You're on a website that hates Trump and wants to stop him Making America Great Again. I designate The Bulwark a terrorist organization and you are a terrorist advocate.
You're on a website that hates Trump and wants to stop him Making America Great Again. I designate The Bulwark a terrorist organization and you are a terrorist advocate.
YouтАЩre an idiot. The sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner youтАЩll find yourself less ostracized by the rest of humanity. Gradually, over time, you might find yourself reintegrated into society. Until then, I wish you well.
Things will not go well for you. Outside of your very narrow social circle, people will not want to associate with you. Though I do suggest you educate yourself. Read. Do it a lot. (Alot is not a word, BTW. Many people like you donтАЩt know that).
HereтАЩs a start. Look up Curtis Yarvin. I know, it requires at least some effort. But you will learn some things about the people you support.
No, I just didnтАЩt look at it in the interim days. Not that itтАЩs any of your business. I expect something more than small mindedness from participants in the Bulwark formums. For the most part, thatтАЩs what I find, but there are, of course, exceptions.
I've followed trump for 30 years as OPPO for the Party (yes, GOP) and know him well.
There is NOTHING about trump that is fit for the job or POTUS or leader of ANY large, complex orgaization. He has no idea how to do the job. He showed us in trump 1.0 and is again in trump 2.0. Nothing but a cluster F.
Merely being on the website would undoubtedly be legally insufficient to revoke a green card for a green card holder (again-this is all inapplicable to a US citizen who has full blown 1st Amendment protection).
I gather you - according to your statements - are a lawyer. Surely you should know that a Green Card holder is entitled to the same rights under law as an American citizen, except for the right to vote, or engage in terrorist activities (that last one is prohibited for Americans too). I'm a Scots/Canadian, and even I know that.
I am a lawyer and in my opinion your statement is overbroad and inaccurate. A green card holder's 1st Amendment protections are not coequal to a US citizen's 1st Amendment protections because a green card holder is also governed by the relevant US immigration laws, and as the Khalil case demonstrates, the exact boundaries of US immigration law and the 1st Amendment protections for a green card holder are unclear because the case law on this issue is mixed. This has been discussed in several recent articles by 1st Amendment experts (which I do not claim to be, although I know how to read a case and an article that discusses US law). You use the language "engage in terrorist activities" in a way that suggests that if a green card holder does not "engage" the green card holder has the same 1st Amendment protections as a US citizen. My understanding (again as a lawyer but not a 1st Amendment expert) is that this is incorrect because, under the relevant US immigration law provision, a green card holder has free speech protections "unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alienтАЩs [presence] would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interestтАЭ (emphasis added). See https://www.justsecurity.org/109012/legal-issues-deportation-palestinian-student-activists/ which discusses this in much greater detail. Because that provision does not apply to US citizens, your statement implying a green card holder and a US citizen have the same free speech protections under US law is simply incorrect. I've tried to respond politely to you, and have been open about what I see as the ambiguities in the Khalil case and have tried to avoid bringing my personal feelings about the matter into this, but it seems you now want to interject some hostility into the conversation with snide "[s]urely you know" and "even I know that" comments, so our colloquy is over from my perspective.
You're on a website that hates Trump and wants to stop him Making America Great Again. I designate The Bulwark a terrorist organization and you are a terrorist advocate.
YouтАЩre an idiot. The sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner youтАЩll find yourself less ostracized by the rest of humanity. Gradually, over time, you might find yourself reintegrated into society. Until then, I wish you well.
Things will not go well for you. Outside of your very narrow social circle, people will not want to associate with you. Though I do suggest you educate yourself. Read. Do it a lot. (Alot is not a word, BTW. Many people like you donтАЩt know that).
HereтАЩs a start. Look up Curtis Yarvin. I know, it requires at least some effort. But you will learn some things about the people you support.
Did you just seriously stew on some random comment for an entire week?
No, I just didnтАЩt look at it in the interim days. Not that itтАЩs any of your business. I expect something more than small mindedness from participants in the Bulwark formums. For the most part, thatтАЩs what I find, but there are, of course, exceptions.
LOL! Don't you have some nuts to fasten to some bolts somewhere?
Exactly WHEN did America stop being great?
I've followed trump for 30 years as OPPO for the Party (yes, GOP) and know him well.
There is NOTHING about trump that is fit for the job or POTUS or leader of ANY large, complex orgaization. He has no idea how to do the job. He showed us in trump 1.0 and is again in trump 2.0. Nothing but a cluster F.
Merely being on the website would undoubtedly be legally insufficient to revoke a green card for a green card holder (again-this is all inapplicable to a US citizen who has full blown 1st Amendment protection).
I gather you - according to your statements - are a lawyer. Surely you should know that a Green Card holder is entitled to the same rights under law as an American citizen, except for the right to vote, or engage in terrorist activities (that last one is prohibited for Americans too). I'm a Scots/Canadian, and even I know that.
I am a lawyer and in my opinion your statement is overbroad and inaccurate. A green card holder's 1st Amendment protections are not coequal to a US citizen's 1st Amendment protections because a green card holder is also governed by the relevant US immigration laws, and as the Khalil case demonstrates, the exact boundaries of US immigration law and the 1st Amendment protections for a green card holder are unclear because the case law on this issue is mixed. This has been discussed in several recent articles by 1st Amendment experts (which I do not claim to be, although I know how to read a case and an article that discusses US law). You use the language "engage in terrorist activities" in a way that suggests that if a green card holder does not "engage" the green card holder has the same 1st Amendment protections as a US citizen. My understanding (again as a lawyer but not a 1st Amendment expert) is that this is incorrect because, under the relevant US immigration law provision, a green card holder has free speech protections "unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alienтАЩs [presence] would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interestтАЭ (emphasis added). See https://www.justsecurity.org/109012/legal-issues-deportation-palestinian-student-activists/ which discusses this in much greater detail. Because that provision does not apply to US citizens, your statement implying a green card holder and a US citizen have the same free speech protections under US law is simply incorrect. I've tried to respond politely to you, and have been open about what I see as the ambiguities in the Khalil case and have tried to avoid bringing my personal feelings about the matter into this, but it seems you now want to interject some hostility into the conversation with snide "[s]urely you know" and "even I know that" comments, so our colloquy is over from my perspective.