Trump wants to end one aspect of birthright citizenship. He'll keep the other part where at least one parent is a citizen or PR. I like this idea but admittedly, it needs to go through the courts.

Regarding deporting actual US citizens, provide a source for this? What I've read, it's de-naturalization for those that got citizenship under fraudulent circumstances, and that de-naturalization has been happening pre-2016. There may be something new that I don't know about but for my source, see below.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Trump's Immigration Reform

Can you explain how you view the 14th ammendment in regard to birthright citizenship?

There is no doubt that 14th grants citizenship for babies born here. There is no qualification "if at least one parent is a citizen or PR".

But then the constitution/amendments is a living document (the majority of us here believe that don't we?) and subject to change. So, if we go through the legal process to change/amend the 14th, then I'm okay with it.

Why not change the constitution/amendments if the country/states deem it is in the country/states best interest? There's going to be a fight as opinions/interpretations differ for sure. So, go through the process that is provided by law.

If we want to change an ammendment and enough states are on board with it, I'm down. My issue is using executive order to see if they've pushed SCOTUS far enough to the right to overturn over 150 years of clear and unambiguous precedent.

They can't say "shall not be infringed" is clear and at the same time try to move the goalposts on the 14th. The intent of the 14th is far clearer than the wording of the 2nd.

This is a fair concern. Most likely Trump will try to go for an executive order first, and then that'll be fought all the way to SCOTUS.

I'm not a constitutional scholar but am ultimately okay with what SCOTUS decides. That is also the "legal process". Let me update my original statement

Akiva Cohen's takedown of Judge Ho's ridiculous invasion exception to the 14th is worth reading if you're on bluesky.

Glad you brought him up. Followed him on Twitter, but hadn't added him on Bluesky.

I was going to say they're just going to find a half-assed legal explanation to avoid the 14th amendment, go ahead with deporting anyone they want, and there's basically going to be no recourse against it.

Look, the new bill "acknowledges" the 14th amendment, what more do you want???

Long as they deport me to Denmark I'm good.

I will claim to be a part of your family if they will deport me there with you.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

No problem brother

Well done

Liz Cheney Was an Electoral Fiasco for Kamala Harris | The Nation

I found this in the wikipedia write-up of the 1984 election, and while it may or may not be 100% correct (although, having been alive in 1984, it feels correct), it really struck me:

I learned a new word today!

Didn't move many voters is far different than an electoral fiasco.

Again, Harris got more votes than Biden in the five eastern/midwestern battlegrounds. Trump's plan to mobilize low propensity voters worked. Lots of people came out to vote for him, and in many cases, only him.

It is a fiasco when it hurt your standing with the base. Imagine if they hadn't spent a month targeting a non-existent demographic and focused on people who might actually vote for her.

The "American Worker" needs to do better.

Fuck bailing them out on 2nd rate product, 5th rate service, and 20th rate pricing.

Hate to tell you guys this but Danes aren't that welcoming anymore ...

Denmark’s tough stance on migrants plays well at home. In Brussels, it could be a different story. – POLITICO
Possibly forced assimilation

And pro-tip, don't apply for asylum. Chance that may mean Rwanda or detention center somewhere remote.


... Canada may be best?

Again, she got more votes where it mattered than the last guy.

I'd hope so since the population has increased quite a bit in 4 years.

Graphic below is interesting to me. It's on "Reasons to not choose Kamala Harris" and some sort of "relative importance score". Also, includes breakdown by Black/Latino voters.

The link doesn't provide much background on who/how/when it was created. The top categories ring true to me but unsure about the nos. The lesser reasons are also insightful. Appreciate more info if anyone knows where this came from.

x.com

The outcome of an election can easily become a Rorschach test on which we project our own ideological priors. In order to avoid substituting narrative for truth, we must go where the evidence takes us.

The evidence is clear; the two most potent issues against the Democratic… pic.twitter.com/NiYlRwVvcl

— Ritchie Torres (@RitchieTorres) November 11, 2024

It was a joke. I have potential routes through different countries if I choose to seek them out.

Again,professional white dude with money in the bank. I'm gonna be fine.

GOP, the ultimate beta, bitch party.

Troy Nehls (TX):

“There’s no question he’s the leader of our party. So now he’s got a mission statement of his mission and his goals and objectives, whatever that is. We need to embrace it. All of it. Every single word. If Donald Trump says jump three feet high and scratch your head, we all jump three feet high and scratch our heads and that’s it,”

Canada is already preparing for a wave of refugees to go north.

Our "social capacity" for refugees has also expired. 3.2% annual growth for 2 years in a row, causing all kinds of issues with housing, jobs for youth (15% youth unemployment), etc have pretty much guaranteed that our Liberal government will be toppled next year.

I'm thinking many of them will be white, fairly well educated, have money, will be working, and would qualify in the skills-based immigration questionnaire (I did that years ago and apparently, I was eligible to apply).

Ireland would my chosen designation, if it were possible. Ireland, Scotland, and Wales 1-2-3.

Unironically posting a tweet from the most corrupt and bribed politician in Congress. :lol:

Just curious, but who are some people in the US congress that you like?

I don't like many but that guy literally works for Israel. Like he isn't giving unbiased critiques here if he's even the one posting that stuff.

The amusing thing is, the top 4 reasons they didn't vote for Harris actually occurred more when Trump was in office. It's almost like lying about shit is more effective than actually doing the shit you're lying about.

The top seven donors of disclosed campaign spending gave a combined 850 million to conservative candidates and PACs.

The working class/billionaire dichotomy is fascinating. It takes an entire media ecosystem (funded by billionaires) to prop up.

Of course the Democratic party's coziness with their own set of billionaires gives them cover too.

It's almost like it'd be better to ban donations over $1,000 or something.

Shawn Fein wanted to campaign with them but they felt more comfortable with Mark Cuban and Liz Cheney.

I don't know if the shitstorm started with Citizens United, but it was a major inflection point.

It was heading that way anyway, but Citizens United really turbocharged the oligarch takeover of campaigns & elections:

Good to see some soul searching within.

Interesting decision that Dems will have to figure out. Stay more progressive or move more towards the center. To stay within brand, it's the former. To win elections, I'm going to say the latter. Either way, tough decision.

Just a moment...

Identity politics needs to go, at least as a major focus in electioneering. Just to give a most basic example, non-Hispanic white without a college degree number ~38M, based on the latest census, while the total number of black people is ~41M. I'm going to guess those numbers favor the former over the latter in most current swing states.

Exit polling and things like AOC's asking people who voted for her and Trump are showing that it's pocketbook and immigration concerns, along with vibes (generally, how "fake" or "authentic" the candidate was) that moved the needle for the vast majority of voters, and definitely for low information voters.

Democrats have a way to electoral success by running on economic progressivism. It's that simple and it has been for ages. The fact that many voters can remember the recessions Trump, Bush II (twice!) and Bush I gave them should work in their favor.

Now, the counter-argument is that if you only do lip service or use weasel words for things like immigration and LGBTQ rights, you'll lose certain parts of your big tent. Well, it appears they were lost anyway, and at the cost of energizing a lot of folks who might have considered you if you focused on their pocketbook. Does that mean it's going to appear that Democrats are taking some groups in their big tent for granted? Yep. Winning is more important.

I'm sure this pleases the donors...

Harris never led Trump, internal polls showed — but DNC officials were kept in the dark

We're overdue for a new partisan realignment. MAGA is turning the GOP into something else. Cheney and co turning the Dems into the new old GOP seems apt, perhaps a third viable party could form but the left wingers are generally not interested in the boringness of governance and coalition building and being strategic. All the lessons they learned from the civil rights era and movements of the past, those folks had to be deliberate and strategic and multifaceted.

Today's leftists are cosplaying what they read in books and don't seem to have new ways to doing anything besides using social media too much. Like okay sure you wanna abolish the system, sure good luck with that. What happens in the meantime, what happens on Day 2?

That said, no way the current labels persist through another generation, there's going to be a post-Trump shift that forces multipartisan coalitions out of necessity, we were never meant to be a two-party country anyway.

If someone were really serious, they'd repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and the 1911 one that originally outlawed gerrymandering. It's why we can't get anything done.

How did the coalition building with neocons turn out this election? How about those strategic decisions to take on a bunch of Trump policies and run on them too?

It's funny because you got everything you wanted. You got the center-right candidate who ran on right-wing policies. You didn't even have to let the peasants vote. Raised $1.5 billion for the campaign and didn't need to cater to any left-wing groups to get it. Had a bunch of popular Senate and Gubernatorial candidates on the ballot, too, along with a very unpopular Supreme Court decision to run on.

And you still lost. But of course it wasn't your fault. It was everyone else's. Just like it always is. At least go back to blaming the Russians or Comey. Far more interesting than this version of passing the buck.

I think it's nuts, but almost half of the electorate thought Harris was too liberal. That's just reality.

Hitler could run as a Democrat and those people would call him a communist too. It doesn't matter how far to the right Democrats shift, they'll never change their view and will never vote for them. It's just a waste trying.

Contrarians are always right.

Contrarians oppose popular opinions, and as we found out a few weeks ago, your coalition ain't that popular.

Contrarians are never wrong because they have all the answers, they've never been wrong, because literally everyone is dumber than they are, and "anyone' can see it. Contarians spend their lives in constant anger because if they just had their chance they could've fixed everything. They're the political version of Uncle Rico. It's lazy, self serving completely and totally irrelevant in the real world.

Joe Biden can eat a dick.

Did you ever think he wasn't going to pardon him?

The reaction from the right is what is maddening. Trump is literally a convicted felon planning on filling his cabinet with wildly unqualified people and is going to pardon Jan 6th insurrectionists yet god forbid Joe pardons his son who committed a minor crime.

Trump would have done it too. It's gross, but it's understandable in the world we live in, so it doesn't bother me. Trump being a convicted felon doesn't bother me either. If I could rank felonies by how bothersome they are, that one would be toward the bottom of the list.