It's sad to watch. 

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1809986712573247548
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/

Why did the lady not stand?

It appears she's having a discussion with someone. The question to ask is why the President of the United States is staring off into the abyss.

---

What exactly is your definition of "fit for the Presidency"?

Someone who doesn't make campaign promises to violate the Constitution.
Someone who doesn't wink at people who promise political violence.
Someone who has a history of being steadfast in negotiations, who doesn't go back on their word, and negotiates in good faith.
Among many many other things

So mental competency doesn't even make your top 3?  WOW!

I'd love to see the quotes of those promises to violate the Constitution.  Where were they published?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Someone who doesn't make campaign promises to violate the Constitution.
Someone who doesn't wink at people who promise political violence.
Someone who has a history of being steadfast in negotiations, who doesn't go back on their word, and negotiates in good faith.
Among many many other things

So mental competency doesn't even make your top 3?  WOW!

I'd love to see the quotes of those promises to violate the Constitution.  Where were they published?

Those aren't necessarily my top three things.  They are the things where Trump falls short because I was answering your question, knowing that you are a Trump supporter.  I already said Biden is no longer fit and you should be able to infer that this is due to his cognitive decline.

Anyhow, Trump has promised to violate the Constitution on many occasions.

Some rough quotes:
"We need a total and complete ban on all Muslims entering the country until we find out what the hell is going on"
"People who were born here aren't citizens if their parents are illegals"
"if Russia invaded some of these [NATO] countries, I would say, that's tough, you didn't pay"
"I'm going to be a dictator on day one"

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You mean this quote:

"I love this guy," Trump said, referring to Hannity. "He says, 'You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?' I said: 'No, no, no. Other than Day One.' We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator."

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

You mean this quote:

"I love this guy," Trump said, referring to Hannity. "He says, 'You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?' I said: 'No, no, no. Other than Day One.' We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator."

Maybe you've explained that one away but why is a man who was already impeached twice for abusing his power using the phrase? 

The most generous interpretation anyone can give, because he knows, and you know, and I know, there are people out there who do want him to be a dictator, is that he is winking at them.  He wants the votes of the fascists at least. And the possible interpretations get worse from there.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Biden not leaving is like when Roger Dorn stepped into one but wouldn't leave the base when asked by Lou Brown.

---

You mean this quote:

"I love this guy," Trump said, referring to Hannity. "He says, 'You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?' I said: 'No, no, no. Other than Day One.' We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator."

Maybe you've explained that one away but why is a man who was already impeached twice for abusing his power using the phrase? 

The most generous interpretation anyone can give, because he knows, and you know, and I know, there are people out there who do want him to be a dictator, is that he is winking at them.  He wants the votes of the fascists at least.  And the possible interpretations get worse from there.

All I am asking is that the quote you keep referring to?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

So mental competency doesn't even make your top 3?  WOW!

I'd love to see the quotes of those promises to violate the Constitution.  Where were they published?

Those aren't necessarily my top three things.  They are the things where Trump falls short because I was answering your question, knowing that you are a Trump supporter.  I already said Biden is no longer fit and you should be able to infer that this is due to his cognitive decline.

Anyhow, Trump has promised to violate the Constitution on many occasions.

Some rough quotes:
"We need a total and complete ban on all Muslims entering the country until we find out what the hell is going on"
"People who were born here aren't citizens if their parents are illegals"
"if Russia invaded some of these [NATO] countries, I would say, that's tough, you didn't pay"
"I'm going to be a dictator on day one"

LOL.  Yet those are the 3 you chose to specify.  You're backpedaling in an attempt to conceal your bias against Trump.  By the way, I'm not a "Trump supporter", and my question was neutral, neither candidate or party specific.  You, of course, made it all about Trump because that's what you do.

Excuse me for not inferring anything, you have a habit of redefining Webster's commonly held definitions to fit your argument of the moment.

Any individual's personal opinions and/or interpretations of border policy or immigration law are NOT promises to violate the Constitution (even yours).

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Biden not leaving is like when Roger Dorn stepped into one but wouldn't leave the base when asked by Lou Brown.

Just a bit outside

---

Those aren't necessarily my top three things.  They are the things where Trump falls short because I was answering your question, knowing that you are a Trump supporter.  I already said Biden is no longer fit and you should be able to infer that this is due to his cognitive decline.

Anyhow, Trump has promised to violate the Constitution on many occasions.

Some rough quotes:
"We need a total and complete ban on all Muslims entering the country until we find out what the hell is going on"
"People who were born here aren't citizens if their parents are illegals"
"if Russia invaded some of these [NATO] countries, I would say, that's tough, you didn't pay"
"I'm going to be a dictator on day one"

LOL.  Yet those are the 3 you chose to specify.  You're backpedaling in an attempt to conceal your bias against Trump.  By the way, I'm not a "Trump supporter", and my question was neutral, neither candidate or party specific.  You, of course, made it all about Trump because that's what you do.

Excuse me for not inferring anything, you have a habit of redefining Webster's commonly held definitions to fit your argument of the moment.

Any individual's personal opinions and/or interpretations of border policy or immigration law are NOT promises to violate the Constitution (even yours).

The 14th amendment says people born here are citizens.
You can try to add a new amendment to say otherwise, but note that the President has no role in that process, only Congress and state legislatures.
What you can't do is claim to be upholding the constitution then turn around and claim that when you're president you'll be able to "deport" people who were born here. Simple logic, you should be able to understand.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Why did the lady not stand?

It appears she's having a discussion with someone. The question to ask is why the President of the United States is staring off into the abyss.

That's because there is nothing upstairs.

There is enough real evidence of Biden's non compos mentis.  We don't need these types of selectively editted videos.

---

CCL Stroudcrowd1

Is Biden going to out Obama and Big Mike? Would be funny if he was the one to do it.

LeadingReport, which isn't always truthful, is saying former Biden stenographer McCormick claims that is what is happening.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

LOL.  Yet those are the 3 you chose to specify.  You're backpedaling in an attempt to conceal your bias against Trump.  By the way, I'm not a "Trump supporter", and my question was neutral, neither candidate or party specific.  You, of course, made it all about Trump because that's what you do.

Excuse me for not inferring anything, you have a habit of redefining Webster's commonly held definitions to fit your argument of the moment.

Any individual's personal opinions and/or interpretations of border policy or immigration law are NOT promises to violate the Constitution (even yours).

The 14th amendment says people born here are citizens.
You can try to add a new amendment to say otherwise, but note that the President has no role in that process, only Congress and state legislatures.
What you can't do is claim to be upholding the constitution then turn around and claim that when you're president you'll be able to "deport" people who were born here. Simple logic, you should be able to understand.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.  The 1st Amendment guarantees everyone (even Trump) the right to express his/her own opinions, not only of the document itself, but also of the perceived intent of the Founders.  Gun control and abortion rights are hotly debated on a daily basis and beliefs are often diametrically opposed.  Why not immigration?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

The 14th amendment says people born here are citizens.
You can try to add a new amendment to say otherwise, but note that the President has no role in that process, only Congress and state legislatures.
What you can't do is claim to be upholding the constitution then turn around and claim that when you're president you'll be able to "deport" people who were born here. Simple logic, you should be able to understand.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.  The 1st Amendment guarantees everyone (even Trump) the right to express his/her own opinions, not only of the document itself, but also of the perceived intent of the Founders.  Gun control and abortion rights are hotly debated on a daily basis and beliefs are often diametrically opposed.  Why not immigration?

The creation of a welfare state should have required re-examination of citizenship rules.  Additional language to the 14th amendment is needed as I don't believe "anchor babies" were the intent of the founders or of those who created the 14th amendment.

---

The 14th amendment says people born here are citizens.
You can try to add a new amendment to say otherwise, but note that the President has no role in that process, only Congress and state legislatures.
What you can't do is claim to be upholding the constitution then turn around and claim that when you're president you'll be able to "deport" people who were born here. Simple logic, you should be able to understand.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.  The 1st Amendment guarantees everyone (even Trump) the right to express his/her own opinions, not only of the document itself, but also of the perceived intent of the Founders.  Gun control and abortion rights are hotly debated on a daily basis and beliefs are often diametrically opposed.  Why not immigration?

Did I say Trump wasn't allowed to talk about immigration or birthright citizenship? Of course he is.  But if he wants to end birthright citizenship, he has to talk about it in terms of amending the constitution.  He cannot simply say "I'll do it!" because for him or anyone else to do it without first amending the constitution is a violation of the constitution.

I'd leave abortion and unborn babies out of it because they're not mentioned in the constitution one way or the other.

Gun control is more similar because the constitution mentions it.  The supreme Court has ruled that there are some limits to your right to have guns.  It would be in bounds for a candidate to say they want to eliminate gun control laws. It would be in bounds for a candidate to say they want to pass new gun control laws through Congress and see if the courts uphold them.  But it would not be in bounds to say, "elect me and I'll take everyone's guns away" as if that power is vested in the President in the first place.  It's not.  See the difference?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.  The 1st Amendment guarantees everyone (even Trump) the right to express his/her own opinions, not only of the document itself, but also of the perceived intent of the Founders.  Gun control and abortion rights are hotly debated on a daily basis and beliefs are often diametrically opposed.  Why not immigration?

Did I say Trump wasn't allowed to talk about immigration or birthright citizenship? Of course he is.  But if he wants to end birthright citizenship, he has to talk about it in terms of amending the constitution.  He cannot simply say "I'll do it!" because for him or anyone else to do it without first amending the constitution is a violation of the constitution.

I'd leave abortion and unborn babies out of it because they're not mentioned in the constitution one way or the other.

Gun control is more similar because the constitution mentions it.  The supreme Court has ruled that there are some limits to your right to have guns.  It would be in bounds for a candidate to say they want to eliminate gun control laws. It would be in bounds for a candidate to say they want to pass new gun control laws through Congress and see if the courts uphold them.  But it would not be in bounds to say, "elect me and I'll take everyone's guns away" as if that power is vested in the President in the first place.  It's not.  See the difference?

It's an example of Trump's ignorance.  He doesn't know what he's talking about, so he just makes stuff up.

---

You guys still don't get Trump. It's weird. The dude speaks in absolutes, but he doesn't operate in absolutes. You guys fail to properly adjust your world view. As already mentioned in this thread, I am sure the legality of anchor babies could be interpreted by the Supreme Court. You'd have to actually make a law to find out how that works.

---

Did I say Trump wasn't allowed to talk about immigration or birthright citizenship? Of course he is.  But if he wants to end birthright citizenship, he has to talk about it in terms of amending the constitution.  He cannot simply say "I'll do it!" because for him or anyone else to do it without first amending the constitution is a violation of the constitution.

I'd leave abortion and unborn babies out of it because they're not mentioned in the constitution one way or the other.

Gun control is more similar because the constitution mentions it.  The supreme Court has ruled that there are some limits to your right to have guns.  It would be in bounds for a candidate to say they want to eliminate gun control laws. It would be in bounds for a candidate to say they want to pass new gun control laws through Congress and see if the courts uphold them.  But it would not be in bounds to say, "elect me and I'll take everyone's guns away" as if that power is vested in the President in the first place.  It's not.  See the difference?

It's an example of Trump's ignorance.  He doesn't know what he's talking about, so he just makes stuff up.

Because no politician has ever vowed to do something to get votes. 

---

Did I say Trump wasn't allowed to talk about immigration or birthright citizenship? Of course he is.  But if he wants to end birthright citizenship, he has to talk about it in terms of amending the constitution.  He cannot simply say "I'll do it!" because for him or anyone else to do it without first amending the constitution is a violation of the constitution.

I'd leave abortion and unborn babies out of it because they're not mentioned in the constitution one way or the other.

Gun control is more similar because the constitution mentions it.  The supreme Court has ruled that there are some limits to your right to have guns.  It would be in bounds for a candidate to say they want to eliminate gun control laws. It would be in bounds for a candidate to say they want to pass new gun control laws through Congress and see if the courts uphold them.  But it would not be in bounds to say, "elect me and I'll take everyone's guns away" as if that power is vested in the President in the first place.  It's not.  See the difference?

It's an example of Trump's ignorance.  He doesn't know what he's talking about, so he just makes stuff up.

Exactly.  These are things a President must know or else they are unqualified or unfit for office. 

The next best thing if a President doesn't know is if they promise in humility to listen to the advice of people who do know constitutional law.  And we know Trump has never done that.

Biden on his good days still knows things like this but it seems Trump never did.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's an example of Trump's ignorance.  He doesn't know what he's talking about, so he just makes stuff up.

Because no politician has ever vowed to do something to get votes. 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019...th-vpx.cnn

And Biden didn't cure cancer, he became a cancer..

---