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

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

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??)

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.


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.


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.

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.

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

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.

Good thing I asked him for a scenario and he said

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3445304) 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

Quote:

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

Me, Third Reich? That is ironic coming from you

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

His quote is actually


... 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.

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

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.


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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

Thanks for the link.

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


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.

I agree

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.

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.

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.

I'll just quote him again

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

In addition to what you said in your post, I am also worried there will be an increase in harassment and violence against non white people living in the United States.

Trump really brings out the worst in some people in this country.

Non white men yes, there will be 100%

Thats a given and already happening. Black people being targeted with texts about reporting to plantations, kids yelling your body my choice, etc...

😂 pic.twitter.com/hUahjdrAJP

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) November 18, 2024

Why would she be detained and investigated further?


You literally said the solution to this was handing over your drivers license. Make up your mind.

I don't know what you mean by "solution to this". If you mean to "prove citizenship", I did not say that. If you mean to "comply with officer" and "chill", I did say this.

Assuming you mean if driver does not provide DL, registration or proof of insurance? Because in a traffic stop (e.g. speeding, busted lights, looks to be drunk etc.), a LEO can legitimately as for DL, registration and proof of insurance. And unlike what you claim, there is no constitutional violation.

If the driver refuses, the LEO can legitimately detain (not arrest) the driver and conduct further investigation. Further investigation may calling a supervisor/sergeant to come to talk the driver; asking driver if car can be searched; peering into car to see what is in plain sight; run the DUI test if driver okays it; talking to any other witnesses etc.

If the driver still refuses to cooperate, the LEO can take the driver back to the station, get driver fingerprinted to be ID'd, offer a breath analyzer (and if refused, believe the driver can be locked up for X hours) and stuff like that.

One way or another, if it's a legit stop, the LEO will get the ID either at the incident or back at the police station ... and there's no constitutional violation. Yeah, you may find some exceptional situations here and there because of X or Y, but no constitutional violation as a whole.

But let's get back to the original accusation you made below. I'm okay with talking about other things, but let's put the original to bed first. Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency - Chapter 2

Do you still contend it is a violation of constitutional rights below.

Quote:

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.

He's not worried about his daughter getting a speeding ticket. He's worried about his daughter being detained and imprisoned because she can't prove her citizenship during any sort of interaction with law enforcement.

And you know this is what he meant. And you know why he is concerned over his daughter's situation as opposed to the situation you or I would be in if we were to interact with law enforcement. You're purposely being obtuse because it's a question you can't answer without sounding racist.

So again, he brought up a perfectly realistic scenario where his daughter is asked to prove citizenship and your response was to hand over a driver's license and her Geico insurance card.

Okay, so I'll take this as your typical "but's" after being challenged on a wildly incorrect statement. I'll add this to "Philippines is not a democracy" and "US is not decoupling from China".

When you made the claim about violation of constitutional rights, and I challenged it, the first thing you brought up was Wingate vs Fulford. After I showed you were full of BS, then you tried to clarify your statement about "worried about this or that". I'll call BS on that also because if that's really what you meant, you would have brought that up instead of Wingate vs Fulford.

And of course, let's not forget this completely hilarious exchange which goes to your lack of reading comprehension.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency - Chapter 2


Oh, I'll just ask the question again for the 3rd (?) time?

Do you still contend it is a violation of constitutional rights below.

It literally doesn't matter if it's a traffic stop or coming up to her on the street. A driver's license is not proof of citizenship. Neither is your vehicle registration or insurance card (which you only have to show during a traffic stop when you are suspected of a traffic violation and the one actually driving).



Now you're doing the dumb guy thing of going off on tangents because you can't answer his question. What is his daughter supposed to do when an officer demands she prove she's a citizen?

I will answer this question when you answer mine. I mean, I asked first, right? So, who is avoiding answering the question?

Let me ask again for the 4th time (and so others can see for context, see below for his original assertion & rebuttal)


QUESTION - Do you still contend it is a violation of constitutional rights below?



Original assertion

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency - Chapter 2

When challenged on this assertion, supposedly Wingate vs Fulford proved his contention, and my rebuttal

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency - Chapter 2

Trump saying this morning his plans are to declare a national emergency so he can use the military for his deportation plans.

You don't do that if the plan is orderly and centered around a legal process.

Everything in his life is a reality show. I suspect Trump wants images of the military rounding up migrants shown on a loop for the world to see to send a message.

So the boys that didn't yell should be lumped in with those that did? I guess in your world those boys were thinking it deep down inside and just not saying it?

And again, from where I came into the discussion, the answer from liberal women is to stop having sex, with those terrible men, yes the ones that voted for Harris too, and producing babies that would be raised in a liberal home?

I wouldn't doubt that somewhere in the cesspool of thinkers that came up with Project 2025 someone was trying to figure out a way to "breed out" liberals. With these women taking a stance against the terrible men, it looks like they won't have to bother.

This is just the same "not all men" argument all over again.

There is a reason why most women chose the bear

Wow.

I'm sorry, I'm missing how it is substantively different?

Another project 2025 guy tabbed to run the FCC. This country is so fucked.

I'm sure they'll try something, but I'm not sure what the FCC can do (or rather, should be able to do) against the networks. The locals that carry them, perhaps. But the networks themselves I would think would be protected much the same way Fox is.

(Even there, I'm not entirely sure how the whole local station setup hasn't...well, not collapsed, per se, but just transformed. Other than Jim and his antenna setup, who is getting these stations OTA anymore? I've gotten my locals via DirecTV or YouTube, I'd think these delivery mechanisms would be clear of the FCC.)

I’ve no idea how it works regarding broadcast licenses but you know the project 2025 guys would like nothing more than state controlled media given how successfully FOX News has brainwashed people.

I just read that Project 2025 wants to get rid of federal flood insurance. That will really go over well in FL.

I think he's already on the commission. Seems like most of his focus is on online stuff. Removing Section 230 protections from social media companies seems like the big one. He also supports the banning of TikTok which is already the current Democrat position. Not really sure what he could possibly do with network TV in that position, it's just not that powerful.