This has to be a joke.. TYT host Cenk runs for POTUS

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Indus

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
15,972
11,115
136
except he can't..

1697077235775.png

But apparently there's some good weed over at TYT

1697077157703.png

Or is he for real since Biden stands with Israel and he can't stand Israel?

Think I recall some pretty anti-Israel rants from him before..
 
E

eelw

Lifer
Dec 4, 1999
10,334
5,487
136
Or the opposite that MAGAtards that are attempting to disqualify Ramiswamy and Haley. They say that there’s SCOTUS judgement from the 1800s that both parents need to be American born to for them to be eligible. Good job idiot, you disqualified your orange monkey since his mom is Scottish.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: hal2kilo, [DHT]Osiris and Ken g6
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,852
31,343
146
eelw said:
Or the opposite that MAGAtards that are attempting to disqualify Ramiswamy and Haley. They say that there’s SCOTUS judgement from the 1800s that both parents need to be American born to for them to be eligible. Good job idiot, you disqualified your orange monkey since his mom is Scottish.
Click to expand...

Well, Obama too. And what about revisiting McCain when he was running? He wasn't even born in the US. Wasn't be born in that Van Halen song?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and dainthomas
Thump553

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
zinfamous said:
Well, Obama too. And what about revisiting McCain when he was running? He wasn't even born in the US. Wasn't be born in that Van Halen song?
Click to expand...
As I recall McCain was born on a US military base overseas while his father was in the service and those births are treated as natural births. To do so otherwise would discourage US citizens from joining the military if they have any thought of having kids.

BTW what is the name of this purported 19th century Supreme Court decision? It flies in the face of the clear language of Art 2, Sec.1, Clause 5 by ADDING new requirements. That about as absurd legal analysis as what Uyger argues (that general provisions of the Constitution overrule specific provisions).

OTOH this "natural born" requirement probably made sense in the 1780s (people didn't want former English rulers coming back to rule) but it's been pretty useless for the past 150 years or so. The forefathers probably figured that language would be modified by a later amendment. Given that we can't even have a functioning federal government these days the chances of ANY new amendments in the foreseeable future is laughable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi
dank69

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,344
32,955
136
The wording makes it seem like he doesn't care about being President he just wants to get that restriction struck down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi
Zorba

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,255
136
Thump553 said:
As I recall McCain was born on a US military base overseas while his father was in the service and those births are treated as natural births. To do so otherwise would discourage US citizens from joining the military if they have any thought of having kids.

BTW what is the name of this purported 19th century Supreme Court decision? It flies in the face of the clear language of Art 2, Sec.1, Clause 5 by ADDING new requirements. That about as absurd legal analysis as what Uyger argues (that general provisions of the Constitution overrule specific provisions).

OTOH this "natural born" requirement probably made sense in the 1780s (people didn't want former English rulers coming back to rule) but it's been pretty useless for the past 150 years or so. The forefathers probably figured that language would be modified by a later amendment. Given that we can't even have a functioning federal government these days the chances of ANY new amendments in the foreseeable future is laughable.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing people are getting the 2 parent mixed up with children born to US parents outside of the US. I know it used to be that both parents had to be US citizens, or one had to have lived in the US for 5 years since turning 16 or something like that to be "natural born." But that was changed a year after Obama was born to be less strict. This is the lynch pin of the whole Obama birthism argument, because his mom wasn't old enough to have lived for 5 years past 16 in the US, even though she had lived in the US her entire life. Of course most everyone lost the entire nuance of this "argument." *The specific years/ages might be a little off because I'm doing it from memory.
 
hal2kilo

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,029
12,267
136
Got that clowns number several years ago, when progressive radio was at it's height. Loves the clicks.
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,505
16,997
136
Thump553 said:
As I recall McCain was born on a US military base overseas while his father was in the service and those births are treated as natural births. To do so otherwise would discourage US citizens from joining the military if they have any thought of having kids.

BTW what is the name of this purported 19th century Supreme Court decision? It flies in the face of the clear language of Art 2, Sec.1, Clause 5 by ADDING new requirements. That about as absurd legal analysis as what Uyger argues (that general provisions of the Constitution overrule specific provisions).

OTOH this "natural born" requirement probably made sense in the 1780s (people didn't want former English rulers coming back to rule) but it's been pretty useless for the past 150 years or so. The forefathers probably figured that language would be modified by a later amendment. Given that we can't even have a functioning federal government these days the chances of ANY new amendments in the foreseeable future is laughable.
Click to expand...

I disagree. In this day and age with global misinformation, spies, compromised people/politicians, and propaganda, it is a very good requirement.
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,505
16,997
136
eelw said:
Yup why TYT’s is regarded as a good independent progressive media. They spew just as much FUD as Faux or Newsmax or Alex Jones.
Click to expand...

I’m glad I avoided them then. Misinformation, propaganda, or misleading truths isn’t my thing, no matter how much it may agree with my feels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Zorba
trenchfoot

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,780
8,358
136
Given the fact that Trump the useful idiot is leading the other conservative candidates by a very large margin and guys like Don Rickles, Rodney Dangerfield and Sam Kinison would beat Trump from their graves in a debate, I can see where anyone that has an existing stump to bark at the moon from has a chance to beat Trump in a landslide. As Trump is notoriously known for, you just have to be more childishly crass, lie, insult and dehumanize him a smidgin better than he is capable of.

Apparently, it's what Trump's supporters adore him for. I mean, he literally fucked up every other thing he was supposed to do and be as POTUS so.....
 
D

darkswordsman17

Lifer
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
eelw said:
Yup why TYT’s is regarded as a good independent progressive media. They spew just as much FUD as Faux or Newsmax or Alex Jones.
Click to expand...

By whom? I've never viewed them as anything more than a reactionary liberal YouTube thing that grew out of the rise of the alt-right (meaning, they started as a reaction to all the right wing shit heads that popped up on those platforms). All of that was just responding to the right wing personalities' shit which I never understood why people are so stupid to do such - I've ranted on here about it, because it is enabling that shit more than its doing anything to stop it.

Plus didn't they already have their Vice moment where one of the founders basically split off and went super far right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom