Donald Trump

[Selene]

Pravda?

Very nice. Yep.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/13-08-2015/131638-donald_putin-0/

If you hit the blue Trump link in the article, it takes you:

http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/14-07-2015/131331-russia_usa_nuclear_standoff-0/

Can't you just see this baby going into Stalingrad to negotiate with Putin with a big Trump logo on it!!!!

[Mikee]

Or...

[Selene]

Those should be his escorts port and starboard (?) >> not an aviator here...barely checked out on Chinese kites...

And above and below -

A...

[Brant Gaede]

The B-52 first flew over 60 years ago. It obsoleted my uncle's B-36 immediately upon deployment.

--Brant

as for the Russkies-----------

https://youtu.be/Hr-xBtVU4lg

[Peter]

Michael wrote: I'm stumping the hell out of Trump.
end quote

Oh, oh. What if he fizzles in the primaries? What if he gets the nomination but then doesn’t win the election after you have invested so much thought and time in your candidate? I tensely sat watching my TV flipping through the channels on the last big election night. I wanted to believe that Romney was going to pull it off, but by the time Karl Rove went over that top and refused to believe his eyes, I had already accepted defeat. And that is what it was - a defeat for me. I blamed the bigoted people who refused to vote for a Mormon, or just didn’t bother to vote.

So how does one survive an election? One. Don’t plan on voting. Don’t tune in to the coverage. Be one of the obvious, blasé, people who don’t commit to a candidate.

Two. I get it. You finally put your trust in a candidate and you feel great. He or she won’t let you down. You root for them. You donate money. You put your trust in them. But then they make a slip. So you make excuses for them. You may even cover for them. It’s an all too human situation, so stop it the first time it happens. Your idealism does not deserve an unworthy hero. Go to the rallies, link up with like minded people and enjoy the ride, but don’t put any candidate on a pedestal.

Three is similar to two and probably what most are going to do. Vote. Support. But don’t really like your candidate. Don’t start by treating your candidate like some sort of icon or idol. He is the lesser of two evils, or the better of two politicians.

Four . . . . watch, but detach emotionally. Vote.

[Selene]

First, anyone who imports their vision into a Presidential candidate today is a fool.

Second, it reduces to the better of the two, three or more lessors.

Politics is a full contact competition for elevating a person to a position of power.

Therefore, choosing the individual who you would estimate had the better chance of, in my case, reducing the size of government while dramatically slowing and beginning the dismantling the Administrative State, forms the basis for my decision.

I never donate to political campaigns, nor any "tax-deductible" groups.

That is domestically.

A...

[Peter]

Robert Tracinski uses the scorched earth policy against The Donald and paints himself into the Peikoff corner. If it came down to Hillary or Donald vote for the libertarian who can’t win or don’t vote at all? No thanks. But this is good ammo for Trump supporters. I think Robert is right about the brewing war with Mexico. The last time in the 1840’s?? we annexed Texas and California. Maybe we can get Cancun and Baja this time?
Peter

August 18, 2015 Snips from Tracinski on Trump.
Has there ever been a cult of personality built around a personality so unpleasant? The answer, by the way, is "yes," but more about that in a moment. After Donald Trump's bombastic performance in last week's debate, it's clear that the key to his appeal is not his policy positions, which are all over the map. No, it's all about his personality, and the paradox is that the more unpleasant his personality is revealed to be, the greater his appeal to his core group of supporters.

For example, one of my readers responded to my article criticizing the new EPA rules on power plants by touting Trump as the only candidate with "the balls" to dismantle the EPA. In reality, there is no basis in Trump's background, his ideology (if he had one), or his public statements to think he would do anything in particular with the EPA. But that's how Trump is regarded: as a cure for what ails you, as an all-purpose tonic for whatever somebody thinks is wrong with our current system.

People are projecting onto Trump what they want to see. They are pouring into him their fantasies about what could be accomplished by a strong leader who doesn't care about making people angry. But that's a dangerous fantasy to indulge.
. . . . That's not what support for Trump is about. Support for Trump is not about what a candidate has actually done. It's about how loudly and recklessly he's willing to break things. Support for Trump is a protest vote, but not a rationally considered protest vote in favor of a specific cause. It's an expression of general, unfocused rage. Trump supporters just want someone who's willing to turn over the tables and call people names and burn the place down.

The result is a disturbing kind of cult of personality. I asked earlier about precedents for unpleasant personalities as the basis of a cult. Well, consider the original editions of the "cult of personality," the ones built up around Stalin and Mao. Or more recently, the one built around Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. All of these men had a certain blustering charisma, much like The Donald, but they could be even more abrasive, boastful, thoughtless, insulting, and crude. And each benefited from the same paradox: the less he adhered to any standards of responsible behavior the more he thrilled his true believers with what a tough guy he was, with how much he was supposedly a strong leader who would face down the capitalist running dog imperialist fascists and deliver for "the people."

What doesn't get the job done is, from my experience, the favorite activity of Donald Trump's supporters: insulting people on the Internet. So no wonder they want to short-circuit the system and indulge the fantasy that they can push through their agenda, whatever it is, just by electing a guy who will insult people on a . . . .

2. Donald Trump Declares War on Mexico . . . . Trump's plan includes all the characteristics of a war short of actual fighting: the threat of an embargo, a plan to build a defensive wall, and a demand for reparations from the (presumably) defeated enemy. Let's start with the reparations. Trump presents a list of grievances against the government of Mexico and demands that they fork over billions of dollars--the exact amount is not specified--to build a wall between the two countries.

How is he going to force them to do this? By the threat of an embargo. That's right, under President Trump, we would not have a trade embargo against Cuba, but we would have a piecemeal one against Mexico. Trump threatens, "among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards--of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]." (Brackets in the original.)

In other news, Trump promises to get our economy moving again--right after he clamps down on commerce with our third-largest trading partner. To complete the warlike atmosphere, Trump's plan to impound remittances would presumably require US officials to search all mail between the US and Mexico. But what is a war without the curtailment of civil liberties at home? And so Trump's plan would also require that we "end birthright citizenship" for children of immigrants who are born in the United States. The best answer to that is provided by Ben Domenech, who ends by pointing out that being married to Donald Trump is a job Americans won't do. (If Trump were elected, his current wife, a Slovenian former model, would be the first foreign-born First Lady since Louisa Adams in 1829.)

. . . . All of this is based on a whipped-up war hysteria, blaming all of our problems on immigrants. More to the point, it is based on another good wartime tradition: demonizing the enemy. Note that Trump is not really concerned about European immigrants or immigrants from other countries. (Though buried in his plan is an assault on H1-B visas for highly skilled immigrants, which he bills as an attempt to increase the representation of "minorities" in Silicon Valley--by means of purging Chinese and Indian engineers.) His plan and his rhetoric are aimed at Hispanic immigrants. In his proposal, and in his public statements, Trump portrays these immigrants as violent criminals and rapists who lounge around on welfare when they are not taking jobs away from Americans.

. . . . That's one of the fundamental problems with the Trump candidacy. He is the fulfillment of the left's fondest caricatures the right. He's rich, arrogant, contemptuous of "losers" who have not achieved his status; he's rudely dismissive of women; he is an ungrammatical, inarticulate boor; and now we can add that he panders to fear and suspicion of brown-skinned foreigners. In short, he's Archie Bunker with money. All of this is the reason why a lot of us are wondering, in the back of our minds, whether he really is a plant sent into the Republican primary by his friends, the Clintons.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert Tracinski [said]...

People are projecting onto Trump what they want to see. They are pouring into him their fantasies about what could be accomplished by a strong leader who doesn't care about making people angry. But that's a dangerous fantasy to indulge.

. . . . That's not what support for Trump is about. Support for Trump is not about what a candidate has actually done. It's about how loudly and recklessly he's willing to break things. Support for Trump is a protest vote, but not a rationally considered protest vote in favor of a specific cause. It's an expression of general, unfocused rage. Trump supporters just want someone who's willing to turn over the tables and call people names and burn the place down.

Peter,

I couldn't read beyond this point.

I am flabberghasted by Objectivist intellectuals who don't know the difference between a builder and a destroyer. Between a bully and a brash productive leader.

Apparently, if it is not in Randian jargon, they don't know how to use their own two goddam eyes.

Trump did not build magnificent real-estate projects, many of them, by calling people names and burning the place down.

It takes a crap-load of productive effort to build those wonderful things.

It takes a mind.

It takes a rational mind.

And Tracinski furthers his blindness by blanking out all the Trump supporting productive people who respond to such a builder.

Good God!

I am a person who has built things (mostly in Brazil) over and over and has had to take a lot of crap from morons who wanted to shut me down. Trump builds things, doesn't take the crap, and he's big and rich enough to slam it right back at the morons without destroying his achievements. I cheer Trump when he does that.

How many Americans in this wonderful country of ours feel the same?

Oodles, that's who.

But not many Objectivist and libertarian intellectuals. Not them. They have it all figured out by deducing reality from principles instead of looking first.

A productive person to them is a construct, something to talk about, play gotcha with, use as cheap profundity, not an actual living breathing human being who shapes the world in his own image.

A man like that in reality is a slap in the face to them, to those who only talk about reality.

These folks wouldn't know a real-life John Galt if he stood before them, pointed to his many magnificent achievements, and said, "Behold." They would be too busy to look, too busy explaining to John Galt what reality was in their opinion.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oh, oh. What if he fizzles in the primaries? What if he gets the nomination but then doesn’t win the election after you have invested so much thought and time in your candidate?

Peter,

Isn't that why one is supposed to stump?

To try to get one's chosen candidate to win?

If Trump loses, he loses. Life goes on.

But, if I can do anything (without sacrificing my projects and other main values) to make sure he doesn't lose, I'm doing it.

At root, I don't understand your question.

(And don't forget those crows saying: gulp... )

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, oh. What if he fizzles in the primaries? What if he gets the nomination but then doesn’t win the election after you have invested so much thought and time in your candidate?

Peter,

Isn't that why one is supposed to stump?

To try to get one's chosen candidate to win?

If Trump loses, he loses. Life goes on.

But, if I can do anything (without sacrificing my projects and other main values) to make sure he doesn't lose, I'm doing it.

At root, I don't understand your question.

(And don't forget those crows saying: gulp... )

Michael

He's saying the Trump stump if for chumps. He said why. He may be right. He may be wrong. Can't tell. He sees what you seem blind to and you see what he's blind to so you each are talking by each other.

Now, Rand voted for Roosevelt in 1932 using Peter's methodology. Rand did not wonder what Roosevelt might have built or whether he was a builder. It might have made a difference.

Now more now, using the builder premise many voted for Hoover in 1928. You call call him one. I think he was an engineer. As President Hoover as a proto-New Dealer did much more damage to the country than Roosevelt did. He even provided Roosevelt the start in his actual governance. Roosevelt merely depressed the gas pedal further. If Hoover had followed the post WWI Harding model instead, he might have been re-elected and there might have been no Great Depression and the rise of Hitler to power in Germany, much less another world war. Or Roosevelt might have done less damage by continuing in somewhat Hoover's way. Policies in place--even wrong and idiotic policies--tend to be continued by governments out of sheer inertia if not outright power lust. That's why the Nazis were more specifically and narrowly totalitarian than the Russian communists. Germans were more civilized--yeah, right, and racially narcissistic. You don't wage war against members of your race (tribe). If you weren't a Jew in Germany in the 1930s you could have a pretty decent and normal life. The Gestapo was busy with the Jews and communists, neither of whom you cared much for--and those outdoor extravaganza rallies were swell--look at The Triumph of the Will (actually a triumph of genius movie-making.) But then the war started in 1939 and your sons marched off, likely never returning from Russia.

I don't think Peter thinks you might be right. I also don't think Peter thinks he might be wrong. No matter who the next President and why the results of that presidency is an historical craps shoot. This leaves you one or two up on Peter, even with the stars in your eyes--if they be--even if I think you are over-stating your case for Trump the builder somewhat.

The number one concern for the country going forward is avoiding a war resulting in use of nuclear weapons. This is going to be hard to do because it's not getting any proper attention. One reason is thinking it could only be an israel-Iran thing. Wrong! But bad enough in itself. The second one is don't fuck up the economy by using false remedies such as higher taxes, more regulations, austerity and being afraid of Federal government dollar debt. This will be hard to do because austerity will get you into a recession, even depression, but needs another leg to walk the dog of compensating prosperity. It's not getting proper attention either.You see, the Federal government has no debt in the same sense a private person would have no debt if he could go to his printer and run off acceptable dollars to pay that debt. It would be an illusion of debt. If anyone or entity buys a T-Bill, dollars have to be handed over to the issuer of the bond. Ten years later, say, that bond matures. Gimme my money? Roll it over? Whatever you want. Give us a second while we call up the printer. Interest? Just more government dollar spending. Maybe issue another bond. While there are long term negative consequences to this respecting the value of the dollar and concerning other issues, they can be ameliorated and swept under the rug ignored and put off for a long, long time. If they aren't, the rulers lose their jobs, unless they be bureaucrats.

--Brant

you can scare politicians, if they be elected, and politicians can scare bureaucrats, if they have the balls--it's mostly called funding--but more likely the bureaucrats rule over all for ruling is their natural default; it's what they are paid to do (and to spend all the allotted money and make a case for more next year and if the military it's the same so the unwinnable wars have to be kept going on and on and on [with the encouragement of the defense industry and American moralistic nationalism]--hey!--are we living in 1984?)

~shudder~

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I keep harping on Trump being a builder because I use the "identify correctly before evaluate" model of thinking.

Trump is constantly being misidentified and then criticized for the mistaken identification as if he were that. This is the source of all the misfires in people predicting his demise.

I don't know how he will perform as a politician, he might be horrible, but I do know he is not a fascist, buffoon, shill for the elites, bigot, misogynist, homophobe, just another politician blowing hot air, and so on.

If a critic wants to call him those things and make it stick, they have to attribute these characteristics to a doer persona in their arguments. Otherwise, when they talk about a doer like Trump, their arguments are just not heard.

It's like the Chambers charge that Ayn Rand wanted to send people to the gas chambers. A sadistic killer is just not Rand in any respect. Unless people accept her general non-initiation of force and individual rights foundation when they criticize her, anything bad they say will sound silly to a person who likes her.

Call Trump whatever you want, but professional politician who does nothing else is just not his fundamental nature. Treating him like others who are that is silly. Trump builds great things, regardless of the environment or how the game is played.

About Herbert Hoover, he was a Chamber of Commerce kind of businessman. Old boy club. Crony capitalism at its finest.

That's not the same thing as Trump.

If people don't identify Trump correctly, they will keep making predictions about him that blow up in their faces. People who build see what Trump is regardless of what anyone says. That is a fundament, a premise, a core identity.

If someone wants to influence Trump supporters, that is what they have to evaluate. Not a caricature or media fairy tale.

And it burns my ass that Randian people like Tracinski can't identify a fucking productive builder when one is standing right in front of them. It makes me wonder: What in the hell did I get into when I got involved with Objectivism?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here, for example, is Cenk Uygur. He is starting to get reality, but he still doesn't see the "talk only versus do" thing.

 

He doesn't get it that Trump is an ultra-competent builder who doesn't take crap from parasites. That is Trump's main appeal. He is the guy who carries the world on his back, but he is not shrugging. He is shaking the losers off the world and making them help him carry it if they want a keep having a piece of it.

 

Once Uygur gets that, and I believe on the hard left, he more than anyone else might one day understand, then he can start formulating effective arguments against Trump in lefty language. 

 

Until then, he will have to keep making videos like the one below as his predictions keep turning out wrong.

 

And frankly, even if he does get it, I don't know what a lefty can say to a "producer class" (to use a lefty frame) to convince them that a high-end producer like Trump is bad for humanity.

 

 

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: And it burns my ass that Randian people like Tracinski can't identify a fucking productive builder when one is standing right in front of them. It makes me wonder: What in the hell did I get into when I got involved with Objectivism?

end quote

I agree it was a full throttled assault and rant by Robert Tracinski better suited to running over Mao or Stalin. But what is Trump going to build with tax dollars?

A wall, either solid or electronic. I agree with Trump about leaky borders. No more 911’s because we did not give a crap about the border. We need a defensive wall between US and Mexico and if they deliberately aid their people (and criminals) in coming illegally to America we should get reparations. I was surprised to hear he wants to stop the practice of illegals coming to America to have a baby so that the baby is automatically considered an American citizen. That is new. And kids who grew up thinking they were Americans? Should they be sent back too? That seems harsh.

How is he going to force Mexico to build the wall and to stop sending illegals to America? By the threat of an embargo. And again, that seems like a campaign ploy that might never be needed if Trump is President. Reagan was elected and our Iran hostages came home the next day. I don’t think Trump will get our economy moving swiftly if he clamps down on commerce with Mexico. He should and probably will, speak softly and carry a big stick.

I had not heard of Trump saying he will decrease immigrants to Silicon Valley if they are Chinese or Indian engineers. Anyone else besides Tracinski heard that?

Michael wrote: And frankly, even if he does get it, I don't know what a lefty can say to a "producer class" (to use a lefty frame) to convince them that a high-end producer like Trump is bad for humanity.
End quote

Trump did say he will rebuild the military. And I think Trump will deregulate and tell government to get the hell out of the way of business. Laissez – Faire – ish perhaps, but I don’t envision him doing away with the EPA, nor would he allow pollution or dirty air to be rampant like it was in most industrialized societies in the 19th century.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I keep harping on Trump being a builder because I use the "identify correctly before evaluate" model of thinking.

Trump is constantly being misidentified and then criticized for the mistaken identification as if he were that. This is the source of all the misfires in people predicting his demise.

I don't know how he will perform as a politician, he might be horrible, but I do know he is not a fascist, buffoon, shill for the elites, bigot, misogynist, homophobe, just another politician blowing hot air, and so on.

If a critic wants to call him those things and make it stick, they have to attribute these characteristics to a doer persona in their arguments. Otherwise, when they talk about a doer like Trump, their arguments are just not heard.

It's like the Chambers charge that Ayn Rand wanted to send people to the gas chambers. A sadistic killer is just not Rand in any respect. Unless people accept her general non-initiation of force and individual rights foundation when they criticize her, anything bad they say will sound silly to a person who likes her.

Call Trump whatever you want, but professional politician who does nothing else is just not his fundamental nature. Treating him like others who are that is silly. Trump builds great things, regardless of the environment or how the game is played.

About Herbert Hoover, he was a Chamber of Commerce kind of businessman. Old boy club. Crony capitalism at its finest.

That's not the same thing as Trump.

If people don't identify Trump correctly, they will keep making predictions about him that blow up in their faces. People who build see what Trump is regardless of what anyone says. That is a fundament, a premise, a core identity.

If someone wants to influence Trump supporters, that is what they have to evaluate. Not a caricature or media fairy tale.

And it burns my ass that Randian people like Tracinski can't identify a fucking productive builder when one is standing right in front of them. It makes me wonder: What in the hell did I get into when I got involved with Objectivism?

Michael

You got de-involved with a previous involve.

That's a lot, no?

--Brant

it's evolution--or devolution--are you still volutioning?

[Mikee]

Russia insider is having fun with Trump: "wig latin--> English"

[Brant Gaede]

PREDICTION! PREDICTION! PREDICTION!PREDICTION! PREDICTION! PREDICTION! (Choose your font--6 are available)

DONALD TRUMP WILL BOW OUT NEXT YEAR AND ENDORSE BEN CARSON!

When that happens, remember you heard it first here on Objectivist Living--Michael Kelly, prop.

I like "Georgia" most.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We need a defensive wall between US and Mexico and if they deliberately aid their people (and criminals) in coming illegally to America we should get reparations. I was surprised to hear he wants to stop the practice of illegals coming to America to have a baby so that the baby is automatically considered an American citizen. That is new. And kids who grew up thinking they were Americans? Should they be sent back too? That seems harsh.

 

Peter,

 

Let the lovely ladies answer you. They are a bit short on details, but huge on heart:

 

 

 

Michael

[Mikee]

Ann Coulter "I despise Carly Fiorina with the Hot, Hot Hate of 1000 Suns"

[i can't watch the video interview 'til I get home...darn]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That's my Sarah:

 

 

 

Michael

[Peter]

What I picked up from the lovely Sarah Palin. Work visas good. Overstaying visas not good. The argument that allowing citizenship for illegal’s children who are born here? Saying it’s for the children, is hogwash. A family is a unit. Send them all back to Mexico. Trump is the best thing to happen to the political class in a long time. He is not bought or beholden to anyone. It is healthy to have Trump in the race. She would not endorse him but she said along with Ben Carson he is the least political person in the race. I don’t think she mentioned Carly, the only woman running.

the end

It might be good to look at the 14th amendment. Would a Constitutional amendment be needed to stop "anchor babies" as being used as a way to gain citizenship illegally?

[Peter]

the second quote had columns so I am not sure how they will reproduce here.

Peter

Notes: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by Southern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.

The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little.

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.
The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation, and for many other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.

The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section's reference to "rebellion and other crimes" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by "appropriate legislation". However, under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress's enforcement power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court interpretation of the amendment.

Text
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

From the online article, Street Law / Interpreting the Constitution (•••/••)
When the courts must decide a case, the meaning of the laws in question is not always clear. The Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the laws, has been particularly difficult to interpret over the years because of the ambiguous nature of the concept of equality. Does treating people equally mean treating them exactly the same? Or are there circumstances when equal treatment sometimes requires different treatment? The courts have come to different conclusions at different points in history and in different cases.

Judges use their reasoning skills to decide what particular laws mean when they rule on cases. Different judges sometimes use different reasoning skills to interpret the Constitution, meaning that judges do not always agree on the meaning of the Constitution. There are six widely accepted methods of interpretation that shed some light on the meaning of the Constitution.

Historical Interpretation A judge looks to the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution to shed light on its meaning.

Textual Interpretation A judge looks to the meaning of the words in the Constitution, relying on common understandings of what the words mean today.

Structural Interpretation A judge infers structural rules (power relationships between institutions, for instance) from the relationships specifically outlined in the Constitution.
Doctrinal Interpretation A judge applies rules established by precedents.
Ethical Interpretation A judge looks to the moral commitments reflected in the Constitution.
Prudential Interpretation A judge seeks to balance the costs and benefits of a particular ruling.

[Peter]

I will briefly requote what I want to discuss.
Text of the 14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
end quote

Back to me. Some areas of contention. The words, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . .” could be interpreted to mean citizens of other countries are not included in this formula. For example a foreign diplomat who arrives in America legally has a child in America but the parent is not a citizen nor do they fall under our jurisdiction. In fact they generally have diplomatic immunity from our laws as do their children born here. Or a person who arrives here illegally is subject to portions of our law during their stay although they used illegal means to arrive here. Therefor they are never citizens and their children are never citizens. As Sarah Palin noted, the family is a unit and the framers never envisioned parents abandoning their kids here or sending them across the border alone in busses as recently happened. The children born here are unwitting accomplices in an invasion and a case of fraud. They are stowaways in the same way a person who does not pay for a ticket might be brought aboard a plane or boat in an unconscious condition. They are still a stowaway and are not somehow citizens of the country to which they are brought. I don’t think a Constitutional Amendment would be needed to deport alien’s children born here. Trump is right.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't believe in the "send them all back to Mexico" sequence. We are talking about at least ten million people for starters. I believe in denial of benefits except getting treatment in hospital emergency rooms. I believe in denial of citizenship and denial of any voting rights. This means formally knowing who they are. I also don't believe in if you're born here you get citizenship but maybe it would eventually help you to get citizenship.

What I do believe in is freedom to go back and forth from Mexico. You just get IDed each way. This way you can leave your family in Mexico and work in the U.S. with an ID card. What kind of work, so on and so forth gets complicated. Other problems would appear, such as unemployment insurance, SS taxes, etc.

The problem with Trump's vision is the power it would give the Federalies to stop and ID, grab and deport at will including everybody. It would be a facet of a police state matrix. Instead, all they would do is ask for their card and if they don't have one make them get one before going on with their desired business. None of this, of course, addresses those who aren't Mexican, criminals and would be terrorists--not directly.

A government has two purposes: security and freedom. If it doesn't do the former the latter doesn't count and, then, why any government? It would just be a nest for power lusters drenched in power. That pretty much describes most of what it already is today.

--Brant

Trump's a chump?

[Selene]

To those here that desire to degrade Trump with various characterizations may be missing the fact that he is a productive builder with vision..

I could see him coming up with something like this which I find extremely riveting in terms of architectural solutions...

Developers in London are building what they claim is the world's first "sky pool" — a 25-meter long swimming pool suspended 10 stories in the air between two blocks of luxury flats. The transparent pool at Embassy Gardens will be three meters deep with a water depth of 1.2 meters, and will be constructed with the help of aquarium designers using 20-cm thick glass. The pool will allow residents to swim between the development's roof-top bar, spa, and orangery (a walkway will be available as well), with prices for apartments and penthouses in the complex starting at £602,000 ($942,572).

http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/20/9181333/sky-pool-london-embassy-gardens

[Brant Gaede]

Is there art in Trump's architecture or only Trump?

--Brant