RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
crustyngrizzly

Trump written off

Recommended Posts

Just now, Ohokaman said:

Do prove otherwise, I’m sure your mate Q can help out......🙄

OK this is MY prediction

Biden will step aside because he is senile....they will promote Harris. 

Team Trump will show she is not a natural born American because her parents were Jamaican and India citizens at time of birth. She therefore is a native born American and as cosequence not allowed to become president. VP ok

They will show Obama was the same and therefore show he was an illigitimate president.

That is how you show the people the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, 100 1 said:

OK this is MY prediction

Biden will step aside because he is senile....they will promote Harris. 

Team Trump will show she is not a natural born American because her parents were Jamaican and India citizens at time of birth. She therefore is a native born American and as cosequence not allowed to become president. VP ok

They will show Obama was the same and therefore show he was an illigitimate president.

That is how you show the people the truth.

FFS you're an impossible plank. That theory was debunked within minutes of the internutters coming up with the idea. I'd like to get.a bet on too. Biggest certainty in history. 

I think it's time you put your Q back in the rack.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Idolmite said:

FFS you're an impossible plank. That theory was debunked within minutes of the internutters coming up with the idea. I'd like to get.a bet on too. Biggest certainty in history. 

I think it's time you put your Q back in the rack.........

Prove it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 100 1 said:

Prove it

The problem with your ilk is that no orrof or evidence is good enough. You just dismiss EVERYTHING, including science, but that's just illogical. Denying something because you don't like it doesn't make it any less true. 

Constitutional law scholars have argued that the argument against her parents is irrelevant and irresponsible because Ms. Harris was born in California.

The 12th Amendment of the Constitution states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States.”

And the requirements for the presidency, outlined in Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, are these: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States.”

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution makes it even clearer: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i never like it when i can't tell who is winding who up 😆

just relax biden is about 1 press confidence or debate away from looking like a world war 1 veteran god rest their souls.....

and kamala never made the primaries she was as popular as a sneeze on queen street....

i would attach a 2016 replay but we don't need to we are watching it live now god this is going to be good........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 100 1 said:

OK this is MY prediction

Biden will step aside because he is senile....they will promote Harris. 

Team Trump will show she is not a natural born American because her parents were Jamaican and India citizens at time of birth. She therefore is a native born American and as cosequence not allowed to become president. VP ok

They will show Obama was the same and therefore show he was an illigitimate president.

That is how you show the people the truth.

You obviously can’t read either otherwise the post above already answered this. Comprehension might be a problem too however....🙄

The rest of your predictions are bollocks like everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, shodsie said:

i will attach these though this is the guy that ohoka and idol think is the answer to the western world he wouldn't win an election in the chatham islands  

He will be good enough to beat the orange turnip....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, shodsie said:

i never like it when i can't tell who is winding who up 😆

just relax biden is about 1 press confidence or debate away from looking like a world war 1 veteran god rest their souls.....

and kamala never made the primaries she was as popular as a sneeze on queen street....

i would attach a 2016 replay but we don't need to we are watching it live now god this is going to be good........

Sure is. When you fuckwits choke on your Q flakes.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen", 

neither have the supreme court or congress

Ok This is what this guy is saying... it originally comes from the def of a English born subject,  a 1608 Calvin Case decision, that the framers.used.

It sounds like it will be contested by Team Trump to  define the legality,

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Report written for Congress in 2016

Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
 Summary
The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.” There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on a challenge to one’s eligibility to be President (although several cases have addressed the term “natural born” citizen), and this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.
The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, however, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”
In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are therefore “natural born”—as opposed to “naturalized”—U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of U.S. citizens born within the United States to be President.
Although the eligibility of U.S. born citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent). Legal scholars in the field of citizenship have asserted that this common understanding and legal meaning in England and in the American colonies was incorporated into the usage and intent of the term in the U.S. Constitution to include those who are citizens at birth.
Challenges in 2008 to the eligibility of both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama to be President, and “ballot access” challenges to President Obama in 2012, have prompted numerous court decisions which appear to have validated the traditional, historical, and legal meaning of the term “natural born” citizen as one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth.” This would include those born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction (i.e. “native” born), even those born to alien parents; those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or those born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
This report has been updated from a previous version to include recent relevant judicial and administrative decisions, and will be updated as new decisional material may warrant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats might have shifted a way to the left but I doubt they would be so stupid as to approve a VP candidate who wasn’t a US Citizen born. They might be scraping the barrel with Biden but Harris is a not an alien. Biden is probably closer to that description :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ohokaman said:

A Report written for Congress in 2016

Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
 Summary
The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.” There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on a challenge to one’s eligibility to be President (although several cases have addressed the term “natural born” citizen), and this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.
The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, however, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”
In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are therefore “natural born”—as opposed to “naturalized”—U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of U.S. citizens born within the United States to be President.
Although the eligibility of U.S. born citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent). Legal scholars in the field of citizenship have asserted that this common understanding and legal meaning in England and in the American colonies was incorporated into the usage and intent of the term in the U.S. Constitution to include those who are citizens at birth.
Challenges in 2008 to the eligibility of both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama to be President, and “ballot access” challenges to President Obama in 2012, have prompted numerous court decisions which appear to have validated the traditional, historical, and legal meaning of the term “natural born” citizen as one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth.” This would include those born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction (i.e. “native” born), even those born to alien parents; those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or those born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
This report has been updated from a previous version to include recent relevant judicial and administrative decisions, and will be updated as new decisional material may warrant

Very good but there is one problem

History has shownTrump never makes a statement like that without knowing the answer beforehand.

Also every fake news network is rubbishing him over it and the fake Snopes  says he is false. The opposite is always true.

How come the fake news never knew about the peace agreement? plenty more coming?

The president said: "I just heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements and by the way the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shodsie said:

i will attach these though this is the guy that ohoka and idol think is the answer to the western world he wouldn't win an election in the chatham islands  

Incorrect. Many times on here I have said that Biden is not the answer to America's woes. But that doesn't by default mean Trump IS the answer. America is spoilt for choices this election. Two POOR choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, 100 1 said:

Very good but there is one problem

History has shownTrump never makes a statement like that without knowing the answer beforehand.

Also every fake news network is rubbishing him over it and the fake Snopes  says he is false. The opposite is always true.

How come the fake news never knew about the peace agreement? plenty more coming?

The president said: "I just heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements and by the way the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer.

 

He did over Obama's birth certificate, and in 2016 had to formally withdraw his previous incorrect allegations. 

Youre so unbelievably brainwashed and stupid that I actually feel sorry for you. Not for being so gullible, but because there is no hope for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Idolmite said:

So how's Trump going since he said a few days that we might now see him again for awhile? Said he'd upset lots of rich people, and Alex Jones said that was Trump was really saying that he was about to be killed, and that he would see everybody later in heaven. Did a whole show on it. 

Next Wednesday is the big day too. The day everything will go down, according to you. What do you have planned for the day? One eye glued to Fox News and the other on your favourite conspiracy theory website? Hope you'll keep us up to date here. Allowing for the time difference, I guess we may not see much until Thursday eh......

Ha came 4 days early ....looks like you gunna have to rethink all your opinions and choose a side.....good v evil

Well today was the day that Trump basically endorsed Q and Durham handed down the first Obamagate indictment to the person Q told us he would in 2018.

This is the first domino, the snowball that turns into an avalanche in the takedown of the deep state scum.

A silent war has been taking place in the biggest event mankind has ever seen and now the public get to see it..

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Trump said:

The Democrats might have shifted a way to the left but I doubt they would be so stupid as to approve a VP candidate who wasn’t a US Citizen born. They might be scraping the barrel with Biden but Harris is a not an alien. Biden is probably closer to that description :) 

A few Aussies I know aren’t far away either....🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the GOP for you....

Here's one real-world example. On Tuesday, Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) won a House runoff in Georgia's 14th district, a victory that virtually ensures she will be the next member of Congress from the strongly conservative area. Greene has, among other things, expressed support for QAnon, an conspiracy theory that the FBI has warned could be a domestic terror threat, as well as made anti-Semitic and xenophobic comments. 
When Greene's comments initially came out in June, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, through a spokesman, called them "appalling" and said he had "no tolerance for them." But, McCarthy stayed neutral in the runoff -- unwilling to publicly oppose Greene. In the wake of her victory, Trump tweeted out praise of her as "strong on everything and never gives up - a real WINNER!" And McCarthy said he "look forward" to her winning in November and said he would seat her on congressional committees if she does.
In so doing, McCarthy is allowing the normalization of a dangerous conspiracy theorist who, among other things, has shown support for the idea that there is a secret group of Democratic operatives running a pedophilia ring in Washington. (This widely debunked conspiracy theory is known colloquially as "Pizzagate.")
"I'm very excited about that now there's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles out, and I think we have the president to do it," Greene said in 2017.
And there are signs everywhere that Greene is just the leading edge of those who will attempt to bring their wild views into the mainstream using the Republican Party of Donald Trump as their vehicle. Oregon Republicans nominated a Senate candidate who has spoken glowingly of Q. Lauren Boebert, who beat Colorado Rep. Scott Tipton in a Republican primary last month in a district Trump won handily in 2016, said this during that campaign: "Everything that I've heard of Q, I hope that this is real, because it only means America is getting stronger and better."
This is the natural next step from the hostile takeover of the Republican Party that Trump conducted during the 2016 election -- and that the GOP establishment has enabled ever since. If QAnon supporters can rightly lay claim to being a part of the Republican Party, then what does it actually mean to be a Republican anymore? Especially when the party's leader regularly breaks with long-held principles that stood as pillars for the entire GOP tent, and regularly engages in the racist, xenophobic attacks designed solely to improve his own political position?
The reality Republicans face is this: A party without any principles isn't a party at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 100 1 said:

Very good but there is one problem

History has shownTrump never makes a statement like that without knowing the answer beforehand.

Also every fake news network is rubbishing him over it and the fake Snopes  says he is false. The opposite is always true.

How come the fake news never knew about the peace agreement? plenty more coming?

The president said: "I just heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements and by the way the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer.

 

“I just heard...” typical Trump throwing out bullshit conspiracy for the sheep to swallow....most aren’t that dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.