Leaderboard

At some point you are going to have to be honest with your whining. I know that day isn't today, but seriously, this is about as stupid as saying Obama thought there were more than 50 states. The question in this interview is obviously about whether the due process of the Constitution applies to the deportation of illegals. You either didn't listen to the interview, or you are too stupid to interpret a simple conversation. Or you're just a bitter liar.

When Trump throws out the NFA, GCA and FOPA as being unconstitutional (which they all are!), I will give him full credit for supporting and defending the Constitution! By the way, I would have credited Biden or Obama if they did the same, but neither did!

@Banzai please reconcile your difference of opinion with Trump's statement above and Biden blatantly stating he was going to ignore the SCOTUS ruling on student loan forgiveness. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7kmMNttcQH/?hl=en If you're a man of principle and took a stand against one POTUS defying the Constitution and checks and balances, I'm sure you had posts on the other one as well...I must have missed them, though.

I wouldn’t have posted that clip if I thought it was taken out of context. The media is certainly guilty of that. Remember last Nov when the leading story was that “Trump says Liz Cheney should face a firing squad?” It was clear he was calling out hawkish politicians and their eagerness to commit troops to face enemies that they themselves would never face. It was delivered poorly ….because Trump has the intelligence and vocabulary of a 5th grader, ….but no doubt the media tried to misrepresent his point. The clip above isn’t like that. He’s asked a direct, simple question. It’s a question that only has one correct answer: “Yes.” After simply affirming his sworn oath, he could have then continued into his typical nonsensical “weave”. But he didn’t say Yes. He said “I don’t know.” And I take him at his word. That he views the Constitution as negotiable is obvious at this point, including in this interview. “the 5th amendment says they’re entitled to due process” “well it might say that, but then we’d have to have millions of trials. I was elected to get these people the hell out. They’re some of the worst people on earth.” See, this is just how his brain works. “The ends justify the means” is the extent of his reasoning faculties. I honestly don’t even blame him for it anymore. He thinks if something is logistically difficult, then we can just ignore the 5th Amendment. He thinks that winning an election by a large margin entitles him to do whatever he wants, Constitutional or not. He thinks if people are really “bad”….”murderers or drug dealers,” then laws and due process are unnecessary obstacles. “I was elected to get them the hell out of here….. and the courts are holding me from doing it” he says, indignantly. Any uncertainty, any mincing words, any suggestion that it’s too difficult a question to sort out without the aid of attorneys is insane. And before Trump, you would have agreed. Had it been Obama or Hilary or Kamala, you would agree. This is precisely why Trump supporters are viewed as cult-like. Their absolute inability to criticize the dear leader. All you have to say is (something like) “damn, yeah, that’s messed up. Can’t believe he didn’t just say ‘Yes, of course.’ As a military officer, had someone asked me that, I wouldn’t have had to think for a millisecond.” Then you could have pivoted to whataboutism or “TDS” or a lesser-of-two-evils argument. (….I know I’m asking too much to assume you could criticize the dear leader …to even the mildest degree… and just leave it at that.) But instead, you criticize me. I’m whining….I’m stupid, I’m a bitter liar. It’s so pathetic. What the hell happened to you guys?

Checks. The whole BS spiel from Boeing back in '18 was it would be cheaper to leave the seat in what was basically the F-15QA, oh and also you'd only need a 3 sim spin-up..

I thought the only reason all the EXs were 2 seat is that Boeing hasn’t had a single seat version of the -15 in production for quite some time. It was easier to continue the production line with the two seat model.

He didn't say that. And if he did, he didn't mean that. And if he did, you didn't understand it. And if you did, it's not a big deal. And if it is, others have said worse!

ScreenRecording_05-01-2025 11-11-00_1.mov

While everyone is watching Yemen and potentially Iran...

All valid responses. Again, my answer was “Yes, due process does apply”. What exactly does the “right amount” of due process look like? That’s the million dollar question, and I don’t have a perfect answer - which is why I’m not running for public office. I would think that the “right amount” of due process is somewhere between “Do you have your papers on you RIGHT NOW? No? Deportation to El Salvador immediately” and the Supreme Court hearing every single case. In my non-lawyer brain that read it somewhere, “due process” means you get to plead your side of the argument - to what level, that depends. Pulled over for a speeding ticket? Yeah I guess you can go to the judge and argue. Murder charge? You get a full jury trial with a chance to defend yourself. So maybe something like ICE agents can ask you for some sort of papers (but they have to have probably cause, and it already has to be agreed upon what “valid papers” are - passport? Real ID? Green card?) and if you can’t produce them (they’re at home because nobody carries their passport around, etc) then they follow you home and allow you to get the papers? I get that we don’t want to ask for ID, a person can’t produce one, so they are released with a court summons in the future…because that hasn’t been working. Maybe something like that? But whatever it is, I think it needs to be voted on by Congress, because to me it seems extremely close to a law (if not a legal procedure subject to governance just like a cop pulling you over, etc), versus done via Executive Order. Plus, if it is written into law, then we can all sleep easy at night knowing it met judicial review and has a majority of the representatives of the people (where the real power of government should be coming from) behind it. AND we are meeting the intent and text of the constitution by following the law (vice an EO) therefore nobody is being deprived of their due process. And maybe that is already what is happening, I don’t follow ICE’s current procedures - I just know that every person in this country is afforded due process and protection under the law. What that is needs to be decided BEFORE the agents start rolling out and kicking in doors. Good discussion, I appreciate the lack of snark.

No one cares what the Senate thinks of the 14th Amendment since they aren't the official interpreters of the Constitution and applicable amendments. Sorta like how booms didn't give a shit what pilots thought of how to make contact or pilot's not giving a shit about what a boom thought of an approach and landing.

Not a perfect comparison but I’ll play: No I do not to your first question; the second one has more than two options and it’s where your analogy falters. Stan/eval is a commanders program, and I fired an EP (once) for not evaluating in accordance to my directives. The gentlemen fired was safety focused to a fault, and I wanted to accept more risk for gains in combat. He wouldn’t change his outlook to account for the aggressive culture I was hired to facilitate, so I overrode his judgement, reclaimed the authority, and hired new EPs who got with the program. Good reply! I’ll start by saying I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement quoted. My understanding of POTUS perspective is a challenge on what constitutes “due process” as he’s searching for a streamlined system fit for circumstances. Getting 20 million people in front of a judge surpasses existing resources, and it was illegal for the previous administration to let them in. If the legal answer is impossible, what’s the real world solution? The people elected an executive who said “I’m deporting them” because they were tired of Laken Riley’s being murdered by illegal criminals. Democrat lawyers say “not so fast, rule of law!” (Ironic since they ignored rule of law to get the nation into this situation) and have frozen our executives ability to do what the people want. You’re right the best answer is congress to legislate, but absent that are we forced to accept millions of Venezuelan gangsters soaking up social resources and killing citizens? This issue was ignored for years when numbers were small & the people were mainly coming in to work. Under Biden some countries dumped their prison population on us, the amount of young Chinese men who entered is worrying from a national security POV. So thank you again for the thoughtful reply. What do you think POTUS should do since the courts cannot process the volume of people we’re dealing with?

Boy are you in for a shock when you actually look into the Senate conversations regarding the 14th amendment. Spoiler alert, it explicitly does not include anyone subject to the jurisdiction of another country. Regroup, reassess, then reattack.

Yes, and both. Assuming these illegal criminal invaders are humans, then yes. The 5th amendment states that “No PERSON shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” and the 14th amendment 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 law.” It doesn’t say “citizen”, it doesn’t say “legal resident”, it doesn’t say “American”, it doesn’t say “English speaking adult” or anything other descriptor. It says PERSON. So these PEOPLE have a right to due process; in your example, this would actually determine if they are in fact “criminal” and/or “invaders”. And it was decided in Plyler vs Doe (1981) that according to the Supreme Court, “Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term.” Further in the court documents reads “Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” If you don’t like it, then get the law changed - but until it changes, I would expect people who take an oath to the constitution to follow it as currently written/interpreted.

Evaluators can lose the qual for being dumbasses. like hooks for silly reasons.

Indeed. They definitely offer some great flexibility with colors and designs, but I think people will miss the heritage of traditional patches if we continue with PVC.

AI is making Hollywood, and especially "actors," irrelevant...

Please reconcile the discrepancy between you claiming to support the Constitution while cheering for an administration who openly questions whether they need to follow it. Does the Constitution actually say the president gets to ignore Supreme Court rulings as you seem to believe? Or has 'it been decided' over 200+ years of American jurisprudence that Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution are binding law? Basic civics - when the Supreme Court rules on constitutional matters, that ruling IS what the Constitution means - that's literally their entire purpose in our system of government.

I think Eisenhower would have thrown up in his mouth if he knew how bloated the command structure had become. Bravo.

Please reconcile for me the discrepancy between your statements here. Does the constitution actually say illegal criminal invaders require due process prior to deportation as you claim? Or has “it been decided” meaning a court issued an opinion on something not explicitly covered by the constitution?

And that too

UCT 25-14

Vance 24-09

I think most of us spent time in special ed. Lot's of arts and crafts time.