Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1707173757691

Comments

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    He was born in Panama ....

    You mean McCain . . . born in the Panama Canal Zone, which at the time was a U.S. territory surrounded by the Republic of Panama.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited March 21
    He was born in Panama ....

    I assume you mean McCain. More precisely, McCain was born in the Panama Zone to citizens of the United States. When McCain ran for presiden the US Senate did pass a unbinding resolution that McCain was a natural citizen.

    Of course, that was never challenged in court. It probably would have if he had won the Presidency.

    Note to Amanda: the Panama Zone was considered an unincorporated territory of the US. Technically children born in unincorporated territories could not be considered a citizen of the US unless the father was an American citizen--that was changed to either or later on.
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    edited March 21
    Funny how questions about McCain's citizenship status got resolved so quickly while other candidates were harassed for years .... ETA Did Trump ever offer a reward for McCain's birth certificate?
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    And George Romney (Mitt's father), who ran for the nomination in 1968 (against Nixon) was born in Mexico. But McCain and Romney were white Republicans, so there wasn't much controversy.
    :confused:
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    And George Romney (Mitt's father), who ran for the nomination in 1968 (against Nixon) was born in Mexico. But McCain and Romney were white Republicans, so there wasn't much controversy.
    :confused:

    I get your point; but, again, he was born to American citizens. He acquired his citizenship through birthright. There is kind of a gray area between what the constitution means when it says a person has to be native born (ie born in the US) and a person who acquires citizenship elsewhere by birthright. The US Supreme Court has not ever decided such a case.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    edited March 22
    No one ever doubted the citizenship of Obama's mother (as far as I know) -- she was a U.S. citizen. So even if he had been born in Kenya* why go after him and not the white Republicans? Because only one parent was a U.S. citizen? Or because his father was African, black, and a Muslim?

    *for the sake of argument. I know he wasn't.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited March 22
    This seems somewhat newsworthy.

    Mueller Delivers Report on Russia Investigation to Attorney General
    The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has delivered a report on his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election to Attorney General William P. Barr, according to the Justice Department, bringing to a close an investigation that has consumed the nation and cast a shadow over President Trump for nearly two years.

    Mr. Barr will decide how much of the report to share with Congress and, by extension, the American public. The House voted unanimously in March on a nonbinding resolution to make public the report’s findings, an indication of the deep support within both parties to air whatever evidence prosecutors uncovered.

    <snip>

    Even though Mr. Mueller’s report is complete, some aspects of his inquiry remain active and may be overseen by the same prosecutors once they are reassigned to their old jobs within the Justice Department. For instance, recently filed court documents suggest that investigators are still examining why the former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort turned over campaign polling data in 2016 to a Russian associate whom prosecutors said was tied to Russian intelligence.

    This could explain why Trump has been so agitated lately.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited March 22
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    No one ever doubted the citizenship of Obama's mother (as far as I know) -- she was a U.S. citizen. So even if he had been born in Kenya* why go after him and not the white Republicans? Because only one parent was a U.S. citizen? Or because his father was African, black, and a Muslim?

    *for the sake of argument. I know he wasn't.

    As I said, I know what you were getting at. I was just pointing out the technical problems with McCain and Romney's claim to native born citizenship. Had they became president it would have been an interesting question.

    BTW Obama was native born. Hawaii has been a state since 1959. Obama was born in 1961. He did not have to claim citizenship through his mother.

    Moving on

    Here is the CNN report about the Mueller investigation wrapping up.
  • Crœsos wrote: »

    Literally at 5 pm on a Friday, the crafty old bird. That'll give him a moment to rest up before the media deluge, I suppose.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    And George Romney (Mitt's father), who ran for the nomination in 1968 (against Nixon) was born in Mexico. But McCain and Romney were white Republicans, so there wasn't much controversy.
    :confused:

    I get your point; but, again, he was born to American citizens. He acquired his citizenship through birthright. There is kind of a gray area between what the constitution means when it says a person has to be native born (ie born in the US) and a person who acquires citizenship elsewhere by birthright. The US Supreme Court has not ever decided such a case.

    The US Constitution doesn't say a prospective president "has to be native born (ie born in the US)", it says
    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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    BTW Obama was native born. Hawaii has been a state since 1959. Obama was born in 1961. He did not have to claim citizenship through his mother.

    I think all sane people realize he was native born. I was talking about the "birthers."
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Re Mueller, it does look as though Don Jr is off the hook. And that did surprise me. That Trump Tower meeting stank and the subsequent failed cover up over meeting purpose stank even more. But I suppose there must be a grey area between morally reprehensible and criminal.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I suppose there must be a grey area between morally reprehensible and criminal.

    It's where the 1% try to hide.
  • That Hawaii and Panama are discussed as territories making up the USA is interesting. When and how.
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    Um, NP, you do realize Hawaii is a US state, right?
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    The former Kingdom, later Republic, of Hawaii was annexed as a territory by the United States in 1898 and became a state in 1959. See Wikipedia entry for more details.

    In 1904, the Republic of Panama granted to the United States the land occupied by and bordering the Panama Canal. Known as the Panama Canal Zone, it was returned to Panama in 1999. Again, Wikipedia is instructive.
  • My understanding is that Panama being created out of part of Columbia by Americans, the take over of Hawaii, the almost annexation of the Philippines were all part of their same Pacific expansionism. As an incidental detail, providing the foundation for the war in the Pacific as America competed with Japan and strangled its industries to ensure domination. All accompanied by American take over of British overseas military bases. I'd suppose someone born in an American military installation would also be a born citizen of that country.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    There's a good docu-drama about the takeover of Hawai'i called "Betrayal".

    Long time since I saw the movie "Hawai'i" or read James Michenor's novel from which it was taken. But it gets into some of that too.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    My understanding is that Panama being created out of part of Columbia by Americans, the take over of Hawaii, the almost annexation of the Philippines were all part of their same Pacific expansionism. As an incidental detail, providing the foundation for the war in the Pacific as America competed with Japan and strangled its industries to ensure domination. All accompanied by American take over of British overseas military bases. I'd suppose someone born in an American military installation would also be a born citizen of that country.

    Your incidental detail is horseshit, NP. The Japanese were engaged in empire building in East Asia from at least the beginning of the twentieth century. American influence in the region was minor, but the Japanese did not consider the divisions between the European colonial powers (including the USA) as being of much moment. They were out to ensure that they had their own closed mercantilist system in Asia, and to smash the European system there.

    America wasn't competing with Japan in the Pacific, and wasn't strangling their industries. The Japanese presence outside of its home islands in the Pacific was minimal. It was busy securing the mineral wealth of eastern Russia, Korea and China. America was a sideshow. The hit on Pearl Harbor was a tactical masterstroke but a strategic blunder, and thank God they blundered. The Japanese starved and tortured our POW's and put them and thousands of East Asians to work in their attempts to build their colonial empire. They tried to invade Australia too, and put my Grandparents to work. Thank God that their strategic blunder and our delaying tactics in New Guinea meant that the American navy got there in time to sink their invasion fleet in the Coral Sea. Lest We Forget.

    There is a point to be made about American Imperialism in the 19th and 20th century, and about the behavior of the United States as the leading country in the world for the last 70 or so years. But you don't make a case by overstretching. Rather, you damage it by damaging your credibility.

    And to think I came here to talk about Barr's summary of the Mueller Report.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    And to think I came here to talk about Barr's summary of the Mueller Report.

    Me too.

    It's interesting and I think very telling how Trump is spinning the summary made by his appointee... Congress, it's time to step up but the public need to see the report...
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    I can give you a a two word summary. It's the old Scottish Jury standard.

    "Not proven".
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    ...which is being spun as "completely exonerated".
  • This is interesting analysis from the Guardian...

    I came to view a little while ago that Trump's real legal jeopardy is when he leaves office. I don't think this Senate would convict (The hypocrisy when compared to how they tried to remove Clinton from office is quite stunning but there you go...). I don't think the investigations that will follow will stop in 2020 and if he has no power and no one to pardon him, he's in a lot of trouble...

    Of course, I am sad that Mueller (as far as we know) doesn't give the clear smoking gun that would seem fair at this point but that's not really the point - unless and until the Republicans are prepared to put country before party.

    AFZ
  • At this distance, I agree that not pressing the case for impeachment - whilst not exonerating either - is a smart move. It follows on from the comment that Trump is not worth the attention (and acknowledges the fact it would never make it past the Senate).
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    In the mean time, looks like Trump ceded the Golan Heights to Israel without consulting anybody. Palestinians in the West Bank are beginning to think they will be next.

    BTW, yes, the US Constitution says natural born, but there has been on ongoing discussion about what that means: born within the recognized borders of USA (native) is granted--but there is still the unresolved question about whether that includes persons born to American citizens outside of the recognized borders of USA (acquired) .
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Stating that "persons born to American citizens outside of the recognized borders of USA" are not native but have merely "acquired" citizenship sounds conclusory to me. Do you have any authoritative source, like a statute or court ruling, for such usage?
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I can give you a a two word summary. It's the old Scottish Jury standard.

    "Not proven".
    Absolutely!

    I said that to an American Facebook friend earlier today, explaining the inference as "you did it, we know you did it, but we can't prove you did it".
  • The RogueThe Rogue Shipmate
    Does natural born exclude those born by Caesarian Section?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    The Rogue wrote: »
    Does natural born exclude those born by Caesarian Section?

    What? Are we now trapped in a production of Shakespeare's Scottish Play?
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Piglet wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I can give you a a two word summary. It's the old Scottish Jury standard.

    "Not proven".
    Absolutely!

    I said that to an American Facebook friend earlier today, explaining the inference as "you did it, we know you did it, but we can't prove you did it".

    I have heard it in a few police dramas set in Scotland. In one instance it was mentioned that the "innocent party" would probably be looking over their shoulder in fear for the rest of their life.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    Stating that "persons born to American citizens outside of the recognized borders of USA" are not native but have merely "acquired" citizenship sounds conclusory to me. Do you have any authoritative source, like a statute or court ruling, for such usage?

    I've given the legal background to this before but can't find the post, so I'll try my best to summarize. The U.S. mostly doesn’t distinguish between natural born citizens and naturalized ones (the two categories of citizenship recognized by the U.S. Constitution). The best known exception to this is that only natural born citizens are eligible to serve as president or vice president. Unfortunately the Constitution doesn't explicitly state what qualifies someone as a "natural born citizen". The closest it comes is the Fourteenth Amendment which states, in part:
    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.

    This is where the American idea of birthright citizenship comes from and provides a bare minimum for who qualifies as a natural born citizen: "[a]ll persons born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

    In addition to this Congress has passed laws stating that anyone born to parents who are American citizens is also an American citizen. A law to this effect was passed by the First Congress and some variant has been on the books ever since. But it doesn't answer the question of whether such citizens are "natural born" or "naturalized".

    The argument in favor of them being natural born citizens is fairly straightforward and based largely on semantics. Children born to American parents in foreign countries acquire their citizenship upon birth and are therefore natural born citizens.

    The argument against children of Americans born abroad being natural born citizens is a bit more technical. When I stated above that "the U.S. mostly doesn’t distinguish between natural born citizens and naturalized ones", part of that "mostly" is that under certain circumstances naturalized citizenship can be revoked against the will of the naturalized citizen. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court on the grounds that since Congress can set rules for naturalization (Art. I, §8, cl. 4 of the U.S. Constitution) it can also impose conditions on such naturalizations. Congress does not have the power to do so for those who gained citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment (i.e. those born within the United States), ergo people born to American citizens outside the United States are naturalized citizens (owing their citizenship to an act of Congress which may be later revised or revoked) rather than natural born ones (who may not have their citizenship involuntarily revoked).

    Neither of these theories has been tested in any court, largely because the pool of those with the standing to raise the issue at all (presidential or vice presidential candidates born outside the United States) is so small.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    Stating that "persons born to American citizens outside of the recognized borders of USA" are not native but have merely "acquired" citizenship sounds conclusory to me. Do you have any authoritative source, like a statute or court ruling, for such usage?

    Here is a paper given by LegalZoom
  • edited March 27
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    My understanding is that Panama being created out of part of Columbia by Americans, the take over of Hawaii, the almost annexation of the Philippines were all part of their same Pacific expansionism. As an incidental detail, providing the foundation for the war in the Pacific as America competed with Japan and strangled its industries to ensure domination. All accompanied by American take over of British overseas military bases. I'd suppose someone born in an American military installation would also be a born citizen of that country.

    Your incidental detail is horseshit, NP. The Japanese were engaged in empire building in East Asia from at least the beginning of the twentieth century. American influence in the region was minor, but the Japanese did not consider the divisions between the European colonial powers (including the USA) as being of much moment. They were out to ensure that they had their own closed mercantilist system in Asia, and to smash the European system there.

    America wasn't competing with Japan in the Pacific, and wasn't strangling their industries. The Japanese presence outside of its home islands in the Pacific was minimal. It was busy securing the mineral wealth of eastern Russia, Korea and China. America was a sideshow. The hit on Pearl Harbor was a tactical masterstroke but a strategic blunder, and thank God they blundered. The Japanese starved and tortured our POW's and put them and thousands of East Asians to work in their attempts to build their colonial empire. They tried to invade Australia too, and put my Grandparents to work. Thank God that their strategic blunder and our delaying tactics in New Guinea meant that the American navy got there in time to sink their invasion fleet in the Coral Sea. Lest We Forget.

    There is a point to be made about American Imperialism in the 19th and 20th century, and about the behavior of the United States as the leading country in the world for the last 70 or so years. But you don't make a case by overstretching. Rather, you damage it by damaging your credibility.

    And to think I came here to talk about Barr's summary of the Mueller Report.

    That's an interpretation. I get the personalization and emotionality of the history; my father got out with his family in Jan 1942. But there's more to it that what you say, cf part of this is informative; there's other extensive discussions many places. (I'll not advance the tangent further)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Just read a book about the actions leading up to WWII in the Pacific (off hand can't remember the name at the moment). Fact is we did have quite a bit of influence in the Western Pacific. We held the Philippines which was on the major sea routes to South East Asia and Indonesia. Japan needed those regions for their war material. We had been supplying oil to Japan but had started to embargo it the beginning of 1941. Prior to that Japan also had been buying a lot of our scrap iron for their war machine. We also had a military presence in China, part of a joint task force with European powers in Singapore, but as the Europeans focused more on the war in their own theater, they reduced their presence in China and other parts of the Pacific.

    Then, when France fell to the Germans, that left their colonies in SEA open to Japanese occupation.

    The Japanese Imperial War Council believed the only way they could control the
    Western Pacific was through Pearl Harbor. If they had been able to destroy the Fifth Fleet at their home base, they would win. But even their naval commanders knew that would be only a temporary solution because they knew if the US production shifted to a Wartime footing, the Fifth Fleet would be restored in no time.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Our Prime Minister Robert Menzies was called Pig Iron Bob for selling metals to the Japanese before the war. He was also called Ming (can't remember why). The Humanities building at my Uni was called the Robert Menzies Wing. Colloquially, it became the Ming Wing, and if you weren't doing too well, you might consider the Ming Fling.

    I have more to say, as usual. A new thread might be worthwhile. I don't want to do it now, but I'll start one tomorrow after I get home from work.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    edited March 28
    So what's with the current occupant of the White House's attack on all that is sacred to common folk? First it's Obamacare*, now it's the Special Olympics, for Pete's sake.

    _____________________________
    * He says should Obamacare be struck down by the courts, the Republicans will put forward a plan so much better that they'll for evermore be known as the Health Care Republicans. Yeah, the plan is this: "Can you afford to go the doctor? Then go! You can't afford it? Well, you're going to die anyway, so it might as well be now rather than later. "
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Obamacare was implemented in 2014. They've had YEARS to come up with The Great Republican Healthcare Plan, and there's not even a smell of one.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    [tangent]
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Our Prime Minister Robert Menzies ... was also called Ming (can't remember why) ...
    Menzies is a Scottish name, and in Scotland would be pronounced "Ming-is". There's a Scottish politician called Menzies Campbell, who's known as Ming.

    Would that explain it?
    [/tangent]
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    So what's with the current occupant of the White House's attack on all that is sacred to common folk? First it's Obamacare*, now it's the Special Olympics, for Pete's sake.

    _____________________________
    * He says should Obamacare be struck down by the courts, the Republicans will put forward a plan so much better that they'll for evermore be known as the Health Care Republicans. Yeah, the plan is this: "Can you afford to go the doctor? Then go! You can't afford it? Well, you're going to die anyway, so it might as well be now rather than later. "


    It does seem he is doing everything he can to NOT get elected.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    So what's with the current occupant of the White House's attack on all that is sacred to common folk? First it's Obamacare*, now it's the Special Olympics, for Pete's sake.
    I wonder if he's attacking Special Olympics because it was started by Eunice Kennedy Shriver?
    :rage:
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Yeah, I was just thinking the Kennedys are going to be really pissed off.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    I wonder if he's attacking Special Olympics because it was started by Eunice Kennedy Shriver?
    I wouldn't be surprised. He needs another dead person to twitter against now that the McCain thing has become old. Many are saying that Barbara Bush is next in line due to what she said about his influence on a variety of issues in her life.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Of course, Trump has said he has overridden DeVos' cuts to Special Olympics, but the cuts were even deeper and he has not rescinded those cuts, Story here.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    The woman belongs in charge of education like the devil belongs in a confessional (middle seat).
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Miss Amanda--

    What's the middle seat? I only know of two-seated confessionals. Or do you mean seated between the penitent and God? Thx.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Any confessional I've ever used has a middle seat for the priest and a side seat on either side for penitents. See here, for example.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Oh, right. Thx.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    And now tRump is threatening to close the border with Mexico. THIS MEANS WE WILL RUN OUT OF AVOCADOS IN THREE WEEKS. He really does not want to get re-elected.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Might not run out. Both California and Florida grow and sell avocados. And Israeli avocados are shipped in, too.

    But yeah. Yet another stupid thing about the stupid stuff he's threatening/doing. Especially when there's such an avocado fad.
  • Today I heard that he did not mean all of the borders out of Mexico. I think he just keeps saying stuff then revising from minute minute. Now I try not to go crazy all at once but wait for the next day and next week talking point.
Sign In or Register to comment.