colourwheel

If the amount of people on this forum who are declining from voting or choose to vote for anyone other than people actually running is any indication how this election might turn out, Clinton probably has already won the election. From my perspective, it's been known for a while that the majority of the people who participate politically in the debate section have been leaning towards the right of the political spectrum for quite some time now. So I will just say it now... Clinton 2016!!! :teehee: :dance: :tongue:

This type of talking point has been spewed for years about Clinton. She ever been even indicted for anything? the Answer is no. But keep saying it in your mind if it makes you feel better that she will be. :D Well we have something in common then, I am not a Trump supporter either. :D Only a duped fool would Vote for Trump in my opinion.

The same could be said of the Democrats and Billary. Good thing that orange suits her.... Ironic you are saying orange suits Clinton when Trump is the the one with a perpetual orange complexion. :D Clinton has yet to have been even indicted for anything yet people still rave about her being some criminal who should be put in jail. At best the only real thing people can really say about Clinton is she isn't completely honest about things which amounts to squat in politics when no one is honest about anything. Speaking of honesty lets take a hard look at the current GOP front runner. Trump isn't completely honest about anything yet his supporters don't care and duped into his talking points. A man claiming he can get a wall built and make mexico pay for it, advocating to ban certain religious people from entering the US, Here is a man who is delusional about seeing thousands and thousands of Muslims celebrating on the streets in New York after the twin towns fell... I could go on and on but think you get the picture. Trump has no solid policy plans laid out other then to just "trust him" some how electing him magically things will get done. Sure, elect Donald Trump because some how just electing him will make America great "again" as if America is such a horrible place to begin with. :D His entire campaign is based on his poll numbers and how much he is winning. The republican party has been duped by a billionaire real estate mogul who isn't even really conservative. :D Think the Republican party deserves Trump. In my opinion the man represents all the negative things about our nation.

At this point doesn't seem like it matters who the hell you support in the GOP field. Looks like the Republican party is stuck with Trump even if you can't stand him. :D

Seriously if people are trying to get into specifics about the 14th Amendment focusing on "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to support their claim about ones birthright in this country. One would then have to then start taking everything else literally in the constitution as well.... How about we take a look at the 2nd Amendment... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The 2nd Amendment doesn't specifically mention the word "Guns" or "Fire Arms". Literally all the 2nd Amendment says is "the right of the people to retain possession of and carry our upper limbs". Yet you don't see people trying to make this argument because it's completely ludicrous... Just like it's ludicrous to try to make some kind of literal interpretation of the 14th Amendment to find a way to deny anyone who is born in america their citizenship.

Then prove it. Show just one case where SCOTUS has ruled against or denied someone as being a citizen who was born in the U.S. My guess would be you wouldn't be able to find one because no such case exist. This is settled law.

Exactly HeyYou. This is why If you start messing around trying to rid of birthright citizenship applying for only those whose parents are undocumented it can be easily interpreted to legislation that would easily demonize anyone who happens to give birth to a child in the country undocumented or not. There is no logical reason to even try to change this when there isn't any statistical data showing this being a huge problem. Messing with the 14th Amendment could be a huge disaster. Might as well add a sign on the statue of liberty saying "Immigrants are not welcome" because that's the real message that is given off when you try to rid of Birthright citizenship in this country to anyone.

@WurWaldo I am surprised you haven't been called out yet for breaking the forum debate rules. I have seen several times where you have been disrespectful to others who disagree with you as well as in my opinion attacking me personally too. Regardless if I disagree with your opinions or anyone else's on this forum there is still a certain degree of respect I still hold even when someone goes on the offence and tries to insult me personally.

I agree with you on this, a large majority of people realize that "most" politicians do lie. Which is ironic why someone like Clinton for some reason is getting a lot of heat for the current email scandal she is facing. It really comes down to how the media rails a story. The Clinton email scandal wouldn't even be any concern to anyone if it wasn't even talked about. The New York times first started railing Clinton in three stores by accidentally reporting falsely and printing info about the story that even they eventually redacted. Since then the right wing media jumped in and took the story to a whole different level. Getting rid of even "part" of the 14th amendment would fundamentally just destroy one of the things that makes America actually such a great country. I mean how far would one go to just getting rid of part of it, as only applying to "illegal" immigrants? Would this apply to immigrants that are here legally that happen to have a child in the U.S.? would this mean if a couple has a baby born in this country and just one of them isn't an actual a citizen but still here legally their child would be automatically labeled as an "illegal"? If you are talking about a person giving birth to a child in this country who is completely undocumented, there is no statistical data showing this even being an actual problem in this country other then making America a richer and more diverse society. Citizen children cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until they turn 21. If the parents are illegal, they would have to return home for at least 10 years before even applying to come in. Having a baby to secure citizenship for the parent is an extremely long-term and uncertain process anyways... Citizen child can produce some short-term benefits but not enough that creates any sort of statistical problem. Having a child can help an undocumented parent qualify for relief from deportation, but only 4,000 unauthorized immigrants can receive such status per year, and the person has to have been in the U.S. for at least 10 years to begin with. Stuff like this is so small in comparison to any other problem this nation faces. It's just ridiculous why anyone would want to get rid of birthright citizenship when there isn't even a real problem that America faces. But more to the point Trump doesn't just want to stop there. Trump wants to force deport every undocumented immigrant in this country. How exactly do you think one can accomplish this? Crate a separate police that targets anyone who isn't white/caucasian? does this mean me being an Asian American citizen could be randomly pulled over in order to prove I am actually a citizen? Maybe you can see why I do not like Trumps position on immigration. I am sure you wouldn't support someone who would set forth some policy that would potentially or even automatically target you as some type of 2nd class citizen just based on your race.

Trump is the kind of person who starts flame wars with people on twitter.... That should give you an idea about what he could incidentally start with a foreign nation. :psyduck: Honestly in my opinion, you would have to be a fool to believe anything that Trump says is true or accurate. You could fact check pretty much everything and anything Trump as been spewing out of his mouth just the last few weeks alone. Most of the things he been saying can be empirically proven totally wrong or completely inaccurate... Just people who support him either don't care or just blindly loyal to him. Everything that Trump says are lies but everything Hilary says is true? So... he has not said one thing that isn't false or inaccurate? I personally don't care for the man but your partisan hyperbole is ludicrous. :facepalm: Never was claiming Hilary was some kind of truthful saint. But there is a huge difference between the things Hilary is caught being inaccurate about and the stuff that trump just seems to just pull out of his butt... To be fair most the things that Clinton has been characterized as "lying" are either statements out of context or a matter of semantics. Trump is on a completely different level of inaccuracy and false statements.... Trump making bold claims about "illegal immigration" mainly being a bunch of rapist, drug dealers, and gang members is completely a miss-characterization of the people who come in this country undocumented and can be proven otherwise just by simply fact checking. An extreme majority of undocumented immigrants work in low-skilled jobs which almost a non-existent percentage number of them have been caught doing anything unlawful, mostly jobs natural born citizens will absolutely not even consider doing because the work is too hard for such low pay... Trump claims "Many" scholars say 'anchor babies' are not covered under the constitution. When there are actually no scholars who even say this... This was settled by the Civil rights Act of 1866. Even decades after, SCOTUS has upheld in favor of every case regarding birthright citizenship. Trump goes around saying he can build a wall on the border of Mexico as high as the Great Wall of China claiming Mexico will pay for it.... This is not even possible let alone realistic... The Mexican government has already said they wouldn't pay for a wall nor could their country actually afford it. Not even our country can afford something that grand. Even if you take away all the money undocumented immigrants make working in the U.S. alone that wouldn't even amount to a fraction of the cost to build something that big. The ironic thing about people wanting to build a stupid wall is that it wouldn't even solve any problems. People would just find other ways to get into the country if they wanted. This is just only looking at his crazy immigration reform policy... there is plenty of other completely outrageous and just bluntly false things that Trump says when he opens his mouth. Trump makes Mitt Romney look like a better candidate for the GOP even after his famous 47% video comments....

Honestly in my opinion, you would have to be a fool to believe anything that Trump says is true or accurate. You could fact check pretty much everything and anything Trump as been spewing out of his mouth just the last few weeks alone. Most of the things he been saying can be empirically proven totally wrong or completely inaccurate... Just people who support him either don't care or just blindly loyal to him.

Biden is the current Vice President, anyone who actually votes in a democratic primary would have to be really dumb to not know who he is. I think it would be good for Biden to run because it would give more of an incentive for Clinton's campaign to actually try harder and step up their game as well as give Sanders a better chance at the actual nomination. It's not good to have too many people in a political party, like the GOP currently has, to be running against each other. But it's also not good when there is too few people running against each other in a political party. Biden jumping in the game would make the Democratic Presidential race a lot more interesting.

For the record it was 30,000 not 33,000 and still I question how accurate that number really was although I could really care less. Still a big crowd I will give Trump credit for that. But the huge difference between Sanders and Trump is Sanders Support is totally organic... Sanders doesn't do some publicity stunt to see how many people can show up. :laugh: Trump had to ask people to RSVP and he still didn't fill half the stadium. Sorry if you hold a rally in a stadium that is suppose to fill over 40,000 people especially when you request an RSVP, and only half of the stadium gets filled, it will always look empty from far away. :laugh: OMG how could anyone be so blind!!! WursWaldo seems to have all the answers right here... If this is the case the scandal is over and done thanks to WursWaldo. Charge her with a freak-en crime and be done with it, if it's that simple... :laugh:Ya also have the hard right start chanting death penalty to Hilary Clinton and see how that works out too... :laugh:

Clinton's actions? What is unclear about Clinton not under federal investigation that you don't understand? Seriously You talk about desperation yet you haven't given one good argument in rebuttal to any of my comments in reply. Upholding any of your accusation by pivot off the actual argument that you even start. Derogatory commentating on someones reply is a fail when you don't leave any substance. Destroy public records? You are trying hard to insert she deliberately did something wrong when there is no evidence that she has done so. It was her private emails. It's totally her prerogative to delete personal emails... talk about vast right wing conspiracy... Not like FBI can't reconstruct deleted data anyways. She willingly handed over her server. There is no evidence of any ill intent on her behalf. it's pretty obvious you just want to see her burn no matter what........ Wasn't trying to troll bait you Aurielius, relax. I just feel sorry for the GOP. Trump is just a complete clown in my opinion.

If that is what you are calling it then the "Kool Aid" taste a lot better then the Conservative Crap they force down the throats on the right. Well like Trump says "I only go by the polls!" even though poll numbers are meaningless at this point in the cycle, last time i checked according to the polls Clinton's numbers still beats everyone else running in the Republican party.

Even though you say a better than 60% of the country won't vote for anyone, the difference with Trump running is the fact he has alienated almost every other Demographic voting group with a lot of the things he has said about people as well as his "known" policy stances on things. He has painted a very broad brush insulting so many different demographic groups. Mainly including women, Mexicans, and African Americans. Not saying people who fall under these demographic groups wouldn't vote for him but his support by these groups are so low they could be almost non-existent support. There is no evidence she has broke any law which is why "she" isn't under any criminal investigation. Even though a judge says Hillary Clinton's private emails violated "policy". Hilary was secretary of state, as secretary of state she basically makes the policies of which she is suppose to follow. Sure it looks bad when she isn't following her own policies but it's not really against the law that she didn't quite follow them properly. Although I do believe the way Clinton has handled this scandal so far has been rather bad. Having her own private server on a federal government network is not illegal act when you are Secretary of state or anyone in high office. Colin Powell had his own private server when he was still a General in the United States Army. You don't see people going after Colin Powell's emails and more then likely you would probably find more things that should be "classified" in emails when you are someone like a 4 star General in the US army. FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret" FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton's Server Use FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton's Email Use And David Petraeus' Crimes because Petraeus's classified emails were being intentionally shared with people who did not have the authorization to view. FACT: Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself It's a simple fact this is all just another political witch hunt for Hilary. If it wasn't the emails the hard right would still be talking about Benghazi or be make up something else...

If you are purposely trolling me to try to get me to attack you personally then we are done even debating.... have a great day.

:ohmy: :ohmy: Edit: Just an FYI. I'm Sudanese African; Nubian to be precise and I am blacker than black. Your racist tone is offensive. If you find my tone offensive, maybe you should take a closer look at the tone Trump uses... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/30/the-dumbest-stuff-donald-trump-has-ever-said.html

I was not disappointed, but I wasn't expecting a puerile fit. :laugh: If this is your rebuttal, calling my post some childish outburst, Then there is no point in even taking you remotely serious on this thread. Do exactly what Trump does, insult someone who doesn't agree with you.

Yeah, make it's so undocumented immigrants are unable to apply for the programs aimed at easing deportation threats.... Gosh... Obama must be so evil for trying to be so humane. So sure if your parents bought you to this country as a kid you would totally endure being deported even if you have no other place to go.... Also there is no record of his reform violating federal law. President Obama's immigration executive actions are fully consistent with the law... they have only suspending it for now requesting for a more narrow scope of the injunction. Last time I checked, regardless if you say it's a tax, SCOTUS upheld the affordable healthcare. And If you really want to talk about finding ways around the laws, maybe you should look into the hotel Trump is building currently in D.C. The FBI actually isn't investigating Hillary Clinton, they are investigating her emails... Last time I checked she wasn't under any criminal investigation. You probably been watching too much Fox News..... Also sanctuary cities do not violate federal law... Again probably been eating up anything you hear on O'Reilly Factor... You assume too much about me... Never was advocating to be one. Good, I was never meaning to be serious. The current Republican front runner is a joke and a punch line to me. :D Who says I haven't been? Seriously you assume way too much about me... For one thing you turn on any news channel the only thing you see recently is Donald Trump this... and Donald Trump that... Ya and White is the only colour for the republican party..... because that's the only major demographic it's ever going to ever appeal to with someone like Donald Trump...

You do realize over 60% of the country would not vote for Donald trump no matter what, even if he is the Republican nomination. Sure he is polling way better then anyone else in the GOP right now, but really what does that say about the Republican party? I mean if Donald Trump is the answer then the republican party will eventually become irrelevant. If Trump becomes the nominee then GOP is basically handing over the election to the Democratic party. I can say I would not vote for this person just because of his policy on immigration alone...... https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform Sure defend the laws and the Constitution but reading his policy he wants to end birth right citizenship... apparently to Trump the 14th amendment doesn't exist...

Ya, lets throw someone in the white house who starts wars with people on twitter. A person who champions basically on getting rid of the 14th amendment. A narcissistic leader that will insult anyone who doesn't agree with them. One who thinks the way to solve immigration problems is to build a big wall on the border and keep making the promise that mexico will pay for it.... Someone who is so compassionate that they want to deport over 11 million undocumented immigrants from the country, even if it means splitting up friends and families not caring if they have no place to go. One who claims to be "the most militaristic person there is" even when the only military experience they have is being sent to military academy as a teen for bad behavior. Lets make America great again by creating a perpetual police state in the country that would ultimately target anyone who wasn't white/caucasian. Basically that's what Donald Trumps vision for america actually equate to. You do realize Trump's plan on taking down ISIS is to "take the oil".... To take something like "the oil" would actually equate for the need of sending hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. Most of the things that Trump constantly keeps preaching about sounds great to those who are just angry but logically nothing really adds as being even realistic or possible... Donald Trump wants to make America great again... for Donald Trump!

Here is my 2 cents.... No one can "objectively" prove that being gay is anymore wrong than one can "objectively" prove that being gay is right. What is right and what is wrong is completely "subjective" in itself. What it boils down to is personal belief.... and not everyone believes the same things. In fact you can't "prove" even rape or pedophilia is wrong. Only reason why rape/pedophilia is looked upon as being so "wrong" is because of how social norms have condemned them so negatively over time to the point where almost everywhere in the world they are completely illegal acts and against the law. Personally, I believe there is nothing "wrong" with someone being gay. It's a social norm where we even see people in public office who are gay or lesbian. Actors/actresses and tv personalities that are loved around the world are even gay. Basically, homosexuality is a social norm that is widely accepted. Most of my friends that I know who are gay are a lot nicer people then most heterosexual people in my life. So I don't see anything "wrong" about someone being gay.

So what is your point? The CO2 levels are highest they have been since humans have been around? ok, So what? That does not prove anything. CO2 levels have been significantly higher in the past, and the earth was still quite habitable. This might shock you but most of the planet right now is uninhabitable for humans. The interior of Antarctica is uninhabitable. The highest mountain ranges is also largely uninhabitable. Over most of the Earth's oceans are uninhabitable, The layers of the atmosphere above the troposphere is uninhabitable. The interior of the Earth is uninhabitable of us as well. The van Allen belts in the exosphere is extremely uninhabitable. Some deserts are marginally habitable but most of them are not. Why would we want to even put at risk at losing what little of the earth has to offer for us to live on? Past natural climate change proves that the climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. When the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. right now, CO2 is imposing an imbalance of energy due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate is sensitive to CO2. Nothing, really. People in general will believe what they want to in the end, even when faced with a contradicting reality. For one thing a better environment for our children to live in. Hopefully teaching them that we only have one planet to live on so we should take care of it as best as we can when we can actually do something to help better it.

Just because there is conflicting evidence does not mean a case is dismissed. The fact still remains that CO2 levels are at an all time high in recent history and continues to rise to the point the planet will be an uninhabitable environment for us to live on. Take the Ozone layer for instance. From 2000 to 2013, ozone levels went up 4 percent in the key mid-northern latitudes at about 30 miles high. The improvement appears to be due to a successful 1987 ban on the use of chemicals used in aerosols and refrigerants. Just imagine it is possible we could do the same by lowering the net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity since it is a net increase of an approximate of 9 gigatons per year that the land and oceans won't take up which is causing our planet to globally warm by the average temperature.