The Trump Presidency - Chapter 2

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Her “affairs” were getting down with a 60-year old man because he had clout to get ahead. You can spin it however you need to, you can get mad at God or Christians if you need to but those actions finally caught up to her when she was 60 and had to do it the right way and thankfully enough swing voters found out she didn’t have enough substance to her campaign.

By that logic, when do Trump’s actions catch up to him, Good Christian?

[Ksyrup]

Never. Because when he dies, he will ascend to Heaven and bump Jesus off his perch. It's been ordained.

[cuervo72]

Also, it’s one hell of a comeuppance for Harris. Rose to a level that, let’s see…um, zero other women brown or otherwise attained. And crapped out shorter than..yeah again, no other women.

(That’s if you even accept the premise that she had a relationship with Brown to get ahead, which I don’t. Though bitches never screw for anything else amirite??)

[Racer]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Her “affairs” were getting down with a 60-year old man because he had clout to get ahead. You can spin it however you need to, you can get mad at God or Christians if you need to but those actions finally caught up to her when she was 60 and had to do it the right way and thankfully enough swing voters found out she didn’t have enough substance to her campaign.

Why are you making the assumption that Harris's relationship with Willie Brown was to get ahead? I think that's unfair to assume. Also, if it was the case why aren't you placing blame on Brown too in which instance he would have used his position of power to take advantage of a much younger woman?

While that relationship may have helped Harris get her foot in the door, Harris has proven to be very qualified at everything she's done. Many people's first opportunity is because they knew someone.

Most people don't inherit incredible wealth like Trump did.

Originally Posted by Lathum

There is all kind of literature on this subject. While my examples are anecdotal they are far from unique. Not to mention men have been in control for a few thousand years and women may be getting kind of tired of it. When you also consider rights they have gained in the last 50 or so years are already being rolled back by old white men it is understandable how generalizations could be made.

Why would you assume most men don't have women sharing their dating experiences? If true maybe more men should and they would understand why they feel the way they do.

I think for the historical society reasons you mentioned and also because I think women would generally naturally gravitate towards other women to discuss their dating experiences.

Originally Posted by Lathum

We have a president elect responsible for overturning Roe, we have a nominee for Sec of defense who is on the record saying women shouldn't be in combat roles, we have young men and right wing influencers yelling your body my choice, and a VP elect that would be on board with a national abortion ban.

But sure buddy.

Sexism and misogyny are still rampant in society.

The overturning of Roe was not to protect life. If Republicans were pro life they would be for free childcare, free Medicare for everyone 18 and under, pro contraception, paid national parental leave for at least 6 months after a child being born, and free healthcare for pregnant women. They aren't for any of that. The overturning of Roe was to control women.

I mostly agree with most of your posts. I just don't believe most men are inherently bad or at least don't think it's productive to have that mindset. I think there are definitely toxic norms in society that continue to exist. How you counteract these especially when right wing influencers are reinforcing to young men I do not know.

[JPhillips]

This Hegseth story looks really bad. She got a rape kit done the next morning.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This Hegseth story looks really bad. She got a rape kit done the next morning.

I'm sure he prayed about it and it's ok now.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This Hegseth story looks really bad. She got a rape kit done the next morning.

The right will just question why she signed the nda instead of pressing charges.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

According to Edward just have her carry her passport when they ask for papers and worst case scenario the courts will handle everything.

When asked by a LEO, just hand over DL, proof of insurance, and registration. Wouldn't hurt of have a video recording. Don't get overly dramatic and just follow orders.

No big deal (unless you are illegal). Happens all the time, every day.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

When asked by a LEO, just hand over DL, proof of insurance, and registration. Wouldn't hurt of have a video recording. Don't get overly dramatic and just follow orders.

No big deal (unless you are illegal). Happens all the time, every day.

Why are you assuming this is a garden variety traffic stop?

So you are OK with a LEO asking people for ID for no reasons other than appearance?

How Third Reich of you.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Why are you assuming this is a garden variety traffic stop?

So you are OK with a LEO asking people for ID for no reasons other than appearance?

Good thing I asked him for a scenario and he said

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Could be a traffic stop could be like stop and frisk. Could be other people call her in as suspicious. Again, there are no details so we don't know what might happen.

No problem in asking for DL, proof of insurance, and registration in a traffic stop. If she is doing something that people think is suspicious, no problem.

But tell you what, if/when his daughter is toss into a concentration camp through no fault of her own, com'on back with a "I told you so". Until, just chill until we better understand how this "roundup & deportation" will work.

To quote him again

Again, there are no details so we don't know what might happen.

How Third Reich of you.

Me, Third Reich? That is ironic coming from you

[Lathum]

Way to cherry pick. He also used stop and frisk as an example which is a violation of civil liberties.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Way to cherry pick. He also used stop and frisk as an example which is a violation of civil liberties.

His quote is actually

Could be a traffic stop could be like stop and frisk.

... period. I guess you can read that as 2 separate incidents, but I read that as 1 incident where there is a traffic stop and then stop & frisk.

If that's the case, then I don't think it's a violation of civil liberties (or it needs to be more egregious). But hey, that's why she should be recording the incident, and the LEO should also have a video recording.

The United States Supreme Court justices held that law enforcement officer Martin McFadden did not violate a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when he chose to approach John Terry and Richard Chilton while they were loitering outside a closed store and conduct what is now referred to as a stop and frisk.

The court held that, while investigating suspicious behavior, an officer may lawfully pat down the outer clothing of someone they reasonably believe to be armed and dangerous. A pat down aims to discover weapons that the person can use to assault the officer or someone nearby. In other words, the objective is to ensure officer safety.

The Court concluded that a stop and frisk doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Because of the name of this landmark decision, many people now refer to a stop and frisk as a "Terry frisk" or "Terry Stop."

[Lathum]

Doesn't say anything about requesting ID...

If you can't see why people are concerned that detention camps are in the planning process I don't know what to tell you

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Doesn't say anything about requesting ID...

Huh?

If there is a traffic stop, the LEO can ask you for Drivers License, insurance and proof of registration, and you are required to provide it. Happens all the time, every day, perfectly legal.

If you can't see why people are concerned that detention camps are in the planning process I don't know what to tell you

Same.

If you don't see how Trump is targeting illegals and not legal naturalized citizens like his daughter ... then I don't know what to tell you.

There are legal immigrants, non-immigrants that should worry some (asylees, refugees, Dreamers and like). But a legal, non-fraudulent, naturalized citizen ... that is ridiculous.

But yeah, let's see what happens in the next 4 years.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

When asked by a LEO, just hand over DL, proof of insurance, and registration. Wouldn't hurt of have a video recording. Don't get overly dramatic and just follow orders.

No big deal (unless you are illegal). Happens all the time, every day.

Unheard of levels of bootlicking. You're describing a violation of constitutional rights.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Unheard of levels of bootlicking. You're describing a violation of constitutional rights.

Really? Is this your opinion or fact?

Please provide a link if fact.

Or are you one of those Sovereign Citizens idiots?

[JPhillips]

Again, a driver's license is not proof of citizenship. At that point do they say come back in a couple of weeks or do they detain? What happens if they detain? What legal process, if any, will play out?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Again, a driver's license is not proof of citizenship. At that point do they say come back in a couple of weeks or do they detain? What happens if they detain? What legal process, if any, will play out?

True, DL is not proof of citizenship. We don't know the process of how something like this will play out ... other than default to the current process.

Like you say

Again, there are no details so we don't know what might happen.

So why assume your daughter will be tossed into a detention camp when she is unable to show proof of citizenship, when they haven't told us what the process is?

When they tell us what the process is (e.g. a new ID card), and she refuses to show it, then that'll be a problem.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Really? Is this your opinion or fact?

Please provide a link if fact.

Or are you one of those Sovereign Citizens idiots?

Wingate vs Fulford. Google stuff and stop being the board dummy.

[JPhillips]

I'm not assuming that will happen, I'm preparing her for the possibility. It would be negligent to assume there is no possibility for abuse.

I'll remind you that during Trump's first term he deported Korean adoptees who were not made citizens.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wingate vs Fulford. Google stuff and stop being the board dummy.

Thanks for the link.

In fact, I did google on "can leos ask for dl, registration, proof of insurance" and it came back with

Yes, law enforcement officers (LEOs) can legally ask you to provide your driver's license (DL), vehicle registration, and proof of insurance during a traffic stop; this is considered standard procedure in most jurisdictions.

I read more about the case, see below. Asking for a DL is not a violation of the constitution. The issue was the reason/suspicion for the ask was not legit per the second quote.

Page not found - Reason.com.

In a decision handed down last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed that Wingate's rights were violated. "To be sure, officers may always request someone's identification during a voluntary encounter," the court said. "But they may not compel it by threat of criminal sanction. Allowing a county to criminalize a person's silence outside the confines of a valid seizure would press our conception of voluntary encounters beyond its logical limits. We therefore decline to do so here."

If Wingate had been lawfully detained by the police, the 4th Circuit said, then the officer could require him to show ID. But that was not what happened here. In fact, as the 4th Circuit detailed, the case for detaining and arresting Wingate utterly failed to pass the smell test. For example, Deputy Fulford stated in a deposition that Wingate raised a "red flag" for him when Wingate exited his vehicle and approached the officer's cruiser. "But the notion that the driver of a broken-down vehicle creates suspicion of criminal activity by approaching the officer trying to render him aid, put candidly, defies reason," the 4th Circuit observed.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not assuming that will happen, I'm preparing her for the possibility.

I agree

It would be negligent to assume there is no possibility for abuse.

I agree also. The vast number of stops I've seen on YT were for legit reasons, done by professional LEOs. But I've seen others that were bad for sure.

I'll remind you that during Trump's first term he deported Korean adoptees who were not made citizens.

Yes, I can easily admit that some legal immigrants (not yet citizens) are at risk such as refugees, asylees, Dreamers.

There is no indication that Trump wants to deport legally, naturalized citizens other than for those specific A-D de-naturalization situation I linked previously.

I don't know if it helps to reassure you, but I've watch several Holman interviews, and not once has he said/implied naturalized citizens were at risk. I would encourage you to do the same. You may not like his politics, but he says what he means.

[RainMaker]

They can ask you for your DL on a legal traffic stop if you are the driver. Your DL is not proof of citizenship and the traffic stop has nothing to do with your immigration status.

JPhillips is clearly not talking about his daughter being pulled over for rolling through a stopnsign and having to show ID.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

JPhillips is clearly not talking about his daughter being pulled over for rolling through a stopnsign and having to show ID.

I'll just quote him again

Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
Could be a traffic stop could be like stop and frisk. Could be other people call her in as suspicious. Again, there are no details so we don't know what might happen.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They can ask you for your DL on a legal traffic stop if you are the driver. Your DL is not proof of citizenship and the traffic stop has nothing to do with your immigration status.

Okay, happy to see you've corrected yourself from your all-encompassing statement below and you now really don't believe it's a violation of constitutional rights for a LEO to ask for a DL, registration and proof of insurance. Yup, always ask if its opinion or fact/source when debating you.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Unheard of levels of bootlicking. You're describing a violation of constitutional rights.

[RainMaker]

You do not have to provide proof of citizenship to an officer during a traffic stop. It would be a violation of civil rights to arrest someone for failing to do so. They can ask for a drivers license if you were driving but that has nothing to do with citizenship status.

He is clearly concerned with people like you who view anyone who isn't white as a potential illegal immigrants. That she will have her constitutional rights violated over her skin color.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You do not have to provide proof of citizenship to an officer during a traffic stop. It would be a violation of civil rights to arrest someone for failing to do so. They can ask for a drivers license if you were driving but that has nothing to do with citizenship status.

Back for more?

Refer back to where you jumped into the conversation for the specific quotes Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency - Chapter 2

I did not say had to provide proof of citizenship. Read what I said.

I did not say her daughter would be arrested for failing to provide proof of citizenship. I have said I can see where she would be detained at the car stop and she would be investigated further. But I have never said she would be arrested, in fact I my point is he has little to worry about

On DL nothing to do with citizenship, I agree. So? How does that prove your point below? Is it possible that you jumped into a middle of a discussion and tossed your par-for-the-course insults without first reading the prior posts?

Originally Posted by RainMaker View Post
Unheard of levels of bootlicking. You're describing a violation of constitutional rights.

[JPhillips]

The government doesn't have a list of citizens. It's up to citizens to be able to provide the documents that prove they are citizens. Given that, there's no way to do mass deportations without at least initially rounding up people who are citizens but are unable to prove so at the time of detention.

I don't want my daughter caught up in that, but I'd recommend that everybody carry proof of citizenship if Trump goes forward with mass deportations.