motyak wrote:
You're kidding about the SS thing right?

Mother Jones can now reveal that the image in question was taken at a World War II reenactment near Kent, England, some time within the last five years, according to its photographer, George Cairns. We reached Cairns by Skype at his home in St Albans, a town just north of London, where he was hanging out playing video games when his Twitter feed started to blow up in response to the Trump story.

Cairns is a British freelance stock photographer and photography instructor who says he frequents war reenactments as good locations to pick up realistic-looking stock images—not just of Nazis, but also of American GIs and other soldiers. Cairns said he didn't know much about Donald Trump beyond the controversy over a golf course the billionaire and GOP presidential contender bought in Scotland last year.

So what does Cairns make of Trump using his image to endorse his candidacy?

"Well luckily, it's not endorsed him in a sense... So that's a good thing," he said. "I'm not a Trump supporter. I can sleep OK tonight."

In an almost impossibly bizarre coincidence, this isn't the first time the Cairns family has been caught up in a photo kerfuffle involving Nazis and American politicians. George's brother John is also a stock photographer, and took the image of Nazi reenactors that was accidentally used in a flier for the campaign of North Carolina state legislator Tim Spear in 2010.

"I have photos of American soldiers as well," Cairns said. "But for some reason, politicians seem to be downloading Nazis."

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

What part do the States play in enforcing immigration? What if other States decided that other Federal laws should not apply to them?

We still have counties and probably cities around the US that are "dry" even after federal law was amended to make the sale and consumption of alcohol legal.

Er, I'm sure what you meant to say was that we still have dry counties even though the Amended Constitution has deferred the regulation of alcohol back to the states.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
.

Thank you for getting to that before I could. So what discretion is granted to the states in respect of immigration?

 Bullockist wrote:
HAve any of you guys answered the quiz on www.isidewith.com ? I just did it, and due to my non-American pinko tendencies I got Bernie Sanders ....I bet Frazzled gets Trump ;p

 reds8n wrote:
so to summarise :

Trump tweets the following

Spoiler:

Which features a stock photo of people in military garb.

Who it turns out are WW II re-enactors dressed as SS


... For some the image of nazi soldiers walking towards the White House might be .... I dunno .... something you wouldn't want to suggest happening under ones leadership tenure.

and yet he's now leading the polls of the Republican Candidates

whilst other Republicans are suggesting he is in fact some form of Democrat ploy to hurt the Republicans election chances.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/florida-republican-donald-trump-is-a-democratic-plot-to-make-gop-look-stupid/



You really are a strange bunch of people.

 motyak wrote:
You're kidding about the SS thing right?

BeAfraid wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Gay marriage is now legal by virtue of the Supreme Court rule. It's the law of the land.

No, it isn't. It is just what the Supreme Court said, that doesn't make it "the law of the land".

 whembly wrote:

Same with immigration laws. These sanctuary cities breaking federal laws, as they are REQUIRED to report illegal immigrants to ICE officials.

There is no Federal law which requires cities to report illegal immigrants.

Yes there is, DHS' Priority Enforcement Program requires local and state law enforcement to send the same biometric data that they send to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks to be sent to ICE so that ICE can determine if the individual being arrested is a priority for removal.
https://www.ice.gov/pep

So, then, NOT the "Constitution" as others were arguing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
SCOTUS has confirmed that immigration is fed purview when it knocked down Arizona's laws last year.

You know there IS such a thing as the Constitution getting an issue wrong, and thus it is up to states to lead in striking down the parts that get something wrong.

I believe that at least two issues fall into this category:

• Slavery
• Alcohol Prohibition

While the former was not explicitly encoded into the Constitution, the latter was.

But in both cases it was individual states deciding they had had enough of following a law that was broken.

In the case of immigration, the failure of the Federal Government to do anything meaningful on immigration essentially left it to Local Governments to act.

Some of those actions (Arizona) were seen as clear violations of Federal Law in ways other than just defying what was the purview of the Federal Government (In the Arizona Case, the law was also clearly racist in motivation).

Simply pointing to the Constitution and shrieking "See! SEE!" does not answer the question of whether something has a sound moral or ethical foundation.

And when a policy is determined to be lacking that foundation, it is incumbent upon individuals to act according to their conscience, as San Francisco, and other Sanctuary Cities have done.



MB

Slavery was outlawed via constitutional amendments. Prohibition was initiated by a constitutional amendment and later repealed by another constitutional amendment. Both issues are clearly in the constitution.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with there point that the Constitution got those issues wrong FIRST, before they were corrected.

i.e. It is irellevant that the Constitution was changed to the point that it got these issues WRONG before changing them.

SO. . . PRIOR to the Slavery being outlawed in the Constitution (as early as 1775, in fact, in Vermont, where Slavery was first outlawed), individual states (Northern) outlawed the institution of Slavery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

And PRIOR to Alcohol Prohibition being repealed, Individual States simply stopped enforcing the laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Economic urgency played no small part in accelerating the advocacy for repeal. The number of conservatives who pushed for prohibition in the beginning decreased. Many farmers who fought for prohibition now fought for repeal because of the negative effects it had on the agriculture business.[63] Prior to the 1920 implementation of the Volstead Act, approximately 14% of federal, state, and local tax revenues were derived from alcohol commerce. When the Great Depression hit and tax revenues plunged, the governments needed this revenue stream.[64] Millions could be made by taxing beer. There was controversy on whether the repeal should be a state or nationwide decision.[63] On March 22, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an amendment to the Volstead Act, known as the Cullen–Harrison Act, allowing the manufacture and sale of 3.2% beer (3.2% alcohol by weight, approximately 4% alcohol by volume) and light wines. The Volstead Act previously defined an intoxicating beverage as one with greater than 0.5% alcohol.[9] Upon signing the Cullen–Harrison Act, Roosevelt made his famous remark: "I think this would be a good time for a beer."[65]

So, that local governments are taking the lead in an unjust Federal Policy/Law in establishing Sanctuary cities has its precedents in PRIOR ACTS of this same nature.

MB

Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Question for American dakka members: have you guys seen any Iranian troops in your towns/cities?

Just been watching the Fox News/Republican party reaction to the Iran deal, and by the sounds of things, you guys are being invaded by Iran

I would love for British troops to help our American friends, but budget cuts have bitten deep into the British military

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Question for American dakka members: have you guys seen any Iranian troops in your towns/cities?

Just been watching the Fox News/Republican party reaction to the Iran deal, and by the sounds of things, you guys are being invaded by Iran

I would love for British troops to help our American friends, but budget cuts have bitten deep into the British military

No, but Iranian Quds force have killed or helped kill 100s of our troops (and some of yours) in Iraq, and they, through their proxies have been causing trouble in many other places (and have been for decades) to include certain countries in South and Central America (one of the many things I did when in Panama was look at Hez activities in our AOR).

And we DID recently have the 2011 assassination of the Saudi Ambassador plot. Open source/unclassified reporting is a bit confused as to Iranian gov't or rogue Quds involvement, but the plot was there one way or another...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

By Hez, do you mean Hezbollah?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Just been watching the Fox News/Republican party reaction to the Iran deal, and by the sounds of things, you guys are being invaded by Iran

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

By Hez, do you mean Hezbollah?

Yes, sorry I should have spelled it out but I'm a lazy son of a gun.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Just been watching the Fox News/Republican party reaction to the Iran deal, and by the sounds of things, you guys are being invaded by Iran

That's just Politics 101: if Party X tries to accomplish some big thing, Party Y must vilify it, no matter how good it may or may not actually be. Giving any credit to the other party is just giving vote away.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Question for American dakka members: have you guys seen any Iranian troops in your towns/cities?

Just been watching the Fox News/Republican party reaction to the Iran deal, and by the sounds of things, you guys are being invaded by Iran

I would love for British troops to help our American friends, but budget cuts have bitten deep into the British military

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

By Hez, do you mean Hezbollah?

Yes, sorry I should have spelled it out but I'm a lazy son of a gun.

No problem. I take your point about Iranian backed groups 'operating abroad' and with the easing of sanctions and money coming into Iran, it'll probably get worse.

In saying that, it's not as if the US/UK/Israel are completely defenceless. I'm reliably informed that our respective governments spend a lot of money on their military and intelligence capabilities.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Question for American dakka members: have you guys seen any Iranian troops in your towns/cities?

Just been watching the Fox News/Republican party reaction to the Iran deal, and by the sounds of things, you guys are being invaded by Iran

I would love for British troops to help our American friends, but budget cuts have bitten deep into the British military

1. I haven't seen any around where I live. I also suspect that any Iranian troops would see difficulties around here, or around places like Texas

2. Your problem there is that you were watching Fox News

3. It's not so much budget cuts, but rather that when you lose that much tea in one go, it's hard to recoup the monetary damages

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

By Hez, do you mean Hezbollah?

Yes, sorry I should have spelled it out but I'm a lazy son of a gun.

No problem. I take your point about Iranian backed groups 'operating abroad' and with the easing of sanctions and money coming into Iran, it'll probably get worse.

In saying that, it's not as if the US/UK/Israel are completely defenceless. I'm reliably informed that our respective governments spend a lot of money on their military and intelligence capabilities.

And I doubt you'll find me advocating a military solution to Iran at this point, except maybe as part of the ongoing 'asymmetric' rigamarole we are dancing to all over. If some of our guys get to cap some Quds or their proxies in Afghanistan (yes they operate there) or Iraq/Syria while running the course of doing business it won't hurt my feelings a bit.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's a weird nickname, imo. Especially since the democratic party is older. Maybe because it's filled with rich, old people.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton's standing is falling among Democrats, and voters view her as less decisive and inspiring than when she launched her presidential campaign just three months ago, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

The survey offers a series of warning signs for the leading Democratic candidate. Most troubling, perhaps, for her prospects are questions about her compassion for average Americans, a quality that fueled President Barack Obama's two White House victories.

Just 39 percent of all Americans have a favorable view of Clinton, compared to nearly half who say they have a negative opinion of her. That's an eight-point increase in her unfavorable rating from an AP-GfK poll conducted at the end of April.

The drop in Clinton's numbers extends into the Democratic Party. Seven in 10 Democrats gave Clinton positive marks, an 11-point drop from the April survey. Nearly a quarter of Democrats now say they see Clinton in an unfavorable light.

"I used to like her, but I don't trust her," said Donald Walters of Louisville, Kentucky. "Ever since she's announced her candidacy for the presidency I just haven't liked the way she's handled things. She doesn't answer questions directly."

While Clinton's approval rating fell, Obama's stayed constant at 46 percent since April. More than 8 in 10 Democrats have a positive view of the president.

At least part of Clinton's decline may be due to questions about her character, a topic Republicans have been trying to make central to the 2016 campaign. In ads, stump speeches and online videos, they paint her as a creature of Washington who flouts the rules to get ahead.

While Clinton has spent decades in the public eye, she's focused in recent months on creating a more relatable — and empathetic — image. In public events, she frequently talks about her new granddaughter, Charlotte, and references her early career as a legal advocate for impoverished children.

The survey suggests that voters aren't sold on her reinvention: Only 4 in 10 voters say they view Clinton as "compassionate." Just 3 in 10 said the word "honest" described her either very or somewhat well.

Stephanie Bergholdo, a Democratic voter from Oak Park, California, says she finds Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren far more sincere in their liberal views — though she's likely to vote for Clinton should she become the party's nominee.

"She's piggybacking on some of the things they've been talking about," said Bergholdo. "I don't think she comes across very genuine. She just seems a little stiff to me."

The percentage of respondents calling Clinton at least somewhat inspiring also slipped from 44 percent to 37 percent.

Even the number of voters saying Clinton is at least somewhat decisive, previously a strong point for the former New York senator, fell from 56 percent in April to 47 percent in the new poll.

"She's pretty much a run-of-the-mill Democrat," said Mark Oldenburg of Madison, Wisconsin. "I don't know that there's anything particularly special about her."

Other polls released this week show contrasting results. A Washington Post-ABC News survey found an uptick in Clinton's favorability, while a Suffolk University-USA Today poll showed a slightly net negative rating.

That means the downturn for Clinton could be a result of random differences in survey sampling or a troubling trend for the dominant Democratic candidate, underscoring the undefined nature of the crowded early presidential campaign.

Democrats argue that a drop in her numbers is a predictable result of Clinton's return to the partisan fray after years in the less overtly political position of secretary of state. Republicans, meanwhile, attribute the drop to questions about the financial dealings of Clinton's family foundation and her use of an email account run from a server kept at her New York home while serving as secretary of state.

Clinton's bad marks weren't unique: Nearly all of the Republican candidates surveyed in the poll shared her underwater approval ratings. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a leading GOP candidate, saw his unfavorable ratings rise to 44 percent from 36 percent in April.

---

The AP-GfK Poll of 1,004 adults was conducted online Thursday to Monday, using a sample drawn from GfK's probability-based KnowledgePanel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

Respondents were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey methods, and later interviewed online. People selected for KnowledgePanel who didn't otherwise have access to the Internet were provided access with no cost to them.

July 15, 2015 Jeb Bush is a fundraising powerhouse among the Republican Party's biggest donors, but he is struggling among smaller donors. Of the $11.4 million his campaign raised during its first two weeks, only 3 percent came from donors who gave less than $200.

Small contributors gave Bush only $368,023, the campaign's federal filings show. Donors who gave the legal maximum of $2,700 accounted for more than 80 percent of Bush's total haul.

For comparison's sake, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz raised $1.8 million from small donors during the first week of his campaign back in March, nearly half of his campaign's total. And, on the Democratic side, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Wednesday that more than 76.5 percent of his fundraising ($10.5 million) came from small donors.

(RELATED: Mark Ruffalo, Ben & Jerry Among Bernie Sanders' Donors)

Bush had 12,334 donors between June 15 and June 30, his campaign said. That means his average contribution was $926. The average Sanders contribution? $35.

Clinton favorable falls to 39%

 Frazzled wrote:
Er, that means that not even Democratic voters like her, much less Republicans or Independents. It means the Democratic nomination is in play.

I'd bet good money Biden is winding up to run.

Are the tunnels under Walmart roomy enough ?

 Frazzled wrote:
Congress isn't running for President. Congress member's favorability in their own districts is much higher.

Remem,ber Hillary has won, what ONE election in her life?