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.

Well, he and his people repeatedly said he wouldn't, and he made a big show of how we should respect the legal system and let it run its course, in contrast to Trump. It's such bullshit. He just made Trump's case for him.

It doesn't matter anymore, of course. But this will be all the justification anyone needs to continue "both sides"-ing everything that happens, with a perfect example.I don't care how minor the crime was. Fucking pay for your crime. If it's minor enough, your setencing will reflect it.

Just awful.

I mostly agree with Ksyrup, but I don't think this makes any difference in terms of what Trump will do. Hard to imagine a situation where Trump would think, I shouldn't do this because Biden didn't pardon Hunter.

No, I agree, but it provides justifiication for what he's about to do. Dems spent 8 years talking about how Trump is a threat for many reasons - including ignoring the rule of law - and then Biden does this shit.

No one is above the law.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 31, 2024

https://theonion.com/feds-wistfully-...on-1850556827/

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Love to see some Dems push for an amendment to end pardoning. It's one of the most abused powers and too much like a king. They could pretty quickly and smartly turn this around.

Justification for whe?

MAGA wouldn't care either was and anyone else with a brain will realize it's a false equivalency.

Yeah what's good for the goose, etc., we've dispensed with norms a long time ago. Now we know why they orchestrated the whole inviting him to the White House thing, this was always the long play either way.

I teach AP Gov and my kids are working on an Amendment project. One of the groups is working on a pardon reform proposal. I worked with them through this, and suggested a 2/3 reversal from Congress similar to veto overrides. This means the pardon power would have to be delayed (like 30 days or something), but I think it has some merit.

It's just crazy dangerous now that the President is above the law. Being for reform or abolition of this should be a pretty easy position for Dems to take.

My kids are usually pretty stunned that this is a power without a formal check on it. And the main informal check (that it will hurt the party/politician later) just doesn't really work anymore. The Hunter Biden pardon will not be a topic in the 2026 midterms.

Still, I think abolition goes too far. There is a good reason for the pardon power to exist, but it definitely needs limitations.

For everyone other than MAGA, actually. That's the problem. They spent 8 years arguing against normalizing his behavior, and then when push comes to shove, they emulate his behavior.

Dems should impeach Biden.

This is a big opportunity if they have the stones to take it.

I agree, Biden can eat dicks. Terrible response to the ward, cost any chance of beating Trump and then this.

There are things he should be impeached over but the pardon is perfectly legal even if it is morally repugnant. A final fuck you to the country from him and all the liberals who supported him. Well done.

What a shithead. Way to further sully your legacy.

Wow, all the pearl clutching from the Karens.



Maybe if Hunter Biden had stormed the capitol to keep Trump in power, or maybe if he was related to the rich and powerful daughter of a president, or maybe if he was a homeless looking scumbag that defrauded his own supporters, or if he was a Russian plant (a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found Manafort’s role as Trump’s campaign chairman along with his ties to people affiliated with Russian intelligence services)....


The point is Trump has already destroyed all norms associated with pardons. For every Hunter Biden pardon there is 10 scumbags that trump pardoned and there will be 20 future scumbags that trump will pardon. Trump is installing scumbags as leaders of the FBI and CIA, who will do exactly what he said happened to him. Anyone with a brain knows that it's just a pathetic criminal playing the victim. You idiots keep falling for it.



You idiots keep electing a criminal. This criminal will destroy democracy for his own gain.

That's a bit extreme. Biden pardoning his son really isn't against "norms." I agree that he shouldn't have done it after claiming ge wouldn't, it is far from impeachable.

Stolen from Bluessky:

I just think it's smart politically and comes with no cost. It breaks from Biden and forces the GOP to fold on actually doing anything about corruption.

I don't expect Dems to do it, but this is the kind of hard ball they need to play procedurally.

Jimmy Carter pardoned Jefferson Davis which is so fucking weird.

Carter and Bush weren't running against an ex-President felon who made flaunting the rule of law and promising to pardon convicted felons a key campaign plank. And they didn't explicitly promise (to my knowledge or memory) not to pardon their relatives or make a major theme of their campaign that "no one is above the law."

Biden should have just released a video saying, "Fuck it, why try anymore? You voted for a felon who's pardoned people for money/loyalty and is going to pardon a bunch of criminals, so I'm taking care of my own while I can."

Well, Jefferson Davis was a cross-dresser, so that was just Uncle Jimmy being "woke."

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I know you were joking but I honestly think he should have done this. Democrats could do with a lot more plain talking.

Plus, over half the voting public is clearly OK with the president being above the law, so why the big fuss?

I mean Biden has been breaking the law repeatedly by giving weapons to Israel. His crimes are far worse than Trump's at this point.

Yep, I would have respected him more if he just came out and said this. Maybe added something to address the fact that he repeatedly said he wasn't going to pardon him.

"As far as the lies, well, I just rolled the dice that Harris would win because then she would have pardoned him for me."

Can't figure out how these fucking idiots lost.

This is horrifying news and a terrible loss for the business and health care community in Minnesota.

Minnesota is sending our prayers to Brian’s family and the UnitedHealthcare team. https://t.co/6lAL2lJXzn

— Governor Tim Walz (@GovTimWalz) December 4, 2024

That murder is interesting. The police disclosed that the shell casings had the words "deny," "defend" and "depose" on them. That suggests to me someone who had a claim dispute with UHC and probably ended up saddled with a huge medical bill or lost someone to whatever the health issue was. The wife said he had mentioned threats recently, although she didn't seem to know too much about them (which is either odd or she just wasn't going to provide that information to the public). But, she did mention "lack of coverage" which, now, would seem to fit the shell casing words as a motive.

I kinda assumed it was something like that when I heard about the shooting.

No idea how good the poll really is so take it FWIW. Couple nice graphics in link but too big to embed

Poll reveals whether any Taylor Swift fans backed Trump and MAGA's favorite bands | Daily Mail Online

Do you think Tim Walz should've posted something praising the murderer?

Personally I would be more concerned about the following:

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-c...onahan-2000237

UHC is the 10th largest employer in the state of Minnesota, and the 7th largest private employer.

It's also the industry with some of the largest taxpayer subsidies in the country. They aren't paying for those jobs, you are.

Strategically denying claims on treatment for children with autism. IDK where Brian Thompson is right now but it's definitely not in heaven sipping on a martini.

While all insurance companies have long denied claims for stupid and/or bureacratic reasons, UHC was the one that pioneered the idea of denying claims as part of a bigger cost-savings practice.

They did this specifically based on the knowledge of how many patients would give up after the first denial, second denial, etc.... In fact, for some treatments, it makes considerably more business sense (looking across all patients) to deny all the way to the point that a judge forces you to pay for the procedure, because the number of patients that will actually make it that far against UHC's bureaucracy, enforced arbitration, and armies of lawyers is miniscule.

I'm glad more people are learning about this, specifically that denying claims is a planned practice, not just bureacrats being idiots.

Not health insurance, but my mom is has been going through this for over a year dealing with car insurance. Someone hit her coming home from seeing family last Thanksgiving and did several thousand dollars in damage to the vehicle and both her and my step dad required some physical therapy as part of their recovery. Despite having a police statement identifying the other driver as the person at fault that person's insurance company kept saying it was 50/50 and denied claims. My mom had to get an attorney and it's just now wrapping up with them agreeing to cut the checks earlier this month. My mom's vehicle has been sitting at a shop since the accident waiting to be repaired. Most people aren't in a position to give up a vehicle for year and hire an attorney to get their money.

Not surprisingly, they dragged this out until a trial date was set before they accepted that she was at fault.

Does your mom not have collision on her policy?

I'd have to ask but I don't think so. I know she said she learned her lesson and changed her policy after this accident.

How about no.

Democrats eye Harris 2028 presidential run as they devise political comeback | Kamala Harris | The Guardian

This letter to the editor in The Guardian (UK) is in response to a columnist talking about what Labour should do, but I feel is applicable here in the discussion on how Harris lost the election:


Ironically, the Clinton-aligned consultant class that created the modern loser-iffic DNC that Rainmaker rails about (rightly) didn't learn what it was about Clinton (Bill) that won two elections, and specifically it was his focus on the above. "It's the economy, stupid" was, of course, a pithy unofficial slogan, but it was also a campaigning ethos that every subsequent Democratic POTUS candidate either forgot about (Gore, Kerry, Clinton), rose above and managed to win anyway, mainly on the back of a great GOTV operation (Obama), or won because people were tired of shenanigans (Biden).

The lesson of Bill Clinton isn't to follow a "third way", court moderates (or Cheneys), and talk all wonkish, it's to focus on pocketbook issues, stay away from identity politics, and be comfortable with the occasional promise that you know you probably can't deliver (i.e. lie).

Well, that's the electoral lesson, at least. Given the way that Clinton almost immediately cratered from a legislative perspective, and then treaded water for the rest of his two terms, there's clearly something to be learned about using your wins, or, as W put it "I've earned political capital, and now I'm going to spend it." Sadly, for an example of a Democratic President willing and able to do this, we have to go all the way back to LBJ, or just look at the Republicans, who've got this down to a science.

At its core, you're right. However, part of the problem is the double standard between dems and the GOP when it comes to voters. If dems do what the GOP does and just lie about lower prices and make vague promises then they get hammered for not having a detailed plan or policy. If they go into detail then they lose voters that just want to hear those promises plus those details tend to alienate either the moderate or the progressive wings of the party. The progressives will stay home and the moderates will vote GOP.

What dems are up against is a party that has voters that are going to vote for their guy no matter what while dems are trying to sell different things to different subsets of their party. Dems can improve messaging and policy all they want but until their voters are on the same page or close to it, they're not going to win elections unless the GOP really shits the bed.

*cough*

Teamsters union president says Kamala Harris told him, "I'm gonna win, with you or without you." pic.twitter.com/0Ajt4TrOTm

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) December 24, 2024

Wonder what he's going to say after MAGA crushes his union in the next four years?

Unions voted overwhelmingly in favor of Harris. Maybe turnout among members would have been higher if she acted like she cared about them.

But continue to be mad about your losing strategy.

You have zero clue what overwhelmingly means. I’m actually glad you are so fucking miserable on Christmas. Explains a lot of this thread.

55-43 is overwhelming in an American election to non-morons.

Ok. Assume those numbers are true, because there are also polls that showed it 53-45 and everything in between. Still changes my opinion not at all about that guys union. He has a responsibility to his people to advocate for their best workplace interests, but he neglected it because he didn’t feel like he was getting the attention he wanted from that side that is more union friendly. My opinion of him couldn’t be any lower.

He begged her to talk to him and union members to answer questions they had. She blew him off and told him she didn't need him to win. They still voted for her.

Maybe the anger should be with the loser candidate who ran a dumb campaign and not the people who voted for her.

Her campaign sucked. I really don’t know what you want us to say about it at this point but I’d take anything that prick saved to say on Tucker Carlson with a grain of salt because it proves my point exactly. I don’t know that any campaign would have altered the results. I hope you get what you want out of the next four years. Weren’t you basically a one issue voter? I hope Trump brings what you want him to Palestine. I have serious fucking doubts but maybe he can bring some hope and change to those people in a few months.

This is spot-on. What can you do in a democracy if you want to be a good-faith broker a large, politically active segment of the population has zero interest in honest truth seeking (both independently and as partners in democratic discourse)? Democracy demands more than just rights—there are certain fundamental duties incumbent on participants.

It is ironic that the Trump crowd includes so many that think mocking DEI is the apex of witty repartee; as seen with their mantra-like intonations of conversation-preempting sound bites to the “branded” apparel wardrobes, there is no greater example of identity politics than the MAGA hardliners.