Have not read accounts of his staffers from his first administration. Trump cannot follow a briefing. Trump does not read anything. Trump only hears what he wants to hear. While running for president in 2016, Trump had no idea what the nuclear TRIAD is, had no idea why he was saying "health insurance across state lines, and even today has no idea how tariffs work.
What part of not understanding basic economics is not the idiotic part? What part of not being literate enough to read anything past a paragraph is not a sign of being stupid.
You haven't demonstrated that he misunderstands basic economics or is illiterate. I've prepared hour-long briefings for senior executives and they arrive at a decision within five minutes. Again, if he were an idiot he wouldn't have made it out of the 2015 primary, much less acquire a portfolio of billions of dollars of commercial properties.
I guess is one is going to deny that Trump thinks that exporters pay tariffs, then there is no reason to discuss the issue of Trump being an idiot. The same with his claim that Mexico would pay for a wall. Or that a wall can be built without Congressional legislation. And does not really believe that Trump understands Posse Comitatus? If one is just going to make excuses for an idiot like Trump (which seems to be a growing career field), then there is no reason for a discussion.
Well that and the fact that alone among the candidates he seems not to have an active hatred of the American people and want to replace them with Afro-Caribbean and South American gangsters. And he's politically savvy enough to know white Americans don't like being lectured about how they should be replaced, unlike John Straight-Talkin' Maverick McCain from a few years back.
Again, this stupid idiot who can't read and doesn't know anything about anything seems to have done pretty well. And if they assassinate him or put him in prison, he's got Vance lined up as his successor, which shows a good degree of foresight by that stupid idiot.
The way to resolve this is to understand Trump is smart but superficial. He's not an intellectual but he is a big brained genius in another sense. Great chess players are strategic geniuses in a sense but they might lack all gravitas and philosophical depth. I would say Trump is starting to show these traits after being in politics almost a decade and surviving extreme situations like lawfare, entire media against him, assassination attempts, etc.
People who say Trump is "dumb" more often than not mean he doesn't have an academic's tolerance for endless nuance, truth relativism, etc. To their credit they are right he has lacked depth and the big picture view: he would never be a white nationalist despite it being the correct position for a right wing European.
Trump inherited $400 million from his father and if he had just invested in a broad based stock mutual fund, Trump would have made more money. See Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success by Buettner and Craig.
And having three trophy wives is a reason for scorn, not admiration.
lmao. "Trump just keeps falling upwards, I tell ya! Just luck!"
Man you Kamabla liars really are dumb, thinking anyone intelligent believes you. :P
P.S. Imagine being a Kamabla campaign stooge like Guest007 and thinking "if I just cited to the discredited NY Times 'jounralists' book instead of making an argument myself, I'll have evidence! Yeah, that's the ticket!"
P.P.S. Imagine also thinking a good argument against Trump is "he couldn't predict the future of the stock market, so he's dumb!"
Neither of her parents were citizens when she was born...in Oakland...she's an anchor baby. Candidates for the Office of President must be natural born per the Constitution.
Being born in Oakland made her natural born. This has been settled law for a long time. And there have been lawsuits over this recently that have all failed.
Check Reuters, AP, Snopes, etc. All agree with one another. Here, for example, is Snopes: “The requirements to qualify for the U.S. presidency have nothing to with the citizenship status of one’s parents. The individual must have been born in the United States or born to a parent who is a citizen of the United States.”
Says many presidents had at least one parent not born in the US. The constitution doesn't further define the term, but the most literal interpretation would just be that you were born in the USA, born in the USA!
This requirement did not anticipate air travel but there it is.
Jus soli is based on the post-Civil War 14th Amendment, so it is entirely possible the drafters of the 1789 Constitution thought "natural-born" meant children of US citizens, because everyone else, even if born on US soil, had to go through the naturalization process.
Non-whites and Amerindians weren't eligible for citizenship. There was also a moral character requirement. After all, no serious country just lets anybody in to succeed to the privileges of citizenship.
Thinking about it further that makes some sense. Either both your parents were US citizens so you were born to it, or you were naturalized after spending 2 or 5 years in the same town.
Like the New Testament, a lot of this stuff just never came up. States regulated immigration until an 1853 SCOTUS decision; there isn't a single grant of Constitutional authority to the federal government for immigration. It was just cobbled together from the delegation of foreign relations and naturalization. It makes sense--otherwise Georgia could deport a guy admitted in New York and all the States would have border patrols between each other--but it's a clear omission and textualism or original intent won't solve it.
Keep in mind the US founders really were making it all up as they went along and with the exception of Gen. Washington, it was kind of like if the Harvard debate team (or the Harvard Dramatic Club) were put in charge of the Revolution.
It doesn’t matter that her parents weren’t citizens. Her parents could’ve been TERRORISTS and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference, because she is a textbook case of “born in the United States.”
Requirement for President is natural born as written in the Constitution. The only exceptions were the those at the time of foundation since they may have been born outside the continent or namely in England and may have had dual loyalty.
I get that, but since the constitution doesn't provide a rigorous definition of the term what is the basis for your certainty that it mean both parents born US citizens too?
"Born outside the continent"? You pulled that out of your butt. Art. 1 Sec 2 (relevant clause): "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President" Everyone who was "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is now dead so the only requirement today is that a Person be "a natural born Citizen" which in my estimation Kamela is, provided that she was born a citizen.
For the latter you consult the 14th A, 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." Now, tribal Indians don't qualify, according to the proponents of inserting that phrase into the already introduced text of the 14A. And we are IMO not bound by the bad Wong Kim Ark decision but are free to rely only on a PROPER interpretation of the 14A. The question is whether Kamala was born "subject to the jurisdiction of" the US, noting that US-born tribal Indians ARE NOT. They are not born citizens, but become citizens immediately after birth BY LEGISLATIVE ACT.
But Kamela is not a citizen by virtue of any legislative act. She is one by birth or not at all.
Comala is an Indian, Jamaican, Canadian who is technically not eligible for the Office.
Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California. How is she “technically not eligible”?
Because she's a moron
If being an idiot was disqualifying for running for president, then the Republicans would not have nominated Trump three times.
Bazinga!
LOL. Trump is a lot of things but "idiot" isn't one of them.
Have not read accounts of his staffers from his first administration. Trump cannot follow a briefing. Trump does not read anything. Trump only hears what he wants to hear. While running for president in 2016, Trump had no idea what the nuclear TRIAD is, had no idea why he was saying "health insurance across state lines, and even today has no idea how tariffs work.
That doesn't really make your case.
What part of not understanding basic economics is not the idiotic part? What part of not being literate enough to read anything past a paragraph is not a sign of being stupid.
You haven't demonstrated that he misunderstands basic economics or is illiterate. I've prepared hour-long briefings for senior executives and they arrive at a decision within five minutes. Again, if he were an idiot he wouldn't have made it out of the 2015 primary, much less acquire a portfolio of billions of dollars of commercial properties.
I guess is one is going to deny that Trump thinks that exporters pay tariffs, then there is no reason to discuss the issue of Trump being an idiot. The same with his claim that Mexico would pay for a wall. Or that a wall can be built without Congressional legislation. And does not really believe that Trump understands Posse Comitatus? If one is just going to make excuses for an idiot like Trump (which seems to be a growing career field), then there is no reason for a discussion.
And once again, the only qualification Trump has that most people like is that Trump beat Hillary but Romney lost to Obama.
Well that and the fact that alone among the candidates he seems not to have an active hatred of the American people and want to replace them with Afro-Caribbean and South American gangsters. And he's politically savvy enough to know white Americans don't like being lectured about how they should be replaced, unlike John Straight-Talkin' Maverick McCain from a few years back.
Again, this stupid idiot who can't read and doesn't know anything about anything seems to have done pretty well. And if they assassinate him or put him in prison, he's got Vance lined up as his successor, which shows a good degree of foresight by that stupid idiot.
The way to resolve this is to understand Trump is smart but superficial. He's not an intellectual but he is a big brained genius in another sense. Great chess players are strategic geniuses in a sense but they might lack all gravitas and philosophical depth. I would say Trump is starting to show these traits after being in politics almost a decade and surviving extreme situations like lawfare, entire media against him, assassination attempts, etc.
People who say Trump is "dumb" more often than not mean he doesn't have an academic's tolerance for endless nuance, truth relativism, etc. To their credit they are right he has lacked depth and the big picture view: he would never be a white nationalist despite it being the correct position for a right wing European.
Guy's a self-made billionaire, hit TV show host, married 3 supermodels, who shocked the world to beat 16 other veteran pols to become President.
If that guy's stupid, please, Heavens, make me as stupid as Trump!
God beat us to it
Trump inherited $400 million from his father and if he had just invested in a broad based stock mutual fund, Trump would have made more money. See Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success by Buettner and Craig.
And having three trophy wives is a reason for scorn, not admiration.
lmao. "Trump just keeps falling upwards, I tell ya! Just luck!"
Man you Kamabla liars really are dumb, thinking anyone intelligent believes you. :P
P.S. Imagine being a Kamabla campaign stooge like Guest007 and thinking "if I just cited to the discredited NY Times 'jounralists' book instead of making an argument myself, I'll have evidence! Yeah, that's the ticket!"
P.P.S. Imagine also thinking a good argument against Trump is "he couldn't predict the future of the stock market, so he's dumb!"
Neither of her parents were citizens when she was born...in Oakland...she's an anchor baby. Candidates for the Office of President must be natural born per the Constitution.
Which made technically ineligible for VP too probably. Of course, she didn't get democratically nominated by her own party either.
Being born in Oakland made her natural born. This has been settled law for a long time. And there have been lawsuits over this recently that have all failed.
NO, it didn't.
You're confusing citizenship with requirements for the Office of President
Not...the...same
Check Reuters, AP, Snopes, etc. All agree with one another. Here, for example, is Snopes: “The requirements to qualify for the U.S. presidency have nothing to with the citizenship status of one’s parents. The individual must have been born in the United States or born to a parent who is a citizen of the United States.”
Wow...didn't know they were part of the Judiciary.
Then list the court case that said that someone born in the U.S. cannot be president. The case does not exist.
The Constitution
Does not say what one is claiming. The courts disagree and that is all that matters.
Where I'll agree with you, is that no one seems to care. However, technically you are wrong and so are they.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)
Says many presidents had at least one parent not born in the US. The constitution doesn't further define the term, but the most literal interpretation would just be that you were born in the USA, born in the USA!
This requirement did not anticipate air travel but there it is.
Jus soli is based on the post-Civil War 14th Amendment, so it is entirely possible the drafters of the 1789 Constitution thought "natural-born" meant children of US citizens, because everyone else, even if born on US soil, had to go through the naturalization process.
Correct
Really? I didn't know there was a naturalization process back then. Seems strange. What was the point?
Non-whites and Amerindians weren't eligible for citizenship. There was also a moral character requirement. After all, no serious country just lets anybody in to succeed to the privileges of citizenship.
Thinking about it further that makes some sense. Either both your parents were US citizens so you were born to it, or you were naturalized after spending 2 or 5 years in the same town.
Like the New Testament, a lot of this stuff just never came up. States regulated immigration until an 1853 SCOTUS decision; there isn't a single grant of Constitutional authority to the federal government for immigration. It was just cobbled together from the delegation of foreign relations and naturalization. It makes sense--otherwise Georgia could deport a guy admitted in New York and all the States would have border patrols between each other--but it's a clear omission and textualism or original intent won't solve it.
Keep in mind the US founders really were making it all up as they went along and with the exception of Gen. Washington, it was kind of like if the Harvard debate team (or the Harvard Dramatic Club) were put in charge of the Revolution.
That's irrelevant
Check Factcheck.org
😅🤣😂 Uh...NO
It doesn’t matter that her parents weren’t citizens. Her parents could’ve been TERRORISTS and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference, because she is a textbook case of “born in the United States.”
Not for the Office of President. That's fine for other Political offices but not that one...sorry.
Where in the constitution or subsequent case law is the requirement that one of your parents had been born in the US too?
Requirement for President is natural born as written in the Constitution. The only exceptions were the those at the time of foundation since they may have been born outside the continent or namely in England and may have had dual loyalty.
I get that, but since the constitution doesn't provide a rigorous definition of the term what is the basis for your certainty that it mean both parents born US citizens too?
"Born outside the continent"? You pulled that out of your butt. Art. 1 Sec 2 (relevant clause): "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President" Everyone who was "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is now dead so the only requirement today is that a Person be "a natural born Citizen" which in my estimation Kamela is, provided that she was born a citizen.
For the latter you consult the 14th A, 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." Now, tribal Indians don't qualify, according to the proponents of inserting that phrase into the already introduced text of the 14A. And we are IMO not bound by the bad Wong Kim Ark decision but are free to rely only on a PROPER interpretation of the 14A. The question is whether Kamala was born "subject to the jurisdiction of" the US, noting that US-born tribal Indians ARE NOT. They are not born citizens, but become citizens immediately after birth BY LEGISLATIVE ACT.
But Kamela is not a citizen by virtue of any legislative act. She is one by birth or not at all.
Yes you're right if you're talking about people who don't follow the Constitution and want to use their power
She’s not eligible to be president because she lost