Is there no level too low for slime to ooze to.
In response to:
Trump falsely suggests Kamala Harris, who was born in California, does not meet citizenship requirements.
President Trump on Thursday encouraged a racist conspiracy theory that is rampant among some of his followers: that Senator Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic vice-presidential nominee born in California, was not eligible for the vice presidency or presidency because her parents were immigrants.
That assertion is false; Ms. Harris is eligible to serve.
Mr. Trump, speaking to reporters on Thursday, nevertheless pushed the attack on his opponent. “I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements,” Mr. Trump said.
“I have no idea if that’s right,” he added. “I would have thought, I would have assumed, that the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice president.”
Mr. Trump appeared to be referencing a widely discredited op-ed written in Newsweek by John C. Eastman, a conservative attorney who has long argued that the United States Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship, as proof. Ms. Harris, the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants, was born in 1964 in Oakland, Calif., several years after her parents arrived in the United States.
In the hours after Joseph R. Biden Jr. announced Ms. Harris as his running mate, a new crop of memes and conspiracy website postings began proliferating online, suggesting that the junior senator was an “anchor baby” because of her background.
Mr. Eastman’s column attempts to raise questions about the citizenship of Ms. Harris’s parents at the time of her birth, and argues that she may be “owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers” if her parents were “temporary visitors” and not residents.
Constitutional law scholars have argued that the argument against her parents is irrelevant, because Ms. Harris was born in California. And the requirements for the presidency, outlined in Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, are these: “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 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States.”
On Thursday, Newsweek defended Mr. Eastman’s column, and denied that it had “nothing to do with racist birtherism.” But it promptly landed in the hands of a president who spread another race-based theory nearly a decade ago, when he began sowing distrust in the background of another Democratic politician of color: President Barack Obama.
In 2011, Mr. Trump began appearing on television to question whether Mr. Obama was born in the United States — spreading a lie that he has never fully apologized for.
“Maybe I’m going to do the tax returns when Obama does his birth certificate,” he said in an interview with ABC in April 2011. “I’d love to give my tax returns. I may tie my tax returns into Obama’s birth certificate.”
Mr. Obama eventually released his birth certificate. Mr. Trump never released his tax returns.
— Katie Rogers
Trump falsely suggests Kamala Harris, who was born in California, does not meet citizenship requirements.
President Trump on Thursday encouraged a racist conspiracy theory that is rampant among some of his followers: that Senator Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic vice-presidential nominee born in California, was not eligible for the vice presidency or presidency because her parents were immigrants.
That assertion is false; Ms. Harris is eligible to serve.
Mr. Trump, speaking to reporters on Thursday, nevertheless pushed the attack on his opponent. “I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements,” Mr. Trump said.
“I have no idea if that’s right,” he added. “I would have thought, I would have assumed, that the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice president.”
Mr. Trump appeared to be referencing a widely discredited op-ed written in Newsweek by John C. Eastman, a conservative attorney who has long argued that the United States Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship, as proof. Ms. Harris, the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants, was born in 1964 in Oakland, Calif., several years after her parents arrived in the United States.
In the hours after Joseph R. Biden Jr. announced Ms. Harris as his running mate, a new crop of memes and conspiracy website postings began proliferating online, suggesting that the junior senator was an “anchor baby” because of her background.
Mr. Eastman’s column attempts to raise questions about the citizenship of Ms. Harris’s parents at the time of her birth, and argues that she may be “owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers” if her parents were “temporary visitors” and not residents.
Constitutional law scholars have argued that the argument against her parents is irrelevant, because Ms. Harris was born in California. And the requirements for the presidency, outlined in Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, are these: “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 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States.”
On Thursday, Newsweek defended Mr. Eastman’s column, and denied that it had “nothing to do with racist birtherism.” But it promptly landed in the hands of a president who spread another race-based theory nearly a decade ago, when he began sowing distrust in the background of another Democratic politician of color: President Barack Obama.
In 2011, Mr. Trump began appearing on television to question whether Mr. Obama was born in the United States — spreading a lie that he has never fully apologized for.
“Maybe I’m going to do the tax returns when Obama does his birth certificate,” he said in an interview with ABC in April 2011. “I’d love to give my tax returns. I may tie my tax returns into Obama’s birth certificate.”
Mr. Obama eventually released his birth certificate. Mr. Trump never released his tax returns.
— Katie Rogers
Comments (36)
who has to debate with her.
"How Slime Finds Those Nooks And Crannies?"
"It Most Certainly Would Be The Expert Of Slime"
"And That Would Be...... You"
(I Hope You Have A..... "Safe Space"
"To Run To In These Dire Times"............................
“I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements,” Mr. Trump said.
“I have no idea if that’s right,” he added. “I would have thought, I would have assumed, that the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice president.”
He went further to emphasize that the writer was a well respected lawyer.
Thus, suggesting credibility. Of course, the truth is the opposite.
But, we all know, Trump is NOT an honest man.
Here is what really happened and not Jim's bs story. and this is CNN trying to spin it.
Thanks for the video Yule. Anyone with an IQ over 80 would recognize Trumps long string of lies in that pathetic press conference.
your story
It is not "my story". It's Katie Roger's story.
President Obama and now Kamala.
That lawyer is not so smart as Kamala was born in the USA just as President Obama.
"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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The idea of someone gaining citizenship by simply being born on US soil appalls him. He calls them "Anchor Babies", and has done his best to NOT award them the equal protection of the laws . Instead of pushing to change the 14th amendment Trump verbalizes these thoughts and lets others, like Home Security, act on them - often illegally.
Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for holding the office of president or vice president. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.
The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen", and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States. As to those born elsewhere who meet the legal requirements for birthright citizenship, the matter is unsettled.
The first nine presidents were all citizens at the adoption of the constitution in 1789, with all being born within the territory assigned to the United States by the Treaty of Paris. All presidents who have served since were born in the United States. Of the 44 individuals who have become president, there have been seven that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil.
The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008, 2012, and 2016 election cycles were dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers' difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government.
There is no question as to which country she has allegiance to.
On the other hand, Trump owns property outside the USA and seems to have allegiance to Russia.
STRING!! Is That Really YOU??
A comment ... And No Accompanying VID?!
Lemme help ya out, Buddy ...
No need to thank me ...
That's what I DO - Cuz that's who I AM ...
But they both work ...
more truth there than the bull you are listening to.
Folks don't vote for the Veep
First of all, nice clip. However, the cute line will be a tiny dot compared to what Kamala will do to Pence.
Secondly, do you actually think that there are no African American nor Indian American voters nor Asian American voters, who will be inspired to get out and vote the democratic ticket because Kamala is part of the ticket ? If so, my guess, is that you are wrong.
Hey ya, smiles & Ms. the_gripper ...
"If Anybody Would Know"
"How Slime Finds Those Nooks And Crannies?"
"It Most Certainly Would Be The Expert Of Slime"
"And That Would Be...... You"
(I Hope You Have A..... "Safe Space"
"To Run To In These Dire Times"............................
Nam you spoke for me too
And even then, she paved the way for GWB & Trump.
Oh, and by the way;
According to data from the 2016 Post-Election National Asian American Survey, Trump won only 16 percent of the Indian American vote in 2016. This was the same level of support that Mitt Romney won in 2012, and suggests that the rise of groups like Hindu Americans for Trump, and events like presidential candidate Trump’s Hindu American rally in October 2016 did little to improve his standing among Indian American or Hindu American voters. (In results not yet published, the 2016 NAAS data show that only 16% of American Hindus voted for Trump).
“I want you to know that Mother India embraces you as one of their own,” Ramesh Kapur exclaimed to the delight of the roughly 30 Indian-American donors gathered at his home in Winchester, Massachusetts, on a chilly January day in 2016. Kapur is a longtime Democratic fundraiser, and the recipient of his rhetorical embrace that day was Kamala Harris, then a candidate for the U.S. Senate.
Harris’ crowd-pleasing response—she threw up her hands and loudly exclaimed, “Yes!”—convinced Kapur of her Indian-American bona fides, he says. This year, he plans to raise $10 million from Indian-American donors for Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign.
Will the rest of the Indian-American community coalesce around her, too? Harris, whose late mother was born in India, is the first Indian-American candidate to make a serious run at the presidency. (Bobby Jindal, the former Louisiana governor, never cracked the upper tiers of a massive Republican field in 2016.) But her public image so far has been more closely associated with the other half of her heritage, that of her Jamaican father: She is the most prominent African-American woman to make a serious run at the presidency in recent decades, and the only one in the 2020 race so far.
As her candidacy takes shape, polling and interviews suggest that the Indian-American community is still making up its mind about whether, and when, to get behind Harris. The University of California, Riverside’s, Karthick Ramakrishnan conducted a poll of Asian American voters in October 2018, a few months before Harris announced her presidential run, and found that more than half of Indian Americans said they viewed her favorably—but also that one in five Indian-Americans weren’t even aware of her connection to the Indian-American community.
In conversations with 17 Indian-American fundraisers, political activists and voters, most told me they are proud and excited to see Harris in the race. On Wednesday morning, the Indian American Impact Fund, an influential political action committee, is endorsing Harris in the 2020 presidential race. “She is a tested leader who has demonstrated, throughout her career, a strong commitment to our community's progressive and pluralistic values,” says Aruna Miller, executive director of the PAC. “Her being Indian-American—we’re thrilled about that.”
Indian-Americans are a relatively small proportion of voters—about 4 million in the United States—and they skew Democratic. Seventy-seven percent of Indian-Americans voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. But they’re also a growing and increasingly engaged population, with high turnout rates. In 2016, Indian-American turnout was 62 percent, just above the country’s overall turnout rate of 61.4 percent and surpassing the rates for both Hispanics and African-Americans, as well.
Being loud and forceful would not have gone over as well.