[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Rand Paul: 'How Do You Out-Trump the Irrational?'
CAP-HAITIEN, HAITI — Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul says it's only a matter of time until the country wakes up to Donald Trump's insincere message, but he's worried that some Americans are blinded by his "celebrity." In a series of interviews between performing pro-bono eye surgeries in Haiti with the University of Utah's Moran Eye Center, the Kentucky senator was relaxed in scrubs, dismissive of Trump and critical of the media's role in Trump's rise. "How do you out-Trump the irrational?" he asked. It's a question he and the other Republican candidates are puzzling over. Paul said the reason "people have gone gaga" over the billionaire real estate mogul is that he's tapped into anti-establishment conservative anger. In many ways, it's not dissimilar from the anti-Washington sentiment that helped Paul rise to his own political fame. But in the case of Trump, Paul believes there's no substance at all behind the frustration. "I've likened it to 'The emperor has no clothes.' He's saying things that are completely vapid, things that are completely vulgar and completely a non sequitur." And Paul is confident that the Trump show can't last. "There's no way the voters in the country will nominate him. Absolutely not," Paul said. Paul acknowledged that Trump's organization has helped to fund Paul's charity eye surgery trips, which are planned by the Moran Eye Center. The organization confirmed to NBC Wednesday that the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $10,000 to support the medical mission to Haiti that Rand Paul participated in. Trump's group also donated $10,000 in 2014 to support humanitarian work in Guatemala. In the interview with NBC News, Paul took particular aim at Trump's recently released immigration proposal, which he said made "no sense" and is "bizarre." "Even the people who think they might like him, when they hear what his bone-headed plan is, you think they might have second thoughts," he said. Still, one element of Trump's immigration plan that Paul won't push back on is his proposal to end birthright citizenship. Back in 2011, Paul co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to put an end to the right that allows everybody born on U.S. soil to be a citizen. He told NBC News that today's circumstances still warrant that move. "What I would say is, if you have an open border you can't have birthright citizenship," he said. He also said his preference is to fix the border, adding that "no Republican or Democrat president" since 1986 has properly enforced America's immigration laws. One policy agreement with Trump isn't changing his thinking about the New York candidate, and Paul isn't changing his campaign plan. Asked if he will change tactics to counter his faltering poll numbers when he is back on the campaign trail next week, he doesn't see a need to. "I think I do exactly the same thing I've been doing," he said. Next week, that will mean a West Coast swing that will take him to Alaska and other Western states where his campaign believes his message resonates. Poster Comment: Back in 2011, Paul co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to put an end to the right that allows everybody born on U.S. soil to be a citizen. He told NBC News that today's circumstances still warrant that move. Does The Donald stand with Rand, or with the GOP establishment reconquistas? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest He's saying things that are completely vapid, things that are completely vulgar and completely a non sequitur. I disagree, Randy.
#2. To: hondo68 (#0) "How do you out-Trump the irrational?" he asked." I don't know. Maybe you can do pro-bono eye surgeries in Haiti.
#3. To: hondo68 (#0) Rand Paul: 'How Do You Out-Trump the Irrational?' It's easy. Just become an establishment Republican. They're all nuts.
#4. To: misterwhite (#2) "How do you out-Trump the irrational?" he asked." Maybe you can do pro-bono eye surgeries in Haiti. Maybe that's what he should stick to doing.
#5. To: hondo68 (#0) "Back in 2011, Paul co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to put an end to the right that allows everybody born on U.S. soil to be a citizen." Saying we need an amendment is a bullshit excuse to do nothing. He's smart enough to know that Congress has a history of allowing or banning whole classes of people from becoming citizens. Congress only needs to pass a law prohibiting children of illegals to become citizens. If it wanted, Congress has the power to prohibit ALL Mexicans from becoming citizens. Congress controls naturalization, not the courts.
#6. To: misterwhite (#5) Congress controls naturalization, not the courts. Naturalization, yes. But the 14th Amendment says that those born on US soil are citizens. They are not naturalized, they're natural born. Congress can't do anything about that, other than propose an amendment to the Constitution. The way to fight it is by controlling the Border, to keep people from crossing it in the first place, and to control employment opportunities, by crushing employers who hire illegals. Make it hard to get here and financially unrewarding, and you will have the illegal flow dry up, and you won't have to worry too much about anchor babies anymore.
#7. To: rlk (#4) Maybe you can do pro-bono eye surgeries in Haiti. He should stick to that. That does real good. His acting as a politician assuages his lust for power, but it doesn't do any GOOD.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#6) "But the 14th Amendment says that those born on US soil are citizens. They are not naturalized, they're natural born." If they are born on U.S. soil they are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and that jurisdiction can say they're not citizens.
#9. To: misterwhite (#8) If they are on US soil and don't have diplomatic immunity, they are indeed subject to US jurisdiction. That means that they can be tried in US courts. It also means that their children born here are US citizens, per the 14th Amendment. That cannot be changed unless the Constitution itself is amended. This is a blind alley. This is the Polish cavalry charging the panzers. It's an unwinnable fight on the wrong battlefield. Control the border and crucify employers of illegals, and the demand will go away and illegals will self- deport. But babies born here are US citizens if their parents don't have diplomatic immunity.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9) "That cannot be changed unless the Constitution itself is amended." Congress can simply pass a law. The ones who want you believe an amendment is required are those who don't want the law changed.
#11. To: misterwhite (#10) I myself, personally, as a trainee legal professional, believe that the Constitution has to be amended to remove birthright citizenship. OR that Congress could indeed pass a law regarding jurisdiction. But if the courts were to use any sort of standard at all - anything based on 230 years of precedent, then they would have to rule that if the US doesn't have JURISDICTION over illegals, they all have legal immunity and can't be prosecuted. I myself, personally, think that if we just "pass a law" and play THAT fast and loose with the Constitution and the legal precedents, that the country is well and truly OVER. Abortion sort of took us there, morally. But this would be a clean break with any rule of law. This would be Nazi Germany/Soviet Union stuff. Just do whatever the hell, and say whatever the hell, because you want to.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11) You don't GETIT ... the problem with illegal immigration has NOTHING to do with birthright. It has to do with the US FEDERAL government guarding and defending our soverign borders of the USA.
#13. To: buckeroo (#12) You don't GETIT ... the problem with illegal immigration has NOTHING to do with birthright. It has to do with the US FEDERAL government guarding and defending our soverign borders of the USA. No, but you see Buckeroo, I DO get it. I VERY MUCH get it. You're right, it IS about the US Federal government guarding and defending our borders. And do you know where that's done? That's done AT THE BORDER, for starters. We have a huge military. Militaries guard borders. Whose borders are we guarding it with? Well, we're guarding the Korean border with North Korea. There are lots of Koreans who can guard their own border but who is doing it? WE ARE. Our troops over OVER THERE, at our expense, while our OWN border, right here, is wide open. And let's not pretend and say "Borders". We're not keeping out the Canadians, and we don't need to. We're talking specifically about the border between Mexico and the USA, and also the interior border, at airports and beyond, whence people fly in with visas, walk into the country, and don't leave. THOSE are the borders. And ONE of those Borders, the Mexican, is susceptible to being guarded by our military. But where's the military/ In Korea. And in Iraq and Afghanistan, FAILING to guard their border. And in Germany, guarding the German borders...against WHO, exactly? France? Belgium? Poland? Holland? Luxembourg, Switzerland and Austria? The Czechs? I've just named all of the German borders, and there's no country on any side of them that wants an acre of Germany, or has any intention of crossing any of those borders. So, what are we doing there? Guarding against the Russians? Don't we have 8000 nuclear weapons to guard against the Russians going nuts and invading Europe? We're not "guarding" ANYTHING in Europe. Not in Germany, and not in Kosovo or Bosnia either. We're sitting there, consuming resources, useless troops on a useless mission - to maintain some fantasy of US "prestige" - which is meaningless in everybody's mind except for the US military doing it, and some intel and State Department geeks. That army, all those troops - it needs to be guarding OUR border. The air force? It needs to be over OUR border. The Navy needs to be out there in OUR seas, intercepting boats, inspecting cargoes. This is obvious. THIS is how you control the Mexican Border. By controlling the friggin' Mexican Border. Not by making up new definitions of old words and mangling the Constitution. It means that we bring the Army, Navy and Air Force home from protecting the borders of OTHER COUNTRIES, at our expense, and use it to protect OUR Border. Until we do THAT, I don't want to hear about amending the Constitution, either legally, or through some bullshit redefinition of words that is patently dishonest. Now, the other border is the internal border: people fly in and they don't leave. You control THAT by crucifying American employers who hire illegals. That's it. That's all. American employers hire illegals because they want labor that is illegally cheap. There's a minimum wage, and there are OSHA rules and other protections. By hiring illegals, American employers avoid all of that. And all of that extra money they make by breaking the law is illegal profit. Illegal aliens stay and work because they can work. They can work because American businessmen break the law, and they do that because they can make illegal profits doing it. Illegals are hard to track, but businesses are fixed, file returns and cannot get away. You focus your blows at the American businessmen who hire illegals, and you make it gruesomely expensive for them to hire cheap illegal labor. You take the profit they made illegally in that way, and you take triple damages also. You hammer them for breaking the law, and you hit them where it counts: in their wallet. Businessmen are in business to make money. You take their money, and they will stop hiring illegals. Stop hiring illegals, and they will not have the means to stay, and they will leave when their visas expire. Those are the two perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional ways to take care of the Border problem RIGHT NOW, with executive orders, no Congressional action required, no tearing up the Constitution, no redefining words. It simply means GIVING UP ON a crappy foreign policy, and REFOCUSING your punishment efforts from the illegals to the criminal American capitalists who hire them. THAT is how you control the border, effectively, and save money. THAT is what I support. It targets exactly the problem, and it does so with assets we already have, and without shredding the meaning of the Constitution. And it does so by stopping the flow and torturing the Americans who are causing all of this to happen. If businesses like Tyson's Chicken simply will not pay Americans American wages to do the job, then you take all of their money away as fines and put them out of business, and the OTHER American businesses who do it legally will take their market share. Close the borders and use law enforcement to destroy American businesses who break the law by hiring illegals, and you will end the illegal alien problem. And then the trickle of in-transit passengers or people on visas who have babies, when they have American kids because of the 14th Amendment, well then who cares? It will be de minimis. Americans want to close the border without spending the military resources to close the border, while maintaining a foolish, expensive and illegitimate world empire, and without punishing the American capitalists who make illegal immigration possible. And NOW they want to shred the Constitution to do it. Fuck that. Fuck all of it. End the empire, bring the Army and Air Force home, put THEM on the border, and crucify Americans who hire illegals - and there will be no illegal alien problem, and the Constitution will be intact, and you will have in fact punished the worst criminals - and by taking their money and driving them out of business by confiscating their cash, you will have opened up market share for the OTHER Amnericans who hire Americans and who do not make illegal profits by using illegal labor. THAT is all about controlling our sovereign borders, THAT is how you do it legally, and in the process, that is how you slash the budget (by ending endless and fruitless imperial wars abroad), and how you re-employ Americans. THAT controls the border. Pretending that "Jursidiction" doesn't mean what it means is a lie, and a manipulation of the Constitution. And why? So that we can keep on throwing away money defending Korea and Iraq, and so that criminal capitalists can keep earning illegal profits by fucking over American workers and hiring cheap exploitable illegals instead. Unacceptable. Bring home the army, put it on the border, and put businesses who insist on hiring illegals out of business. There's your answer. I won't accept any other answer, because the other answers are all bullshit that leave the guilty unpunished. Illegals stay because American criminals pay them. Crucify the Americans and their competitors will hire Americans and stay in business, and take their market share, and the illegals will leave for want of jobs. I hear "No mercy for illegals." I say "No mercy for American businesses who hire illegals." The illegals will self deport if you strip the money from Americans who hire them, because Americans won't hire them anymore. And then you don't HAVE to spend a friggin' fortune putting a huge army on borders or tracking everybody. You only have to track employer rolls, a much smaller and easier task.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#11) "But if the courts were to use any sort of standard at all - anything based on 230 years of precedent, then they would have to rule that if the US doesn't have JURISDICTION over illegals, they all have legal immunity and can't be prosecuted." The courts interpreted "to regulate commerce" as including "to prohibit commerce". The courts can easily interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as meaning "owing allegiance to no other country". And there's 230 years of precedent for that interpretation.
#15. To: buckeroo (#12) "It has to do with the US FEDERAL government guarding and defending our soverign borders of the USA." Almost half of all illegal aliens currently in the United States entered legally but overstayed their visas. Guarding the border is only half the problem.
#16. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#11) I myself, personally, as a trainee legal professional, believe that the Constitution has to be amended to remove birthright citizenship. Misterwhite, at #14, told you how the courts can interpret/opine the issue without giving illegals immunity: ---
The courts can easily interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as meaning "owing allegiance to no other country". And there's 230 years of precedent for that interpretation. He also gave you the worst example of court interpretation/opinion to date: --
The courts interpreted "to regulate commerce" as including "to prohibit commerce". Obviously, such odious SCOTUS opinions can be, and should be challenged, -- and if the court refuses change, they can be ignored, as per Dred Scott...
#17. To: misterwhite (#14) The courts can easily interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as meaning "owing allegiance to no other country". And there's 230 years of precedent for that interpretation. No, they cannot easily do this. They cannot do it because jurisdiction MEANS the power to be held accountable by the court. If the court doesn't have jurisdiction, it cannot hear the case. Can the Duluth City Police suit up and enforce tickets in Miami? No. No jurisdiction.
#18. To: tpaine (#16) Mr White gave an historical example of a decision that is a non-sequitur to the issue at hand. And he gave an example of the courts just doing whatever the hell they want. So yeah, the court could just do whatever the hell it wanted, and rule that illegals are not subject to US jurisdiction, and then rule that this doesn't mean that the courts don't have jurisdiction over them. And they could rule that the right to keep and bear arms means that the government can confiscate all firearms, or that freedom of speech means that speech can be censored. They CAN, but it would all be nonsensical and it would simply be naked power on display, with no legal principle behind it other than "I'm the strongest and nobody can stop me." In other words yes, if the Supreme Court wants to interpret everything to mean that tyranny is freedom, war is peace, and bad is good, and they have the army behind them, they can. In fact, lots of governments do that all over the world. It's called "The rule of whatever-the-hell the ruler wants. If words mean things, then the Supreme Court can't do that, even though lots of people want them to.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#17) "They cannot do it because jurisdiction MEANS the power to be held accountable by the court." Ah. But we're not debating the definition of "jurisdiction". We're discussing the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment. And, in context, THAT has been defined as "owing allegiance to no other country".
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#18) Misterwhite, at #14, told you how the courts can interpret/opine the issue without giving illegals immunity: ---
The courts can easily interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as meaning "owing allegiance to no other country". And there's 230 years of precedent for that interpretation.
He also gave you the worst example of court interpretation/opinion to date: --
The courts interpreted "to regulate commerce" as including "to prohibit commerce".
Obviously, such odious SCOTUS opinions can be, and should be challenged, -- and if the court refuses change, they can be ignored, as per Dred Scott...
Mr White gave an historical example of a decision that is a non-sequitur to the issue at hand. And he gave an example of the courts just doing whatever the hell they want.
Exactly my point.. -- You seem to think that SCOTUS opinions MUST be obeyed, - this is not true.
So yeah, the court could just do whatever the hell it wanted, and rule that illegals are not subject to US jurisdiction, and then rule that this doesn't mean that the courts don't have jurisdiction over them.
And if we the people, and our local/state/Fed officials agreed, the issue would be resolved. -- But you and others would still be free to disagree, correct?
And they could rule that the right to keep and bear arms means that the government can confiscate all firearms, or that freedom of speech means that speech can be censored. They CAN, but it would all be nonsensical and it would simply be naked power on display, with no legal principle behind it other than "I'm the strongest and nobody can stop me."
Quite true, and that's why our system has checks and balances to prevent such displays of naked power.
In other words yes, if the Supreme Court wants to interpret everything to mean that tyranny is freedom, war is peace, and bad is good, and they have the army behind them, they can. In fact, lots of governments do that all over the world. It's called "The rule of whatever-the-hell the ruler wants. Can't happen in the USA, because our armed citizenry trumps the army..
If words mean things, then the Supreme Court can't do that, even though lots of people want them to. We agree..
#21. To: misterwhite (#19) Ah. But we're not debating the definition of "jurisdiction". We're discussing the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment. Jurisdiction is a word of general use in jurisprudence. "Subject to the jurisdiction" means "subject to be tried in the courts of..." or "subject to the police powers of...". The fellow who drafted the 14th Amendment had a view. But he did not ratify the amendment. Jefferson had views too, and he drafted things. However, it was Congress, and then the states, that ratified the language, and the language they ratified was the words of the amendment. That does not mean that they ratified the opinion of the drafter about what the amendment means. They did not. They ratified the words of the amendment. That word "jurisdiction" and those words "subject to the jurisdiction of" are standard juridical words. They have a very long history of precedent, and they mean what those precedents mean. They mean what those legal precedents say. When judged by courts, the meaning of jurisdiction is what the Common Law tradition of the courts say jurisidction means. The opinion of some Congressman who drafted language that was eventually ratified as an emendment is totally irrelevant. It was his opinion. It is not law, it never was law. The law is what the the Supreme Court precedents say jurisidiction means, and in no way whatever is the law what the drafter of some law personally felt it ought to mean. His opinion is interesting - that's what he felt about it. But in a court of law, the word means what the court has said it means, and not what the drafter of the 14th Amendment means. Jurisdiction, as a formal matter of positive law affirmed by centuries of Supreme Court opinion means that the authority in question has the power to try or to enforce. That is what the word is DEFINED as by our law. No Congressman has the power, by his opinion, to change any of that. If Ron Paul proposed a "liberty law" and it was passed, the fact that Ron Paul believes that "liberty" includes drug legalization, and said so in the Congressional record, is an interesting detail of history. And it's meaningless. What a Congressman says his legislation means is nothing. It hjas no legal force. Congress does not pass Congressmen's opinions. It passes words, and those words mean what the legal structure of the country says they mean, and not what their authors say they mean. The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction. It does not mean allegiance. Ever. The Congressman stated his opinion. His opinion was wrong, irrelevant, not law, not precedent. It's an opinion, of a man long dead. A lawyer can bring it before judges and justices if he likes, and the judges or justices will let him present it. And then they'll apply the legal meaning of the word, which is what the courts say it means, and not what a long-dead congressman said. That's just the truth. Ron Paul can argue that "liberty" means the right to do drugs. He believes it firmly. But no court will agree, or law enforcement, nor anybody. It's his opinion. And that's all it is.
#22. To: tpaine (#20) Exactly my point.. -- You seem to think that SCOTUS opinions MUST be obeyed, - this is not true. Well, ok, that's true. As a matter of fact, if there is enough power arrayed to disregard the court, it can be disregarded. In this particular case, it's the court itself that will be interpreting jurisdiction. it's true that the Supreme Court is not bound by earlier precedent: they can reverse it. But in this case, two centuries of expanding the meaning of jurisdiction is what has given the Supreme Court such immense power (among other things). So, is the Supreme Court going to look at some weird re-definition of the word "jurisdiction", or the opinion of some guy from the 1860s, and say "Yup, our definition of jurisdiction for all this time has been totally wrong, and we're going to go ahead and reverse the meaning of a key word and concept, just to please some yahoos"? No, that's not going to happen. It's why this is such a sterile battlefield. It's an unwinnable battle. It's the Polish cavalry charging the panzers. You just get to a point where the outcome is foreordained, and you don't ride onto that battlefield at all, because you cannot win there, on that ground, with those weapons. You don't sail a rowboat out to take on a battleship. You're gonna lose if you do.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22) . It's an unwinnable battle. It's the Polish cavalry charging the panzers. You just get to a point where the outcome is foreordained, and you don't ride onto that battlefield at all, because you cannot win there, on that ground, with those weapons. I think we may have found a way to trump your defeatism.
#24. To: misterwhite (#15) I said: "It has to do with the US FEDERAL government guarding and defending our soverign borders of the USA." U said: "Guarding the border is only half the problem." What is wrong with you?
#25. To: buckeroo (#24) You said the solution to illegal immigration is guarding our borders. I said only half the illegals enter our country this way. The other half come here legally on a temporary visa then illegally stay. What's wrong with YOU?
#26. To: misterwhite (#25) Let's pretend YOU are an official federal government bureaucrat tasked with guarding and defending our borders. Let's further pretend YOU validated an alien for some temporary residency and that same alien permitted his/her legal residency to expire without renewal or reaffirmation of any sort; that means the alien is an illegal alien, doesn't it? That means YOU have failed your responsibilities. That means YOU did NOT GUARD AND DEFEND OUR SOVERIGN BORDERS based on Constitutional requirements. That means as a federal bureaucrat YOU are accountable to stand trial for dereliction of duty. What is wrong with YOU?
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#6) But the 14th Amendment says that those born on US soil are citizens. No it doesn't. The 14th amendment had to do with slavery. It wasn't even truly ratified. Had nothing to do with illegals. That is the gospel truth.
#28. To: buckeroo (#26) "Let's further pretend YOU validated an alien for some temporary residency" Temporary visas are not issued by the U.S. Border Patrol. They're issued at the U.S. Embassy in the visitors home country.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|