Biden's running mate

[Cow Poke]

No different than when the MSM insisted that Trump called all Hispanics "animals" when he was clearly talking about MS-13.


When you have to deliberately lie in order to prop up your position...

In the cases, here, I don't think there's any lying --- I think these people (on Tweb) actually believe their lying eyes.

[Mountain Man]

The whole spiel of Bernie Sanders was that we shouldn't have billionaires and that the workers need to own the companies and not have super rich CEOs. He used to complain that we don't need any millionaires, but then be became one himself, so that was suddenly OK.

Funny how that works.

[Mountain Man]

Did you actually watch the video? He was fed that question, and he basically said he didn't know.....

The quote attributed to Trump was restating what he was asked.

Also, look at the title of the video: "Trump doesn't refute false Kamala Harris birther theory"

Why should he be expected to refute it?

[Mountain Man]

There might as well have been no press at Friday's event with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Before any questions could be asked, a Biden staffer yelled at the small number of reporters in attendance and demanded they clear the room.

"Come on you guys. Let's go!" a Biden staffer is heard making demands, despite the fact that Biden and Harris remain seated at their desks.

When a couple of reporters tried asking questions of the candidate and his running mate, the staffer repeated her demands for the press to clear the room.

"Come on you guys. Come on. Let's go. Come on!" the staffer shouted as if the building was on fire.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...event-n2574410

Third time this has happened. Seems the Biden campaign is scared to death of letting Joe speak extemporaneously in public.

[JimL]

I'm going to push the issue further just because the resident TDS crowd here brought it up and to just irk them even more for the fun of it.

According to law professor John C. Eastman (and a pretty credible one at that), Kamala's eligibility is not a rightwing fringe conspiracy theory, but an issue that raises some legit legal issues, at least according to Eastman...



Now, as a TDS resident, the worst way you can counter this is to just handwave it off as "conspiracy nuttery," because, personally, that just convinces me even more the argument is legit and you have no legit counter argument. So let's how the TDS legal experts can respond to it.

Great argument, except for the fact that Harris was born in the US and was and is subject to the juristiction thereof.

[seanD]

Great argument, except for the fact that Harris was born in the US and was and is subject to the juristiction thereof.

No kidding, dummy. John C. Eastman addresses that detail.

[JimL]

No kidding, dummy. John C. Eastman addresses that detail.

No kidding? Then why are you posting such nonsense?

[seanD]

No kidding? Then why are you posting such nonsense?

John C. Eastman is a legal scholar. He addresses the fact that Kamala was born here in great detail, so what points about his argument do you disagree with?

[JimL]

John C. Eastman is a legal scholar. He addresses the fact that Kamala was born here in great detail, so what points about his argument do you disagree with?

That being born here doesn't subject her to the juristiction. Where does Eastman defend that assertion.

[seanD]

That being born here doesn't subject her to the juristiction. Where does Eastman defend that assertion.

His issue is "natural born citizen" as outlined by the Constitution...

The fact that Senator Kamala Harris has just been named the vice presidential running mate for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has some questioning her eligibility for the position. The 12th Amendment provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." And Article II of the Constitution specifies that "[n]o person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of President." Her father was (and is) a Jamaican national, her mother was from India, and neither was a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Harris' birth in 1964. That, according to these commentators, makes her not a "natural born citizen"—and therefore ineligible for the office of the president and, hence, ineligible for the office of the vice president.

"Nonsense," runs the counter-commentary. Indeed, PolitiFact rated the claim of ineligibility as "Pants on Fire" false, Snopes rated it simply "False," and from the other side of the political spectrum, Conservative Daily News likewise rated it "False." All three (and numerous others) simply assert that Harris is eligible because she was born in Oakland—and is therefore a natural-born citizen from location of birth. The 14th Amendment says so, they all claim, and the Supreme Court so held in the 1898 case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

But those claims are erroneous, at least as the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was originally understood—an error to which even my good friend, renowned UCLA School of Law professor Eugene Volokh, has fallen prey.

The language of Article II is that one must be a natural-born citizen. The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does—and it provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully). Such was the view of those who authored the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause; of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases and the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins; of Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional treatise writer of the day; and of the State Department, which, in the 1880s, issued directives to U.S. embassies to that effect.

The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Wong Kim Ark is not to the contrary. At issue there was a child born to Chinese immigrants who had become lawful, permanent residents in the United States—"domiciled" was the legally significant word used by the Court. But that was the extent of the Court's holding (as opposed to broader language that was dicta, and therefore not binding). Indeed, the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen.

[JimL]

His issue is "natural born citizen" as outlined by the Constitution...

Citing the same article again doesn't help you. Where in the article does Eastman support the assertion that Harris, being born in the US is not subject to the juristiction thereof?

[rogue06]

In the cases, here, I don't think there's any lying --- I think these people (on Tweb) actually believe their lying eyes.

I was actually referring to the reporters. It looks like they deliberately misrepresented the story so that they could step on what by all measures was an incredible foreign policy victory for Trump (several sources are indicating that Saudi Arabia will likely make a similar deal with Israel).

But of course the MSM would never do such a thing. They would never get together (dare I say "collude") to try to create a fake story in order to minimize coverage of a real one. I mean they just don't conspire like that...

Then there was the JournoList (a private Google Groups message board for discussing politics and the news media established by Ezra Klein who limited participation to several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics saying he excluded conservatives to keep conversations from degenerating into flame wars) incident in 2010 when it was revealed they they were discussing ways of explaining away or outright ignoring stories that were detrimental to Obama. One of their primary goals appears to be to kill stories about Jeremiah Wright, Obama's radical, racist pastor for 20 years and who Obama praised in his memoirs and early campaign speeches

Obama also credited Wright with introducing him to his Christian faith

The contributors were obsessed with finding ways of killing the Wright story, as it was reflecting negatively on Barack Obama. Chris Hayes, a top editor for The Nation and host of a daily program on MSNBC, encouraged his colleagues to avoid covering Wright because talking about it at all would hurt Obama. Spencer Ackerman, one time associate editor at the New Republic and then part of the American Independent Institute (which funds liberal investigative journalism efforts which, as they say, exposes "the nexus of conservative power in Washington") went further making the following suggestion:

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists"

And right after John McCain nominated Sarah Palin to be his running mate members of JurnoList had only one concern -- how to take her down. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.

"Okay, let’s get deadly serious, folks," Ed Kilgore of the Washington Monthly wrote. "Sarah Palin’s just been introduced to the country as a brave, above-party, oil-company-bashing, pork-hating maverick ‘outsider.’ What we can do is to expose her ideology."

Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama’s “non-official campaign” would need to work hard to discredit Palin.

"This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away ... bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant ... I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama]."

Suzanne Nossel, the executive director of PEN American Center, which ironically purports to defend free expression by writers and others (as long as they are conservative I guess) made the following suggestion: "I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views."^[1]

Jonathan Stein then with Mother Jones was giddy about this approach writing: "That’s excellent! If enough people -- people on this list? -- write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket."

Nick Baumann, then senior editor with Mother Jones and now senior enterprise editor at Huffington Post added: "Say it with me: ‘Classic GOP Tokenism’."

Chris Hayes, a writer for The Nation, wrote: "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get."

I think it is pretty clear that these journalists and their friends were acting as an unofficial wing of the Obama campaign. After all it wasn't uncommon for them to portray him as some sort of Messiah figure.

Who could ever forget when Newsweek editor Evan Thomas declared to on MSNBC's "Hardball" to host Chris Matthews (who notoriously once said that he felt a “thrill up his leg” while covering then-Senator Barack Obama): "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

Ezra Klein (the aforementioned founder of JurnoList) gushed about Obama in The American Prospect that, “He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I’ve heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.”

And then there was Mark Morford, columnist and culture critic for the San Francisco Chronicle and SFGate.com, remarks about Obama "isn’t really one of us" and how "many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."














1. Let's see if the left takes that tact as Hillary keeps relying strongly on the fact that she's a woman as the reason women should vote for her (her husband's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, even suggested that women who don't support Hillary are earning "a special place in Hell.")

Then again, maybe they would. It wouldn't be the first time.

[seanD]

Citing the same article again doesn't help you. Where in the article does Eastman support the assertion that Harris, being born in the US is not subject to the juristiction thereof?

Is it that you can't read? He argues the law didn't cover children of parents who weren't nationalized at the time of the child's birth. That law "morphed" over time to include all children of parents in the US, whether nationalized or not, but that Kamala's birth preceded that change.

[JimL]

Facts, little - I care about the facts.

No, actually you do not care about facts, you care about your identity as a conservative facts be damned. That's why you're a Trumpster and a defender of all things Trump, CP.

[JimL]

Is it that you can't read? He argues the law didn't cover children of parents who weren't nationalized at the time of the child's birth. That law "morphed" over time to include all children of parents in the US, whether nationalized or not, but that Kamala's birth preceded that change.

And his argument is BS. The law says no such thing. It simply says a natural born citizen which is exactly what being born in the US makes one. He has no argument in law to the contrary other than in his own imagination. Eastman is a far right wing homophobic lawyer, so consider the source. if you actually read Article 2, you'd recognize that one didn't even need to be a natural born citizen, or be born in the US at the time, you only had to be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.