Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 494K
  • Politics 
Turd Ferguson said:
Because they didn't want to vote for a woman. And because they are idiots that for some reason thought Trump would be better for them.
Click to expand...
yeah and while they aren't a monolith they definitely lean socially conservative / patriarchal / religious.

still kind of shocking to me that those factors won the day with so many over the constant, overt racism, though.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
The problem is Trump and MAGA make it out like every immigrant is like this, when they only make up a small fraction of the crimes committed here. It's playing on irrational fear and racism.
Click to expand...
I love how Republicans act as if Democrats when in office just allow immigrants (especially illegals) to just run wild and undocumented across the country committing horrible crimes unmolested and unarrested.
 
lawtig02 said:
Another quote from the Reagan-appointed judge, which echoes thoughts I've had about almost every GOP-led legal action over the last few years --

“Where were the lawyers” when the decision to sign the executive order was made, the judge asked. He said that it “boggled” his mind that a member of the bar would claim the order was constitutional.

___________

This goes to a point super has made many times. The courts and the bars are absolutely TERRIBLE at enforcing the rules of professional conduct for lawyers. You basically have to be taking dollar bills from your trust account and using them at strip clubs to get disciplined these days. When attorneys can solicit and advise fraudulent electors in an attempt to make the loser of the presidential election the leader of the free world, and the bar has nothing to say about it, why have rules at all?

Of course, "Why Have Rules at All?" is probably a good motto for the federal government over the next four years.
Click to expand...
I feel like this could apply to some of our recent SCOTUS decisions. Could you imagine writing something like the Bruen or Dobbs opinions on a law school exam?
 
I don’t think he’s liked windmills since Scotland allowed a windmill to be placed where it was visible from one of his golf courses.

 
I’d be ok with Trump running for a third term. If things go as I expect, there is a decent shot Trump would lose by 200 electoral votes. Plus, I see no way he is mentally functioning in 2030 - a JD Vance would be much more dangerous.
 
not a cabinet post but...Trump's press secretary seems to fit right in:sneaky:

www.rawstory.com

Trump press secretary hid over $300k in debt tied to 'inappropriate donations': report

Before she even held his first official White House press conference, Donald Trump's latest press secretary is facing questions after a last-minute FEC filing on Thursday reportedly showed she had been hiding debt related to her failed run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
ZenMode said:
Really? You think it's THAT unreasonable to say that some of the uses of BRC appear to be clear abuses of the original intention? :rolleyes:

You guys are just a tad dogmatic, IMO.
Click to expand...
I am dogmatic about this the same way I am dogmatic that, in a Euclidean geometry, two parallel lines never intersect. Or that 1+1 = 2 and it never equals three.

The drafters of the 14th extensively debated this exact question. The debate was robust, and it went on for many days, and they addressed all these issues. It was an intentional choice to make birthright citizenship available to everyone on US land. The exceptions are laid out specifically: an invading army, and diplomats. I have read this history. I do not know it, because that's very far from my areas of expertise. But you can easily find information on it. There is no shortage of materials on the internet.

Two things you are missing (among others, perhaps):

1. The drafters of the 14th considered immigration to be a good thing. And even better than immigration was new citizens born on our soil. Because the drafters understood that immigration was the country's greatest strength. It is what made America into the juggernaut of the 20th century. And plenty of people on the right understand this. They bemoan low birth rates, and the aging population . . . and then they turn around and say, "nah, THESE babies, we don't want." Hmm.

2. There are also interactions with other countries that have birthright citizenship. I believe, at the time, Mexico had birthright citizenship available only to persons born in Mexico (this has since changed; and note that I am no historian of Mexico so nobody should rely on my recollection here -- but the general point remains valid). So let's say a person leaves Mexico and comes to the United States (the borders were pretty fluid back then, and they weren't necessarily clearly demarcated), and has a baby. If that baby isn't a citizen of the US, and not a citizen of Mexico, then who? Is the baby a citizen of nowhere?

The Supreme Court has long deemed the lack of nationality among the worst things that can happen to a person. Right or wrong, that's how it has been viewed. Bet you didn't know that exile is the only punishment that the Supreme Court has held to be categorically a violation of the 8th. You can be put to death for crimes; you can be imprisoned; but you can't lose your citizenship. That's cruel and unusual.

So when you are asking, "did they mean to create this 'abuse'"? the answer is unambiguously yes. They did mean to it. They did not see it as an abuse. Nobody important in US history saw it as an abuse (not that I'm aware of) until very recently, when the white folks in the South decided to take their fight against non-white people to the browns as well as the blacks.

And that's all there is to say about this topic. There's a reason why the Reagan appointed judge was so harsh toward the government lawyers. Why he said it was the clearest legal issue he had to adjudicate in 40 years on the bench. Because this law is unusually settled. There are a few questions of law more settled, but not many. This one is foundational.
 
This is fun! Hope the Pubs here appreciate the humor of having armed federal agents show up at their kids' schools! It's like show-and-tell, but with assault rifles, right?


U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents attempted entry into a Chicago elementary school Friday morning, but were not allowed inside or permitted to speak to anyone inside, Chicago Public Schools officials said.

Around 11:15 a.m., ICE agents attempted to enter Hamline Elementary School.

“School staff followed CPS established protocols,” CPS Chief Education Officer Bogdana Chkoumbova said in a news conference Friday. “They kept ICE agents outside of the school and contacted CPS law department and CPS Office of Safety and Security for further guidance. The ICE agents were not allowed into the school and were not permitted to speak to any students or staff members.”
 
lawtig02 said:
This is fun! Hope the Pubs here appreciate the humor of having armed federal agents show up at their kids' schools! It's like show-and-tell, but with assault rifles, right?


U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents attempted entry into a Chicago elementary school Friday morning, but were not allowed inside or permitted to speak to anyone inside, Chicago Public Schools officials said.

Around 11:15 a.m., ICE agents attempted to enter Hamline Elementary School.

“School staff followed CPS established protocols,” CPS Chief Education Officer Bogdana Chkoumbova said in a news conference Friday. “They kept ICE agents outside of the school and contacted CPS law department and CPS Office of Safety and Security for further guidance. The ICE agents were not allowed into the school and were not permitted to speak to any students or staff members.”
Click to expand...
Countdown to the principal or a Chicago official being charged with obstruction…???
 


As an aside, had Biden done this the resistance from Red State cops would be overwhelmingly negative — you won’t be federalizing my state police!!! And Biden would have gotten massive pushback from his left flank, as well.

But the same Red State cops will probably be thrilled to be deputized by Trump to carry out federal enforcement. And a lot of Blue State/Blue City LEO leadership will decline or resist.

Will be intro see how NYPD responds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top