Hodad

Definitely we should outlaw illegal immigration. If we make illegal immigration illegal then no one will try to come to the US.

I'm sure that Trump's rotten rectum is packed full of clues. I'm sure that's why you climbed inside. Honestly, it's ridiculous how easily and eagerly you buy into this administration's utter nonsense. In no way shape or form was Iranian military a threat to the US. That's asinine. Terrorists, on the other hand, are a legitimate threat. And we've just made a LOT more of those. Watch out for Iranian drones man. You can never be too careful. Maybe sleep UNDER you Mom's bed tonight.

What's your solution for that? I don't ignore the crime. It's just not a crime of any special significance. If immigrants were highly criminal, that would be worth discussing. But they're not. So, again, come up with a better argument.

No, you're mad, shark lover! I'm not mad. It's just a really stupid thread. Like creating a thread about how someone with red hair committed a crime and thinking it's a good argument to ban people with red hair. The logical fallacy (well, the biggest one) is called misleading vividness. There are criminals in any population, but criminality is actually lower in immigrant populations. Find a better argument.

I'm sure you'll sleep much more soundly knowing that the big bad Iranian navy isn't coming for you. What a damn relief. Praise be to Trump for saving us! 🙄

Eh, math is math. If you've got a problem with it, take it up with the definition of "average." Roughly half the country got suckered by the Big Lie--without a shred of evidence to support it. It's not because they're smart.

How much tea do they have in their cupboards? Are they low on ketchup? Like your list above, those things are completely irrelevant to us. They weren't a threat before and they aren't a threat now. The whole asinine schtick is to Make America Great Again. We made Iran worse. Okay. But what did we do for America? From oil prices to the stock market to international relationships and credibility, to seeding another generation of terrorists, I can list a lot of way that this misadventure has hurt the US. But we haven't gained a thing. As I've stated before, nobody really wants a nuclear Iran. And there's a good chance we've reversed or slowed progress there, but even that was already a manageable situation through other avenues like the deal Trump tore up. Or, worst case, a military coalition. The churn and spin on this thing is huge, but in practical terms, we're worse off than when we started. And the ceasefire may have already fallen apart.

Anyone who voted Trump is pro shark attack! This is an unbelievably dumb farking thread.

This is amazing news! The art of the deal! We're almost back to where we were before the "war" started! (This is how someone bankrupts a casino, folks.)

About half the country is below average intelligence. It doesn't really matter what they believe--or what lies Trump told them. Moot point. Doesn't matter what Trump believed. Moot point. There is simply never ever any excuse for trying to get the VPOTUS to discard the state certified votes and unilaterally declare who wins an election. Or in this case, to overturn the election. That's an attempted coup, any way you slice it. Buddy, calling you a halfwit is generous, but ^^this post is below your usual standard. Instead of making a poorly reasoned argument, you've not made any attempt whatsoever.

Never is. People aren't perfect. But as long as we strive through generations to become more perfect, we will make progress of which we can be proud.

Holy shit. Your idea of precedent for Trump's actions--which for several pages we've discussed as unprecedented for an American president--is a 19th century white-on-black racial massacre in Wilmington, North Carolina? That's what you're going to fall back on for why Trump isn't an outlier? You might as well rent a billboard to advertise your dishonesty. Jeebus.

False. In our wonky electoral college system (which should be abandoned anyway) there is no federal prohibition against faithless electors. It's not extralegal, but rather baked into that antiquated system. Contrast that with Trump's people, literally on the floor of the Senate during certification, trying to deliver known fraudulent documents to the Vice President (who also knew them to be fraudulent) and extreme pressure on the VP to unilaterally overturn the election during the certification process. A literal overthrow of democracy and seizure of power like we see in third-world nations. The Eastman coup plan is an abomination, and everyone involved knew it was illegal (Eastman even asked for a pre-emptive pardon). They tried it anyway--and then sicced a mob of loyalists on the Vice President when he chose to do his duty. That has never happened before. No other US president has ever attempted a coup--in the 30s or otherwise. You "won't bother" to cite facts because you have none. You're simply making it up.

Eh, I don't think you understand what America is. It's not a geography. It's not a snapshot of people frozen in time (as if the REAL Americans had to have arrived by X date). It's a concept. A journey toward a more perfect union, toward a set of ideals. I don't really care a bit about where someone's parents were born--nor did the founders, for that matter. The entire history of the United States has operated on the principle that people born here are American citizens. The amendment just formalized the existing standard. I simply want people willing to work toward the promise of America. That's what I expect of my countrymen, regardless of where their parents were born.

That's complete bullshit, and you know it. Trump is the only US president to attempt a coup. Full stop. And in support of that effort to illegally seize and retain power, he committed a litany of other sins and transgressions against American democracy--against the American people. You are simply lying, trying to hand-wave away unprecedented behavior and unique and lasting harm. (Whether it's fatal remains to be seen ) You didn't cite any such historical incident because it's never happened before. Not in this country. Unprecedented is unprecedented.

You think people whose parents were born here are somehow magically better or more desirable than people whose parents were born somewhere else? Nah, that's pretty irrational. Like I said, people are people. I'm open to rational, fact-based arguments about how we should shape immigration policy, but the nativist FUD of "just because" isn't very compelling.

What's not sustainable about it? Are we out of room? Out of food? (Immigrants are disproportionately responsible for agriculture and construction, BTW.) Do we have all the labor we need? You're just recycling the same nativist FUD that we've always had. Rooted in xenophobia, the fear of some "other" taking from us, but generation after generation, that has been proved wrong. The fears were unfounded and the country grew and thrived. The immigrant population today is about what it was during industrial boom time. You want us to think that this time and this round of FUD are really different? Why? Why should we expect a different outcome than we've enjoyed all along? What's the logic?

Eh, it's not that I'm setting out to recruit undocumented immigrants, but at the same time, people are people. We don't have a caste system. I'm not much concerned with the country or origin or the color of their skin. Once they are born here they are citizens like any other and as long as they work to build that better life, we're all better off for it. The American dream is that someone can start with nothing and through hard work and talent build something. People who share that dream are okay in my book. They're not taking from anybody, but rather adding to. Realistically, as a population, immigrants (of all types) are net contributors. They fill vital roles that Americans aren't interested in. They aren't entitled. They have generally escaped much worse circumstances and aren't afraid of hard work to keep the opportunity they have gained for their families. They are generally community and family oriented, "good" people. On the whole, they commit crime at lower rates than the rest of the population. The kids study hard and their parents dream of sending them to college and the next generation having even more access and opportunity. Immigrants built this country. And all along there has been resistance from "nativist" groups, but all along immigrants have added to and enriched America. There's no reason to think that will change. IIRC, about half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or first generation Americans, and they are vastly overrepresented in the leadership of those companies. Again, closing in on 50% of CEOs. And there are no free rides in the C-Suite. It's about as cutthroat as it gets. But look at Microsoft, Google, IBM, Anthropic etc., etc. Or Musk and his half dozen companies. All are being run by immigrants or children of immigrants. These people are major contributors to growth and innovation. You never know who's going to cure cancer or crack the code on some other big problem. Human potential is human potential. Let's not squander it because of irrational prejudices.

I see the good ol' boys are hopped up on blue pills and ready for another shallow-thinking circle jerk. Who needs nuance when you have memes!

SCOTUS will reject the EO. Congress will not do anything about it. They are light years away from getting a constitutional amendment. They will not burn the political capital on a lost cause.

You're welcome to that opinion. Meanwhile, the legal argument is the legal argument, and this one is impossibly flimsy. The SCOTUS justices aren't having any of it. Not the originalists, not the literalists and not the pragmatists. You really can't call them "activist judges" one day and the next chastise them for a faithful reading of plain law. Some legal challenges are are nuanced or a close call that requires intervention and interpretation. This is not one of them.

No, she didn't. There are two conditions for citizenship: "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" Born is straightforward and self explanatory. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is the only part that could potentially require interpretation. And even then it's not really in question. Is the person somehow exempted from the legal jurisdiction of the United States? (Is it the child of the French ambassador, etc.?) Nope? Then that person is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That's what Brown is pointing out and it certainly does not make a case for overturning birthright citizenship. What's happening here is that the administration just doesn't like the idea of birthright citizenship. They don't actually think the law is being wrongly interpreted, they just wish the problem would go away. As a consequence, they are advancing an entirely specious legal argument on the off chance that this weird SCOTUS will fold again. They aren't going to. It's a dead argument. If they want to change the law they'll need an amendment. Not gonna happen.

This is the point. Should the POTUS really need someone to advise him NOT to behave as he does? Why is this a valid defense of disqualifying character and behavior?

To a nihlist, everything is equally unremarkable, but anyone with an actual broader historical perspective would know that these are not normal behaviors and these are not normal times. We've never had a perfect president, but they were all committed to building a more perfect union in service of the founding principles. We've never had a president attempt to overthrow democracy before--to take something sacred from the people and put himself squarely and literally before the country the office is meant to serve. No, we've had flashes of self dealing and corruption, but Trump has been uniquely destructive in terms of American identity, striking at the core of what this country is supposed to mean. It's dishonest to pretend that unprecedented behavior is really no big deal, and doubly so to do so under the guise of historical literacy.

Do you really think that the President of the United States should be a person who needs a PR team to know that those kinds of intemperate communications are both unwise and beneath the dignity of the office? I mean, it's not like it was a close call or he was navigating a deeply nuanced moment. That's kinda like saying the only reason he doesn't shit on the floor is because the custodial staff is there reminding him not to. -- No, in both cases that there is a baseline of conduct and decency that a person fit for the job would clear without a second thought. He can see the Washington Monument and Lincoln n Memorial from his "house."