
with your stale "but Biden" diversion?
Do you remember this one?
On 1/20/2017 12:22 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> Former President Obama is now officially irrelevant.
And then for the next seven years, Hartung always said, "But Obama!"
On 2025-07-22, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 21:44:54 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to the
hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a king.
Untrue.
I disagree. Just this newsgroup has been flooded with complaints that
media shouldn't be allowed to criticize Trump.
Maybe I don't follow this group as closely as others but I haven't seen
that at all.
What *I* have seen is people pointing out the left wing media constant
24x7 attacks on Trump while at the same time ignoring the good he
does as well as Biden's administration's covering for Joe and
so forth.
It's a clear double standard and that's what I object to.
Cover the news and dedicate the commentary to commentary type
shows.
IOW go back to the Cronkite days, and he was a liberal of sorts.
MAGAs thrill to Trump banning media from the White House Press Corps.
That's his choice. If it were me, I would let them so his administration >especially Karoline Leavitt, can make them look like fools, which some of them are.
I do like that Trump is allowing more media influencers, podcasters and such >join the conferences. They are the future of media as legacy media is no longer
trusted and is falling apart.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 13:47:15 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-07-22, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 21:44:54 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to the
hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a king.
Untrue.
I disagree. Just this newsgroup has been flooded with complaints that
media shouldn't be allowed to criticize Trump.
Maybe I don't follow this group as closely as others but I haven't seen >>that at all.
What *I* have seen is people pointing out the left wing media constant
24x7 attacks on Trump while at the same time ignoring the good he
does as well as Biden's administration's covering for Joe and
so forth.
It's a clear double standard and that's what I object to.
I wonder if Swilly can post some of those "complaints" that exist only
in his head.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 13:42:15 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
His TDS seems to be metastasizing as lately he has
been spinning like a top.
He needs to head to a safe space ASAP before he breaks down
totally and ends up a basket case like Rudy.
Is that why you decline to respond to my comments and analyses or is
it because you're afraid to try?
With you demons, you take every opportunity to nit pick and attack
Trump yet you made excuses for 4 years in order to justify a calcified
corpse as POTUS and then, you demons, the party always squawking about
losing democracy, sat by and watched a soft coup as Kamala was
appointed without a single vote.
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in
news:105u665$qp2c$[email protected]:
With you demons, you take every opportunity to nit pick and attack
Trump yet you made excuses for 4 years in order to justify a calcified
corpse as POTUS and then, you demons, the party always squawking about
losing democracy, sat by and watched a soft coup as Kamala was
appointed without a single vote.
Huh?
The majority of US presidents
stepped aside after one elected
term. What is your problem with
that?
And where was your "soft coup"
complaints when Gerald Ford became
president despite not being elected
even to the VP post?
On 2025-07-25, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in
news:105u665$qp2c$[email protected]:
With you demons, you take every opportunity to nit pick and attack
Trump yet you made excuses for 4 years in order to justify a calcified
corpse as POTUS and then, you demons, the party always squawking about
losing democracy, sat by and watched a soft coup as Kamala was
appointed without a single vote.
Huh?
The majority of US presidents
stepped aside after one elected
term. What is your problem with
that?
Biden was the nominee and didn't just step aside.
He was pressured by the party to do such.
On Friday he announced he was in the race to win.
On Sunday all of a sudden he dropped out.
How stupid are you?
On 2025-07-25, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:calcified
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in
news:105u665$qp2c$[email protected]:
With you demons, you take every opportunity to nit pick and attack
Trump yet you made excuses for 4 years in order to justify a
aboutcorpse as POTUS and then, you demons, the party always squawking
losing democracy, sat by and watched a soft coup as Kamala was
appointed without a single vote.
Huh?
The majority of US presidents
stepped aside after one elected
term. What is your problem with
that?
Biden was the nominee and didn't just step aside.
He was pressured by the party to do such.
Kamala Harris was NOT inline to become the candidate for POTUS.
Biden did not resign or die.
Face it she was appointed.
There was no primary election.
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:48:05 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
I have been responding however I'm not going to repeat the same responses >>> ad nauseam. And when you make shit up, I will ignore it.
I don't make shit up. Period. If you think I have, point it out and
I'll certify what I said.
If you don't do that, if you just post and run, how will you ever know
for sure that you're right?
Ok, I'll bite.
Post 3 things you would like me answer and I will.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:48:05 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
I have been responding however I'm not going to repeat the same responses >>ad nauseam. And when you make shit up, I will ignore it.
I don't make shit up. Period. If you think I have, point it out and
I'll certify what I said.
If you don't do that, if you just post and run, how will you ever know
for sure that you're right?
On 7/25/25 20:45, pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:48:05 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
I have been responding however I'm not going to repeat the same responses >>>> ad nauseam. And when you make shit up, I will ignore it.
I don't make shit up. Period. If you think I have, point it out and
I'll certify what I said.
If you don't do that, if you just post and run, how will you ever know
for sure that you're right?
Ok, I'll bite.
Post 3 things you would like me answer and I will.
IRL real full name
IRL real SSN#
IRL real street address with phone#
/s
-hh
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:48:05 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
I have been responding however I'm not going to repeat the same
responses ad nauseam. And when you make shit up, I will ignore it.
I don't make shit up. Period. If you think I have, point it out and
I'll certify what I said.
If you don't do that, if you just post and run, how will you ever
know for sure that you're right?
Ok, I'll bite.
Post 3 things you would like me answer and I will.
On 7/25/25 20:45, pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:48:05 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
I have been responding however I'm not going to repeat the same responses >>>> ad nauseam. And when you make shit up, I will ignore it.
I don't make shit up. Period. If you think I have, point it out and
I'll certify what I said.
If you don't do that, if you just post and run, how will you ever know
for sure that you're right?
Ok, I'll bite.
Post 3 things you would like me answer and I will.
IRL real full name
IRL real SSN#
IRL real street address with phone#
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in
news:10618fd$1876e$[email protected]:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:48:05 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
I have been responding however I'm not going to repeat the same
responses ad nauseam. And when you make shit up, I will ignore it.
I don't make shit up. Period. If you think I have, point it out and
I'll certify what I said.
If you don't do that, if you just post and run, how will you ever
know for sure that you're right?
Ok, I'll bite.
Post 3 things you would like me answer and I will.
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
2) prove you own an 800 hp Mustang, as you claim.
3) prove you can debate a Trump failing without
changing the subject to Biden.
On 2025-07-23, chine.bleu <[email protected]> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 21:44:54 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Eliminating the First Amendment is apparently a project dear to the
hearts of MAGA. They would destroy America to install a king.
Untrue.
I disagree. Just this newsgroup has been flooded with complaints that
media shouldn't be allowed to criticize Trump.
MAGAs thrill to Trump banning media from the White House Press Corps.
If the press had an integrity and any courage, they could fight back.
What if they gave a press conference and nobody came?
Biden has already tried and done that.
Remember him wandering around some diner and the people in the booths
and tables completely ignored him?
Then there was his failed train whistle stop campaigning.
Literally nobody showed up.
So that method isn't going to work.
Nothing. The voters showed what they thought of Harris's appointment
same as they did Ford's, didn't they? And I didn't see her or the
'lefty msm' spend years shrieking about how the election was rigged
either. The losers accepted the vote and that was that.
Rather, how ignorant you try to portray them as.ROTFLMAO at how ignorant you demons are.
Agreed. The Dems are still trying to get their thumbs out of theirYour party is a disaster and you know it.
assholes.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 02:18:39 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
<snip>
Your party is a disaster and you know it.
Agreed. The Dems are still trying to get their thumbs out of their
assholes.
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:48:05 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
I have been responding however I'm not going to repeat the same responses >>>ad nauseam. And when you make shit up, I will ignore it.
I don't make shit up. Period. If you think I have, point it out and
I'll certify what I said.
If you don't do that, if you just post and run, how will you ever know
for sure that you're right?
Ok, I'll bite.
Post 3 things you would like me answer and I will.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:48:05 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-24, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 13:42:15 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
His TDS seems to be metastasizing as lately he hasIs that why you decline to respond to my comments and analyses or is
been spinning like a top.
He needs to head to a safe space ASAP before he breaks down
totally and ends up a basket case like Rudy.
it because you're afraid to try?
I have been responding
When? It's rare for a reply of mine to be followed up by you.
however I'm not going to repeat the same responses
ad nauseam. And when you make shit up, I will ignore it.
For example, your analysis of the .gov site listing Trump's accomplishments >>in the first 6 months. Let's take one, inflation. You claim it is up but fail >>to address specifically what inflation is under Trump compared to Biden which >>is what he is referring to.
You can see it here. >><https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/>
Trump is correct.
According to your own cite's opening paragraph:
"The annual inflation rate for the United States was 2.7% for the 12
months ending June, compared to the previous rate increase of 2.4%,
according to U.S. Labor Department data published on July 15, 2025.
The next inflation update is scheduled for release on August 12 at
8:30 a.m. ET, providing information on the inflation rate for the 12
months ending July."
As you can see, BY YOUR OWN CITE, inflation is UP slightly. More to
the point, inflation was whipped before Trump entered office according
to YOUR OWN CITE.
You also ignore the tracker I posted,
I did not ignore that tracker. I responded to that post.
that AP has published which shows that many of
Trump's promises have either been kept or a work in progress.
It's a little outdated, but still. >><https://apnews.com/projects/trump-campaign-promise-tracker/>
You posted a White House tracker which is not reliable as it contains whatever Trump wants it to contain and his habit of lying is
unequalled by any other US politician alive or dead.
You also posted the above AP tracker. I did not ignore it, I replied
to it in another post noting this was a *different* set of promises
from the White House list and that Trump is only 5 for 20 at AP.
Meh.
And then there is the border. I don't know if it was you or the
bloviator in charge (the B.I.C) hh who said that the border isn't sealed >>because the wall isn't complete.
That's idiotic.
That's not what -hh said. He said the fact that border crossings are
way down proves that Trump's border wall, which never got built, is unneccessary to securing the border. That task can be done without a
wall. Before you accuse somebody of being an idiot, make sure you
first understand what they said, not whatever idiocy you wish they'd
said that you can argue with.
The point that is ignored is that DHS is delivering on the most secure border >>in American history.
Without a wall and I have not disputed the improvements in border
control. I ceded that point fully in reply to the White House tracker
you posted.
And that is setting off the demons TDS bigtime which is why you will never see
it on the MSM.
I don't give a fuck what the Democrats think nor do I care about what
tales the MSM is spinning. Don't forget, Fox is now MSM itself.
I am embarrassed by Trump every day because he is everything that is
shameful about humanity.
<https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/07/02/dhs-shatters-nationwide-border-records-once-again-delivering-most-secure-border
"once-again-delivering-most-secure-border" ... with*out* a wall.
<snip>
With you demons, you take every opportunity to nit pick and attack Trump >>yet you made excuses for 4 years in order to justify a calcified corpse as >>POTUS and then, you demons, the party always squawking about losing democracy,
sat by and watched a soft coup as Kamala was appointed without a single vote.
Don't confuscate my views/statements with those of everybody else who
has ever disagreed with you about anything. You might have better understanding if you engaged with me rather than assuming I'm a
radical demolefty.
On one hand, I was pleased that Biden was putting so many resources
into Ukraine against Russia. Otoh, I'm also glad Trump is forcing the Europeans to secure their own lands by making them pay for their own
defense.
Afaic, requiring Europe to secure itself and Africa against Russia is necessary in order for us to police the Pacific and prevent conquest
of the west by China.
Having been a finger's width from a peacenik in the nineteen sixties
and seventies, I can yet appreciate the need for arming now against
the dictatorships of Russia, China and the South.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 02:18:39 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-25, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:<snip>
And where was your "soft coup"
complaints when Gerald Ford became
president despite not being elected
even to the VP post?
Give me a break already Hollow. You are really stretching it here.
Ford became POTUS via the Constitution when Nixon resigned.
Ford was VP via Nixon winning the election.
There is no specific election for VP.
Yes there is. The first Tuesday in November of any leap year.
The point is that the US ended up with a President NOT selected by the voters. One who was, in effect, appointed by the shamed President who
was about to resign. But because, I suppose, those were Republicans,
you can only defend their actions.
FWIW, the voters showed what they thought of Watergate, Nixon and the
first appointed President first Tuesday in November 1976.
Kamala Harris was NOT inline to become the candidate for POTUS.
Biden did not resign or die.
Face it she was appointed.
There was no primary election.
No votes.
Nothing.
Don't you as a demon feel cheated?
What happened to democracy?
Nothing. The voters showed what they thought of Harris's appointment
same as they did Ford's, didn't they? And I didn't see her or the
'lefty msm' spend years shrieking about how the election was rigged
either. The losers accepted the vote and that was that.
ROTFLMAO at how ignorant you demons are.
Rather, how ignorant you try to portray them as.
Your party is a disaster and you know it.
Agreed. The Dems are still trying to get their thumbs out of their
assholes.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:16:41 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Biden declined to run again.
But he did run again. He ran a primary campaign and won enough
electoral votes to get the nomination. He insisted the whole time
that he was going to run in the general also. It was only after top leadership browbeat him that he stepped aside.
Right or wrong, that's what happened.
On 7/25/2025 7:08 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in
news:10618fd$1876e$[email protected]:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:2) prove you own an 800 hp Mustang, as you claim.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:48:05 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
I have been responding however I'm not going to repeat the same
responses ad nauseam. And when you make shit up, I will ignore it.
I don't make shit up. Period. If you think I have, point it out and >>>> I'll certify what I said.
If you don't do that, if you just post and run, how will you ever
know for sure that you're right?
Ok, I'll bite.
Post 3 things you would like me answer and I will.
Given that "pothole" is a Linux bit twiddler and well into his 60s, at
least, that is all but certainly a fiction. The car costs $300+ K, and "pothole" doesn't have that kind of money...
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in
news:10618fd$1876e$[email protected]:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:48:05 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
I have been responding however I'm not going to repeat the same >>>>responses ad nauseam. And when you make shit up, I will ignore it.
I don't make shit up. Period. If you think I have, point it out and
I'll certify what I said.
If you don't do that, if you just post and run, how will you ever
know for sure that you're right?
Ok, I'll bite.
Post 3 things you would like me answer and I will.
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
2) prove you own an 800 hp Mustang, as you claim.
3) prove you can debate a Trump failing without
changing the subject to Biden.
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:48:05 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-24, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 13:42:15 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
His TDS seems to be metastasizing as lately he hasIs that why you decline to respond to my comments and analyses or is
been spinning like a top.
He needs to head to a safe space ASAP before he breaks down
totally and ends up a basket case like Rudy.
it because you're afraid to try?
I have been responding
When? It's rare for a reply of mine to be followed up by you.
however I'm not going to repeat the same responses
ad nauseam. And when you make shit up, I will ignore it.
For example, your analysis of the .gov site listing Trump's accomplishments >>> in the first 6 months. Let's take one, inflation. You claim it is up but fail
to address specifically what inflation is under Trump compared to Biden which
is what he is referring to.
You can see it here.
<https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/> >>>
Trump is correct.
According to your own cite's opening paragraph:
"The annual inflation rate for the United States was 2.7% for the 12
months ending June, compared to the previous rate increase of 2.4%,
according to U.S. Labor Department data published on July 15, 2025.
The next inflation update is scheduled for release on August 12 at
8:30 a.m. ET, providing information on the inflation rate for the 12
months ending July."
As you can see, BY YOUR OWN CITE, inflation is UP slightly. More to
the point, inflation was whipped before Trump entered office according
to YOUR OWN CITE.
Compare inflation when Biden was POTUS to when trump made that statement.
It is DOWN. This is what Trump meant. Not that it rised 1/10th of a point
in the last couple of weeks.
Look at the chart.
Biden.
2020 - 1.4%
2021 - 7%
2022 - 6.5%
2023 - 3.4%
2024 - 2.9%
2025 - 2.7% so far.
And then there is the border. I don't know if it was you or the
bloviator in charge (the B.I.C) hh who said that the border isn't sealed >>> because the wall isn't complete.
That's idiotic.
That's not what -hh said. He said the fact that border crossings are
way down proves that Trump's border wall, which never got built, is
unneccessary to securing the border. That task can be done without a
wall. Before you accuse somebody of being an idiot, make sure you
first understand what they said, not whatever idiocy you wish they'd
said that you can argue with.
I understood what he said.
It was a diversion from the fact that Biden claimed first that the borderBZZZZZZZT! Wrong.
was secure and then claimed he couldn't do anything about it.
Trump solved the problem in 3 months and the wall is simply another part
of security, which I have said many times before.
Bottom line is Biden destroyed the country via mass immigration and
Trump is fixing it.
The point that is ignored is that DHS is delivering on the most secure border
in American history.
Without a wall and I have not disputed the improvements in border
control. I ceded that point fully in reply to the White House tracker
you posted.
There is a partial wall, but it doesn't matter as it's under control now. Trump has done what Biden said couldn't be done.
And that is setting off the demons TDS bigtime which is why you will never see
it on the MSM.
I don't give a fuck what the Democrats think nor do I care about what
tales the MSM is spinning. Don't forget, Fox is now MSM itself.
I haven't watched Fox regularly in years.
Mark Levin is the only Fox person I follow and that's via online.
You should care what the democrats think because the party has hit rock bottom.
They need to change big time or they will ultimately cease to exist.
I am embarrassed by Trump every day because he is everything that is
shameful about humanity.
<https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/07/02/dhs-shatters-nationwide-border-records-once-again-delivering-most-secure-border
"once-again-delivering-most-secure-border" ... with*out* a wall.
<snip>
Sigh.....
With you demons, you take every opportunity to nit pick and attack Trump >>> yet you made excuses for 4 years in order to justify a calcified corpse as >>> POTUS and then, you demons, the party always squawking about losing democracy,
sat by and watched a soft coup as Kamala was appointed without a single vote.
Don't confuscate my views/statements with those of everybody else who
has ever disagreed with you about anything. You might have better
understanding if you engaged with me rather than assuming I'm a
radical demolefty.
I am not saying specifically you. There are of course exceptions but just
the fact you are so TDS infected, you are going to get lumped into the same bucket. It's the same thing your side does to the republicans. We are not all MAGA loons that worship Trump. Personally I don't give a hoot who is POTUS as long as our country and citizens are protected and put first both in country and
globally as in peace through strength.
On one hand, I was pleased that Biden was putting so many resources
into Ukraine against Russia. Otoh, I'm also glad Trump is forcing the
Europeans to secure their own lands by making them pay for their own
defense.
Same.
Afaic, requiring Europe to secure itself and Africa against Russia is
necessary in order for us to police the Pacific and prevent conquest
of the west by China.
Agree again.
Having been a finger's width from a peacenik in the nineteen sixties
and seventies, I can yet appreciate the need for arming now against
the dictatorships of Russia, China and the South.
Agree again. I come from the "duck and cover" generation and remember it
very well.
We must be close in age.
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 02:18:39 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-25, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:<snip>
And where was your "soft coup"
complaints when Gerald Ford became
president despite not being elected
even to the VP post?
Give me a break already Hollow. You are really stretching it here.
Ford became POTUS via the Constitution when Nixon resigned.
Ford was VP via Nixon winning the election.
There is no specific election for VP.
Yes there is. The first Tuesday in November of any leap year.
SPECIFIC.
The point is that the US ended up with a President NOT selected by the
voters. One who was, in effect, appointed by the shamed President who
was about to resign. But because, I suppose, those were Republicans,
you can only defend their actions.
That's the way the Constitution works.
Nixon resigned and Ford became POTUS.
Biden didn't resign.
If he had, Kamala would have been POTUS.
FWIW, the voters showed what they thought of Watergate, Nixon and the
first appointed President first Tuesday in November 1976.
Ford wasn't appointed.
Neither was Johnson.
Both became POTUS via line of succession.
Kamala was appointed as the democrat parties candidate.
No primary.
No votes.
Nothing.
These same soft coup elite could have appointed Stephen Colbert and technically it would have been the same thing.
Kamala Harris was NOT inline to become the candidate for POTUS.
Biden did not resign or die.
Face it she was appointed.
There was no primary election.
No votes.
Nothing.
Don't you as a demon feel cheated?
What happened to democracy?
Nothing. The voters showed what they thought of Harris's appointment
same as they did Ford's, didn't they? And I didn't see her or the
'lefty msm' spend years shrieking about how the election was rigged
either. The losers accepted the vote and that was that.
For the 3rd time, Ford was NOT appointed.
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 02:18:39 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-25, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:<snip>
And where was your "soft coup"
complaints when Gerald Ford became
president despite not being elected
even to the VP post?
Give me a break already Hollow. You are really stretching it here.
Ford became POTUS via the Constitution when Nixon resigned.
Ford was VP via Nixon winning the election.
There is no specific election for VP.
Yes there is. The first Tuesday in November of any leap year.
SPECIFIC.
The point is that the US ended up with a President NOT selected by the
voters. One who was, in effect, appointed by the shamed President who
was about to resign. But because, I suppose, those were Republicans,
you can only defend their actions.
That's the way the Constitution works.
Nixon resigned and Ford became POTUS.
Biden didn't resign. If he had, Kamala would have been POTUS.
FWIW, the voters showed what they thought of Watergate, Nixon and the
first appointed President first Tuesday in November 1976.
Ford wasn't appointed.
Neither was Johnson.
Both became POTUS via line of succession.
Kamala was appointed as the democrat parties candidate.
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:16:41 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Biden declined to run again.
But he did run again. He ran a primary campaign and won enough
electoral votes to get the nomination. He insisted the whole time
that he was going to run in the general also. It was only after top
leadership browbeat him that he stepped aside.
Right or wrong, that's what happened.
Of course that's what happened but Kamala didn't get any votes for POTUS nomination and
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1062og6$2e5g2$4@dont-
email.me:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 02:18:39 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-25, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:<snip>
And where was your "soft coup"
complaints when Gerald Ford became
president despite not being elected
even to the VP post?
Give me a break already Hollow. You are really stretching it here.
Ford became POTUS via the Constitution when Nixon resigned.
Ford was VP via Nixon winning the election.
There is no specific election for VP.
Yes there is. The first Tuesday in November of any leap year.
SPECIFIC.
The point is that the US ended up with a President NOT selected by the
voters. One who was, in effect, appointed by the shamed President who
was about to resign. But because, I suppose, those were Republicans,
you can only defend their actions.
That's the way the Constitution works.
Nixon resigned and Ford became POTUS.
Biden didn't resign.
Neither did the rest of the
one term presidents.
If he had, Kamala would have been POTUS.
Is that what you wanted?
FWIW, the voters showed what they thought of Watergate, Nixon and the
first appointed President first Tuesday in November 1976.
Ford wasn't appointed.
You think he was voted
into office in 1974?
Neither was Johnson.
Both became POTUS via line of succession.
Kamala was appointed as the democrat parties candidate.
No primary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024 _Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
No votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024
_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Nothing.
These same soft coup elite could have appointed Stephen Colbert and
technically it would have been the same thing.
Kamala Harris was NOT inline to become the candidate for POTUS.
Biden did not resign or die.
Face it she was appointed.
There was no primary election.
No votes.
Nothing.
Don't you as a demon feel cheated?
What happened to democracy?
Nothing. The voters showed what they thought of Harris's appointment
same as they did Ford's, didn't they? And I didn't see her or the
'lefty msm' spend years shrieking about how the election was rigged
either. The losers accepted the vote and that was that.
For the 3rd time, Ford was NOT appointed.
And neither was Kamala.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024
_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
On 7/26/25 10:13, pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:48:05 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-24, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 13:42:15 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
His TDS seems to be metastasizing as lately he hasIs that why you decline to respond to my comments and analyses or is >>>>> it because you're afraid to try?
been spinning like a top.
He needs to head to a safe space ASAP before he breaks down
totally and ends up a basket case like Rudy.
I have been responding
When? It's rare for a reply of mine to be followed up by you.
however I'm not going to repeat the same responses
ad nauseam. And when you make shit up, I will ignore it.
For example, your analysis of the .gov site listing Trump's accomplishments
in the first 6 months. Let's take one, inflation. You claim it is up but fail
to address specifically what inflation is under Trump compared to Biden which
is what he is referring to.
You can see it here.
<https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/> >>>>
Trump is correct.
According to your own cite's opening paragraph:
"The annual inflation rate for the United States was 2.7% for the 12
months ending June, compared to the previous rate increase of 2.4%,
according to U.S. Labor Department data published on July 15, 2025.
The next inflation update is scheduled for release on August 12 at
8:30 a.m. ET, providing information on the inflation rate for the 12
months ending July."
As you can see, BY YOUR OWN CITE, inflation is UP slightly. More to
the point, inflation was whipped before Trump entered office according
to YOUR OWN CITE.
Compare inflation when Biden was POTUS to when trump made that statement.
It is DOWN. This is what Trump meant. Not that it rised 1/10th of a point
in the last couple of weeks.
Look at the chart.
Biden.
2020 - 1.4%
2021 - 7%
2022 - 6.5%
2023 - 3.4%
2024 - 2.9%
2025 - 2.7% so far.
Except for how these annual values are misleading, as they obfuscate
major changes which can & do occur midyear. Look at the Monthly values,
and zoom out to the "10 year" histogram for perspective:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1062s64$2fgin$1@dont-
email.me:
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
You posted it, you prove it.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 00:40:12 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
As for the 1st amendment, Trump isn't "destroying" it
at all.
Yes. He is. A President should not be suing media outlets because he doesn't like the stories they publish about him.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 00:40:12 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
As for the 1st amendment, Trump isn't "destroying" it
at all.
Yes. He is. A President should not be suing media outlets because he doesn't like the stories they publish about him.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:38:37 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Kamala was never voted for in a primary to become the POTUS candidate.
She was appointed by the democrat elite.
That's where the REAL threat to democracy is.
And the electorate voted accordingly.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:38:37 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Kamala was never voted for in a primary to become the POTUS candidate.
She was appointed by the democrat elite.
That's where the REAL threat to democracy is.
And the electorate voted accordingly.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 14:25:10 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Ford wasn't appointed.
He was appointed to VP. Ford was the only President to serve for whom
nobody voted.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 14:13:29 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<[email protected]> wrote:
Compare inflation when Biden was POTUS to when trump made that statement. >>It is DOWN. This is what Trump meant. Not that it rised 1/10th of a point in the last couple of weeks.
Look at the chart.
Biden.
2020 - 1.4%
2021 - 7%
2022 - 6.5%
2023 - 3.4%
2024 - 2.9%
2025 - 2.7% so far.
Between March 2020 and May 2021, the government injected $6T cash into
our $23T economy. What happens when you increase the amount of money
in an economy but not the amount of goods. And in actual fact, as the available spending money went up, the quantity of goods was far below
normal.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 14:13:29 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<[email protected]> wrote:
2020 - 1.4%
2021 - 7%
2022 - 6.5%
2023 - 3.4%
2024 - 2.9%
2025 - 2.7% so far.
I lost this post before completing my reply. The source I used gave
2024 as 2.4% OR damned astigmatism!!
In any case, inflation has been climbing since January and once the
tariffs (finally) go into effect, its climb will be much faster.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 14:13:29 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bottom line is Biden destroyed the country via mass immigration and
Trump is fixing it.
Isn't that an overstatement?
Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:29:10 -0000 (UTC), pothead <[email protected]>
wrote:
Just like COVID put a dent in Trump's agenda.
Point is, Trump's statement was correct in the context it was given.
Why and how is irrelevant to the statement.
Inflation and unemployment were both already rising in 2019. If
anything, the distraction and shock of 2020 saved his reputation.
But that's ok. Trump is the President by popular vote. His party has control of both Houses and the SCOTUS. From this point forward, the
GOP and Trump cannot escape blame for anything bad or credit for
anything good.
First bad thing: Trump's massive tax increase on the working and
middle classes.
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:38:37 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Kamala was never voted for in a primary to become the POTUS candidate. >>>She was appointed by the democrat elite.
That's where the REAL threat to democracy is.
And the electorate voted accordingly.
And who appointed her for the electorate to vote on?
And why?
How come Stephen Colbert wasn't appointed?
He could have been.
Did *you* get a vote?
You voted for the Biden/Kamala ticket.
Nothing else.
Does the constitution say this is acceptable?
On 2025-07-26, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:the
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1062og6$2e5g2$4@dont-
email.me:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 02:18:39 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-25, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:<snip>
And where was your "soft coup"
complaints when Gerald Ford became
president despite not being elected
even to the VP post?
Give me a break already Hollow. You are really stretching it here. >>>>>Ford became POTUS via the Constitution when Nixon resigned.
Ford was VP via Nixon winning the election.
There is no specific election for VP.
Yes there is. The first Tuesday in November of any leap year.
SPECIFIC.
The point is that the US ended up with a President NOT selected by
whovoters. One who was, in effect, appointed by the shamed President
Republicans,was about to resign. But because, I suppose, those were
theyou can only defend their actions.
That's the way the Constitution works.
Nixon resigned and Ford became POTUS.
Biden didn't resign.
Neither did the rest of the
one term presidents.
If he had, Kamala would have been POTUS.
Is that what you wanted?
FWIW, the voters showed what they thought of Watergate, Nixon and
appointmentfirst appointed President first Tuesday in November 1976.
Ford wasn't appointed.
You think he was voted
into office in 1974?
Neither was Johnson.
Both became POTUS via line of succession.
Kamala was appointed as the democrat parties candidate.
No primary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024
_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
No votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024
_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Nothing.
These same soft coup elite could have appointed Stephen Colbert and
technically it would have been the same thing.
Kamala Harris was NOT inline to become the candidate for POTUS.
Biden did not resign or die.
Face it she was appointed.
There was no primary election.
No votes.
Nothing.
Don't you as a demon feel cheated?
What happened to democracy?
Nothing. The voters showed what they thought of Harris's
I'm done wasting time with you.same as they did Ford's, didn't they? And I didn't see her or the
'lefty msm' spend years shrieking about how the election was rigged
either. The losers accepted the vote and that was that.
For the 3rd time, Ford was NOT appointed.
And neither was Kamala.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024
_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Your points are 100% invalid.
Kamala was never voted for in a primary to become the POTUS candidate.
That's where the REAL threat to democracy is.
On 2025-07-26, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1062s64$2fgin$1@dont-
email.me:
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
You posted it, you prove it.
You can believe me or not.
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1063efh$1hr8f$7@dont-
email.me:
On 2025-07-26, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1062s64$2fgin$1@dont-
email.me:
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
You posted it, you prove it.
You can believe me or not.
A page straight from Hartung,
the group's biggest hypocrite.
"You don't have to believe my claim,
and I don't have to prove it."
David Hartung, Oct 24 2023
https://tinyurl.com/9kren8aw
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1063oqs$2k2o0$4@dont-
email.me:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:38:37 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Kamala was never voted for in a primary to become the POTUS candidate. >>>>She was appointed by the democrat elite.
That's where the REAL threat to democracy is.
And the electorate voted accordingly.
And who appointed her for the electorate to vote on?
And why?
How come Stephen Colbert wasn't appointed?
He could have been.
Did *you* get a vote?
You voted for the Biden/Kamala ticket.
Nothing else.
Does the constitution say this is acceptable?
Show us what the Constitution
says about presidential primaries.
Put it right here:
On 7/26/2025 7:51 AM, pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:16:41 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Biden declined to run again.
But he did run again. He ran a primary campaign and won enough
electoral votes to get the nomination. He insisted the whole time
that he was going to run in the general also. It was only after top
leadership browbeat him that he stepped aside.
Right or wrong, that's what happened.
Of course that's what happened but Kamala didn't get any votes for POTUS
nomination and
Yes, she did: at the convention.
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 00:40:12 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
As for the 1st amendment, Trump isn't "destroying" it
at all.
Yes. He is. A President should not be suing media outlets because he
doesn't like the stories they publish about him.
Depends.
Direct libel without proof is libel and it's open season.
Opinion pieces should be off limits.
Celebrities are constantly suing the media so why shouldn't Trump.
Now trying to completely shutdown the media like for example "The View" is wrong
IMHO and Trump is playing with fire.
I disagree with that.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 00:45:33 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
<who cares?>
My next three posts.
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:29:10 -0000 (UTC), pothead <[email protected]>
wrote:
Just like COVID put a dent in Trump's agenda.
Point is, Trump's statement was correct in the context it was given.
Why and how is irrelevant to the statement.
Inflation and unemployment were both already rising in 2019. If
anything, the distraction and shock of 2020 saved his reputation.
But that's ok. Trump is the President by popular vote. His party has
control of both Houses and the SCOTUS. From this point forward, the
GOP and Trump cannot escape blame for anything bad or credit for
anything good.
First bad thing: Trump's massive tax increase on the working and
middle classes.
Again, it's the statement that was/is being attacked and the statement
is true.
Why/how/when doesn't matter, at least for this discussion.
The future remains to be seen.
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 02:18:39 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-25, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:<snip>
And where was your "soft coup"
complaints when Gerald Ford became
president despite not being elected
even to the VP post?
Give me a break already Hollow. You are really stretching it here.
Ford became POTUS via the Constitution when Nixon resigned.
Ford was VP via Nixon winning the election.
There is no specific election for VP.
Yes there is. The first Tuesday in November of any leap year.
SPECIFIC.
The point is that the US ended up with a President NOT selected by the
voters. One who was, in effect, appointed by the shamed President who
was about to resign. But because, I suppose, those were Republicans,
you can only defend their actions.
That's the way the Constitution works.
Nixon resigned and Ford became POTUS.
Biden didn't resign. If he had, Kamala would have been POTUS.
FWIW, the voters showed what they thought of Watergate, Nixon and the
first appointed President first Tuesday in November 1976.
Ford wasn't appointed.
Neither was Johnson.
Both became POTUS via line of succession.
Kamala was appointed as the democrat parties candidate.
No primary.
No votes.
Nothing.
These same soft coup elite could have appointed Stephen Colbert and >technically it would have been the same thing.
Kamala Harris was NOT inline to become the candidate for POTUS.
Biden did not resign or die.
Face it she was appointed.
There was no primary election.
No votes.
Nothing.
Don't you as a demon feel cheated?
What happened to democracy?
Nothing. The voters showed what they thought of Harris's appointment
same as they did Ford's, didn't they? And I didn't see her or the
'lefty msm' spend years shrieking about how the election was rigged
either. The losers accepted the vote and that was that.
For the 3rd time, Ford was NOT appointed.
Succession to the POTUS.
How the voters felt after the fact is not a deciding factor.
ROTFLMAO at how ignorant you demons are.
Rather, how ignorant you try to portray them as.
My party didn't appoint a person to run for POTUS
without my having a vote.
The democrats did and your party stood by and watched while
at the same time accusing Trump, 24x7, as being a danger to
democracy.
It's laughable.
Your party is a disaster and you know it.
Agreed. The Dems are still trying to get their thumbs out of their
assholes.
Fair enough.
On 2025-07-27, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:candidate.
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1063oqs$2k2o0$4@dont-
email.me:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:38:37 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Kamala was never voted for in a primary to become the POTUS
She was appointed by the democrat elite.
That's where the REAL threat to democracy is.
And the electorate voted accordingly.
And who appointed her for the electorate to vote on?
And why?
How come Stephen Colbert wasn't appointed?
He could have been.
Did *you* get a vote?
You voted for the Biden/Kamala ticket.
Nothing else.
Does the constitution say this is acceptable?
Show us what the Constitution
says about presidential primaries.
Put it right here:
That's the point.
It DOESN't.
And that is why your democracy was violated.
Those same people who annoited and appointed Kamala could have just
as easily appointed Michelle Obama.
And the voters did not vote for her, or Kamala for that matter.
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 14:13:29 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bottom line is Biden destroyed the country via mass immigration and
Trump is fixing it.
Isn't that an overstatement?
It depends upon your perspective.
For example, if you are a resident of NYC you are not very happy right now. Crime is sky high etc.because the reality is that NYC's crime rate is down:
If Biden's policies were left in place, at least the major ones, this country would soon look like EU which is a complete disaster at the moment.What "disaster" is this? Their willingness to maintain Rule of Law?
Mass immigration is wrong.
It destroys the culture of the country especially when a large portion ofSounds like someone's never been to Chinatown in lower Manhattan, or
the migrants have no intention of assimilating.
This is not the 1930's here.
It's completely different.
Mass immigration is wrong.
The USA was literally built on it.
It destroys the culture of the country especially when a large portion ofSounds like someone's never been to Chinatown in lower Manhattan, or
the migrants have no intention of assimilating.
Little Italy, both of which dates from the 19th century. FYI, NY's Feast
of San Gennaro started in 1926: also well before you were even born.
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1063efh$1hr8f$7@dont-
email.me:
On 2025-07-26, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1062s64$2fgin$1@dont-
email.me:
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
You posted it, you prove it.
You can believe me or not.
A page straight from Hartung,
the group's biggest hypocrite.
"You don't have to believe my claim,
and I don't have to prove it."
David Hartung, Oct 24 2023
https://tinyurl.com/9kren8aw
On 2025-07-27, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1063oqs$2k2o0$4@dont-
email.me:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:38:37 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Kamala was never voted for in a primary to become the POTUS candidate. >>>>> She was appointed by the democrat elite.
That's where the REAL threat to democracy is.
And the electorate voted accordingly.
And who appointed her for the electorate to vote on?
And why?
How come Stephen Colbert wasn't appointed?
He could have been.
Did *you* get a vote?
You voted for the Biden/Kamala ticket.
Nothing else.
Does the constitution say this is acceptable?
Show us what the Constitution
says about presidential primaries.
Put it right here:
That's the point.
It DOESN't.
And that is why your democracy was violated.
Those same people who annoited [sic] and appointed Kamala could have just
as easily appointed Michelle Obama.
And the voters did not vote for her, or Kamala for that matter.
You have lost this one.
*Exactly*, you stupid fuck. The Constitution says nothing about how candidates for president are determined. Thus, there was no
constitutional violation in Harris becoming the Democratic nominee.
And that is why your democracy was violated.
No, it was not.
When has a US President ever sued a media outlet because he didn't
like a news item?
"U.S. Supreme Court Finds a Constitutional Right to Lie" <https://www.macdonaldillig.com/resources/article/u-s-supreme-court-finds-a-constitutional-right-to-lie>Direct libel without proof is libel and it's open season.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 23:37:00 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:38:37 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Kamala was never voted for in a primary to become the POTUS candidate. >>>>She was appointed by the democrat elite.
That's where the REAL threat to democracy is.
And the electorate voted accordingly.
And who appointed her for the electorate to vote on?
And why?
How come Stephen Colbert wasn't appointed?
He could have been.
Did *you* get a vote?
You voted for the Biden/Kamala ticket.
Nothing else.
Does the constitution say this is acceptable?
Where?
You can't win this one.
Just hope it never happens again.
When it does, it will be on a Republican ticket.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 02:34:52 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-27, Mitchell Holman wrote:
pothead wrote
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill wrote:Show us what the Constitution
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 pothead wrote:And who appointed her for the electorate to vote on?
Kamala was never voted for in a primary to become the POTUS candidate. >>>>>>She was appointed by the democrat elite.And the electorate voted accordingly.
That's where the REAL threat to democracy is.
And why?
How come Stephen Colbert wasn't appointed?
He could have been.
Did *you* get a vote?
You voted for the Biden/Kamala ticket.
Nothing else.
Does the constitution say this is acceptable?
says about presidential primaries.
Put it right here:
That's the point.
It DOESN't.
It also doesn't tell us how to run an election. So we can run them
any way we like.
And that is why your democracy was violated.
You're stretching. By your logic, political parties are a violation
of Constitutional principles.
Those same people who annoited and appointed Kamala could have just
as easily appointed Michelle Obama.
In which case they likely would have won the election.
And the voters did not vote for her, or Kamala for that matter.
75 million of them did.
You have lost this one.
Not really. Not on your say so.
Please move on.
Let's.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 02:21:00 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1063oqs$2k2o0$4@dont- >>email.me:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:38:37 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Kamala was never voted for in a primary to become the POTUS candidate. >>>>>She was appointed by the democrat elite.
That's where the REAL threat to democracy is.
And the electorate voted accordingly.
And who appointed her for the electorate to vote on?
And why?
How come Stephen Colbert wasn't appointed?
He could have been.
Did *you* get a vote?
You voted for the Biden/Kamala ticket.
Nothing else.
Does the constitution say this is acceptable?
Show us what the Constitution
says about presidential primaries.
Put it right here:
Good catch. Doesn't say anything about political parties either. Does
that mean we should ban them?
While I think annointing Harris was a mistake, the fact is, parties
can select their candidates in any way they choose. They only have to
answer to the voters.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 23:30:57 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 00:40:12 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
As for the 1st amendment, Trump isn't "destroying" it
at all.
Yes. He is. A President should not be suing media outlets because he
doesn't like the stories they publish about him.
Depends.
When has a US President ever sued a media outlet because he didn't
like a news item?
Direct libel without proof is libel and it's open season.
"U.S. Supreme Court Finds a Constitutional Right to Lie"
<https://www.macdonaldillig.com/resources/article/u-s-supreme-court-finds-a-constitutional-right-to-lie>
AI search:
"Does the Supreme Court allow news outlets to lie?
The Supreme Court has not issued a blanket ruling that news outlets
can lie. However, in the landmark case of New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment
protects the publication of all statements, even those later proven
false, about the conduct of public officials unless they are made with
actual malice, according to the Legal Information Institute."
"Constitutional Free Speech Protection of Disinformation in Political Campaigns"
<https://www.americanbar.org/groups/senior_lawyers/resources/voice-of-experience/2024-september/constitutional-free-speech-protection-of-lies-in-political-campaigns/>
"Is lying protected by the First Amendment, or can the government
punish lying?"
<https://www.freedomforum.org/is-lying-protected-first-amendment/>
Opinion pieces should be off limits.
Trump may sue for defamation IF he can prove there was malice
intended. Clearly no media outlet, except perhaps a radical leftist
one, is going to deliberately and maliciously defame him.
Celebrities are constantly suing the media so why shouldn't Trump.
In those cases, they're civilians suing over deliberate lies intended
to cause harm to their reputations: malice. While the First has been
applied to everything from politics to pornography, I think we can
agree that free political speech was the prime reason.
See also Jeffersen labeling Adams a hermaphrodite in 1800.
Now trying to completely shutdown the media like for example "The View" is wrong
IMHO and Trump is playing with fire.
I disagree with that.
Ditto The suits he's filing are like most of his suits; nuisance
baloney that he'll pull back from as soon as the suit reaches a stage inconvenient to him.
Imo, this is just another distraction to keep the public from learning
what the government is actually doing.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 02:21:00 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1063oqs$2k2o0$4@dont-
email.me:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:38:37 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Kamala was never voted for in a primary to become the POTUS candidate. >>>>> She was appointed by the democrat elite.
That's where the REAL threat to democracy is.
And the electorate voted accordingly.
And who appointed her for the electorate to vote on?
And why?
How come Stephen Colbert wasn't appointed?
He could have been.
Did *you* get a vote?
You voted for the Biden/Kamala ticket.
Nothing else.
Does the constitution say this is acceptable?
Show us what the Constitution
says about presidential primaries.
Put it right here:
Good catch. Doesn't say anything about political parties either. Does
that mean we should ban them?
While I think annointing [sic] Harris was a mistake,
the fact is, parties can select their candidates in any way they choose.
They only have to answer to the voters.
On 2025-07-27, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 02:21:00 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1063oqs$2k2o0$4@dont- >>>email.me:
On 2025-07-26, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:38:37 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Kamala was never voted for in a primary to become the POTUS >>>>>>candidate. She was appointed by the democrat elite.
That's where the REAL threat to democracy is.
And the electorate voted accordingly.
And who appointed her for the electorate to vote on?
And why?
How come Stephen Colbert wasn't appointed?
He could have been.
Did *you* get a vote?
You voted for the Biden/Kamala ticket.
Nothing else.
Does the constitution say this is acceptable?
Show us what the Constitution
says about presidential primaries.
Put it right here:
Good catch. Doesn't say anything about political parties either.
Does that mean we should ban them?
While I think annointing Harris was a mistake, the fact is, parties
can select their candidates in any way they choose. They only have
to answer to the voters.
But that's the point.
The democrats did an end run around the Constitution.
You can't possibly agree with the elite appointing the candidate can
you?
On 7/26/2025 7:24 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1063efh$1hr8f$7@dont-
email.me:
On 2025-07-26, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in news:1062s64$2fgin$1@dont-
email.me:
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
You posted it, you prove it.
You can believe me or not.
A page straight from Hartung,
the group's biggest hypocrite.
He's tied with Kremlin Girl for that "honor".
"You don't have to believe my claim,
and I don't have to prove it."
David Hartung, Oct 24 2023
https://tinyurl.com/9kren8aw
Hartung was *constantly* petulantly challenging others to prove their
claims. A while back, Kremlin Girl laughably said that one of her
claims was "self-evidently" true. I hope you saved that one.
"Proof not necessary. It's self-evident"
Nobody", June 14 2023
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/c/8B8fmTYBYxQ
"pothole" is male. This really isn't in rational dispute.
On 2025-07-27, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
On 2025-07-26, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
You posted it, you prove it.
You can believe me or not.
A page straight from Hartung,
the group's biggest hypocrite.
"You don't have to believe my claim,
and I don't have to prove it."
David Hartung, Oct 24 2023
https://tinyurl.com/9kren8aw
What does Hartung have to do with anything?
Why are you always moving the goalposts?
On 7/26/2025 7:36 PM, "pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but
not the least bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
On 2025-07-27, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least bit
masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
On 2025-07-26, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least
bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
You posted it, you prove it.
You can believe me or not.
A page straight from Hartung,
the group's biggest hypocrite.
"You don't have to believe my claim,
and I don't have to prove it."
David Hartung, Oct 24 2023
https://tinyurl.com/9kren8aw
What does Hartung have to do with anything?
You're mimicking him, and he's tied with Kremlin Girl for being the
worst hypocrites in this group.
Why are you always moving the goalposts?
He isn't.
You are not female, and you don't own an 800 hp Mustang. But the fact
that you aspire to one and are "into" high-performance cars is part of
the proof that you're male (albeit not at all masculine). Not all guys
are into high-performance cars, including detailed knowledge of various models, but *only* guys are.
*Everything* about you screams "dweeby male":
* your line of work
* your education
* your writing style
* your interests
By your writing style, I'm not just talking about your vocabulary,
although that's a big part of it. I'm talking as well about the
*physical* composition, which is peculiarly "dweeby boy." Here's a great example, from your pissing-and-moaning about how Harris became the
Democratic nominee last year. In writing about what the Constitution
says about primaries:
That's the point.
It DOESN't.
And that is why your democracy was violated.
There isn't a woman in the U.S. who would use those line breaks. A woman would make that all one paragraph, which happens to fit on one line:
That's the point. It DOESN't. And that is why your democracy was violated.
Just *stop* with this stupid fucking gag about being female. You're not
— you're a dweeby male.
None of the above equals "destroyed the country" nor is the EU a
"complete disaster". Again, you should get news from multiple sources
and compare them rather than simply assuming everything you get from
your chosen limited sources is gospel.
On 7/26/2025 7:36 PM, "pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male
but not the least bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy,
lied:
On 2025-07-27, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least bit
masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
On 2025-07-26, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least
bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
You posted it, you prove it.
You can believe me or not.
A page straight from Hartung,
the group's biggest hypocrite.
"You don't have to believe my claim,
and I don't have to prove it."
David Hartung, Oct 24 2023
https://tinyurl.com/9kren8aw
What does Hartung have to do with anything?
You're mimicking him, and he's tied with Kremlin Girl for being the
worst hypocrites in this group.
Why are you always moving the goalposts?
He isn't.
You are not female, and you don't own an 800 hp Mustang. But the fact
that you aspire to one and are "into" high-performance cars is part of
the proof that you're male (albeit not at all masculine). Not all guys
are into high-performance cars, including detailed knowledge of
various models, but *only* guys are.
*Everything* about you screams "dweeby male":
* your line of work
* your education
* your writing style
* your interests
By your writing style, I'm not just talking about your vocabulary,
although that's a big part of it. I'm talking as well about the
*physical* composition, which is peculiarly "dweeby boy." Here's a
great example, from your pissing-and-moaning about how Harris became
the Democratic nominee last year. In writing about what the
Constitution says about primaries:
That's the point.
It DOESN't.
And that is why your democracy was violated.
There isn't a woman in the U.S. who would use those line breaks. A
woman would make that all one paragraph, which happens to fit on one
line:
That's the point. It DOESN't. And that is why your democracy was
violated.
Just *stop* with this stupid fucking gag about being female. You're
not — you're a dweeby male.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 08:09:14 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 00:45:33 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
<who cares?>
My next three posts.
Crockpot got you steppin' 'n fetchin'.
Trump to a 't':
LOL! Month after month you've ignored every post I've made and
suddenly now, having been called on it, you want me to list three
things for you to respond to. Well, I have. They're in assorted
other posts. All you have to do is pay attention.
Clave <[email protected]> wrote in news:%FDhQ.174322$[email protected]:
On 7/26/2025 7:36 PM, "pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male
but not the least bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy,
lied:
On 2025-07-27, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least bit
masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
On 2025-07-26, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least
bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
You posted it, you prove it.
You can believe me or not.
The classic "pothole" evasion.
A page straight from Hartung,
the group's biggest hypocrite.
"You don't have to believe my claim,
and I don't have to prove it."
David Hartung, Oct 24 2023
https://tinyurl.com/9kren8aw
What does Hartung have to do with anything?
You're mimicking him, and he's tied with Kremlin Girl for being the
worst hypocrites in this group.
Why are you always moving the goalposts?
He isn't.
You are not female, and you don't own an 800 hp Mustang. But the fact
that you aspire to one and are "into" high-performance cars is part of
the proof that you're male (albeit not at all masculine). Not all guys
are into high-performance cars, including detailed knowledge of
various models, but *only* guys are.
*Everything* about you screams "dweeby male":
* your line of work
* your education
* your writing style
* your interests
By your writing style, I'm not just talking about your vocabulary,
although that's a big part of it. I'm talking as well about the
*physical* composition, which is peculiarly "dweeby boy." Here's a
great example, from your pissing-and-moaning about how Harris became
the Democratic nominee last year. In writing about what the
Constitution says about primaries:
That's the point.
It DOESN't.
And that is why your democracy was violated.
There isn't a woman in the U.S. who would use those line breaks. A
woman would make that all one paragraph, which happens to fit on one
line:
That's the point. It DOESN't. And that is why your democracy was
violated.
Just *stop* with this stupid fucking gag about being female. You're
not — you're a dweeby male.
On 2025-07-28, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
Clave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:%FDhQ.174322$[email protected]:
On 7/26/2025 7:36 PM, "pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male
but not the least bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy,
lied:
On 2025-07-27, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least
bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
On 2025-07-26, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least >>>>>>> bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
You posted it, you prove it.
You can believe me or not.
The classic "pothole" evasion.
A page straight from Hartung,
the group's biggest hypocrite.
"You don't have to believe my claim,
and I don't have to prove it."
David Hartung, Oct 24 2023
https://tinyurl.com/9kren8aw
What does Hartung have to do with anything?
You're mimicking him, and he's tied with Kremlin Girl for being the
worst hypocrites in this group.
Why are you always moving the goalposts?
He isn't.
You are not female, and you don't own an 800 hp Mustang. But the
fact that you aspire to one and are "into" high-performance cars is
part of the proof that you're male (albeit not at all masculine).
Not all guys are into high-performance cars, including detailed
knowledge of various models, but *only* guys are.
*Everything* about you screams "dweeby male":
* your line of work
* your education
* your writing style
* your interests
By your writing style, I'm not just talking about your vocabulary,
although that's a big part of it. I'm talking as well about the
*physical* composition, which is peculiarly "dweeby boy." Here's a
great example, from your pissing-and-moaning about how Harris became
the Democratic nominee last year. In writing about what the
Constitution says about primaries:
That's the point.
It DOESN't.
And that is why your democracy was violated.
There isn't a woman in the U.S. who would use those line breaks. A
woman would make that all one paragraph, which happens to fit on one
line:
That's the point. It DOESN't. And that is why your democracy was
violated.
Just *stop* with this stupid fucking gag about being female. You're
not — you're a dweeby male.
It's not an evasion.
I have been very clear that I do not post my private information
online. As for proving this that or the other thing, ask people who
use their real name if they regret doing it.
One recently popular poster in AFRL for example.
this person has posted in the past that he (she?) is not worthy
to wipe certain people's "pee pee".
And with a real name BTW.
How smart is that?
I won't embarrass that person any further but You can easily figure it
out via Google. That's how I stumbled upon it.
And no, it's not a forgery by some super sock puppet like snit.
The headers line up.
Bottom line you can either believe what I say or not.
That's up to you.
Topic closed from my end.
Move on.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 23:49:10 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
When has a US President ever sued a media outlet because he didn't
like a news item?
When has a US president been attacked to the level that Trump has been?
Barak Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton.
The game changed when the GOP took the Congress in '95. That's when
the mudslinging and hyperpartisanship really kicked off on the right
due to the highly partisan Fox News.
The right spent hundreds of millions of dollars over thirty years
trying to nail a Clinton on something and all they got was Bill lying
about whether or not he'd cheated on his wife.
Btw, he was exonerated of the charges.
Meanwhile the country suffered.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 23:55:49 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-27, Governor Swill wrote:<snip>
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 02:21:00 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote
And who appointed her for the electorate to vote on?
And why?
How come Stephen Colbert wasn't appointed?
He could have been.
Did *you* get a vote?
You voted for the Biden/Kamala ticket.
Nothing else.
Does the constitution say this is acceptable?
Show us what the Constitution
says about presidential primaries.
Put it right here:
Good catch. Doesn't say anything about political parties either. Does
that mean we should ban them?
While I think annointing Harris was a mistake, the fact is, parties
can select their candidates in any way they choose. They only have to
answer to the voters.
But that's the point.
The democrats did an end run around the Constitution.
How? Explain how the Dems' choice of Harris was a Constitutional
violation. Article and Clause, please.
You can't possibly agree with the elite appointing the candidate can you?
No, but I'm not elite, Democrat or Republican so really, I have no say
in how nominees are selected.
pothead <[email protected]> wrote in
news:1068o8s$2ad4v$[email protected]:
On 2025-07-28, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
Clave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:%FDhQ.174322$[email protected]:
On 7/26/2025 7:36 PM, "pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male
but not the least bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy,
lied:
On 2025-07-27, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least
bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
On 2025-07-26, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least >>>>>>>> bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
You posted it, you prove it.
You can believe me or not.
The classic "pothole" evasion.
A page straight from Hartung,
the group's biggest hypocrite.
"You don't have to believe my claim,
and I don't have to prove it."
David Hartung, Oct 24 2023
https://tinyurl.com/9kren8aw
What does Hartung have to do with anything?
You're mimicking him, and he's tied with Kremlin Girl for being the
worst hypocrites in this group.
Why are you always moving the goalposts?
He isn't.
You are not female, and you don't own an 800 hp Mustang. But the
fact that you aspire to one and are "into" high-performance cars is
part of the proof that you're male (albeit not at all masculine).
Not all guys are into high-performance cars, including detailed
knowledge of various models, but *only* guys are.
*Everything* about you screams "dweeby male":
* your line of work
* your education
* your writing style
* your interests
By your writing style, I'm not just talking about your vocabulary,
although that's a big part of it. I'm talking as well about the
*physical* composition, which is peculiarly "dweeby boy." Here's a
great example, from your pissing-and-moaning about how Harris became
the Democratic nominee last year. In writing about what the
Constitution says about primaries:
That's the point.
It DOESN't.
And that is why your democracy was violated.
There isn't a woman in the U.S. who would use those line breaks. A
woman would make that all one paragraph, which happens to fit on one
line:
That's the point. It DOESN't. And that is why your democracy was
violated.
Just *stop* with this stupid fucking gag about being female. You're
not — you're a dweeby male.
It's not an evasion.
I have been very clear that I do not post my private information
online. As for proving this that or the other thing, ask people who
use their real name if they regret doing it.
But you demand that others post
THEIR personal info online. Got it.
On 2025-07-29, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 23:55:49 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-27, Governor Swill wrote:<snip>
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 02:21:00 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote
And who appointed her for the electorate to vote on?
And why?
How come Stephen Colbert wasn't appointed?
He could have been.
Did *you* get a vote?
You voted for the Biden/Kamala ticket.
Nothing else.
Does the constitution say this is acceptable?
Show us what the Constitution
says about presidential primaries.
Put it right here:
Good catch. Doesn't say anything about political parties either. Does >>>> that mean we should ban them?
While I think annointing Harris was a mistake, the fact is, parties
can select their candidates in any way they choose. They only have to >>>> answer to the voters.
But that's the point.
The democrats did an end run around the Constitution.
How? Explain how the Dems' choice of Harris was a Constitutional
violation. Article and Clause, please.
Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution grants states the authority to determine the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections.
Some states do not allow a candidate to be replaced midstream.
Of course it is much more complex than that and is now something the courts need
to resolve.
Doesn't matter to republicans though because the day Kamala was appointed
You can't possibly agree with the elite appointing the candidate can you?
No, but I'm not elite, Democrat or Republican so really, I have no say
in how nominees are selected.
Actually you do.
It's called a primary.
You were denied that right.
On 2025-07-29, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
On 2025-07-28, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
Clave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:%FDhQ.174322$[email protected]:
On 7/26/2025 7:36 PM, "pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
On 2025-07-27, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
On 2025-07-26, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
"pothole," chromosomally and anatomically male but not the least bit masculine, and who is deathly afraid of Rudy, lied:
1) prove you are female, as you claim.
Sorry but I am a private person and with all the crazies
loose these days I don't release personal information.
You posted it, you prove it.
You can believe me or not.
The classic "pothole" evasion.
A page straight from Hartung,
the group's biggest hypocrite.
"You don't have to believe my claim,
and I don't have to prove it."
David Hartung, Oct 24 2023
https://tinyurl.com/9kren8aw
What does Hartung have to do with anything?
You're mimicking him, and he's tied with Kremlin Girl for being the
worst hypocrites in this group.
Why are you always moving the goalposts?
He isn't.
You are not female, and you don't own an 800 hp Mustang. But the
fact that you aspire to one and are "into" high-performance cars is
part of the proof that you're male (albeit not at all masculine).
Not all guys are into high-performance cars, including detailed
knowledge of various models, but *only* guys are.
*Everything* about you screams "dweeby male":
* your line of work
* your education
* your writing style
* your interests
By your writing style, I'm not just talking about your vocabulary,
although that's a big part of it. I'm talking as well about the
*physical* composition, which is peculiarly "dweeby boy." Here's a
great example, from your pissing-and-moaning about how Harris became >>>>> the Democratic nominee last year. In writing about what the
Constitution says about primaries:
That's the point.
It DOESN't.
And that is why your democracy was violated.
There isn't a woman in the U.S. who would use those line breaks. A
woman would make that all one paragraph, which happens to fit on one >>>>> line:
That's the point. It DOESN't. And that is why your democracy was >>>>> violated.
Just *stop* with this stupid fucking gag about being female. You're
not — you're a dweeby male.
It's not an evasion.
I have been very clear that I do not post my private information
online.
As for proving this that or the other thing, ask people who
use their real name if they regret doing it.
But you demand that others post
THEIR personal info online. Got it.
Huh?
No I don't.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:00:11 |
| Calls: | 12,115 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,548 |
| Posted today: | 1 |