US US Politics General 2 - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

​

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/

 

[Sammich]

The 25th Amendment would have made her President, and literally no one wanted that. He never should've been permitted to run in the first place because his senility was apparent long before. "Corn Pop," anyone?

This makes sense, but I think maybe it's a bad idea to bar someone from running for office. People were stupid enough to vote for the puddin brained faggot, blame them, not the puddin brained faggot.

 

[John.Doe]

The only way a court can undo birthright citizenship is to interpret these words to mean something different than what they plainly mean:

"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"

If those words can mean something different than what they plainly say then so can the First and Second Amendments and that's the whole ballgame.

You can't undo what was never done. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means under the complete, unfettered jurisdiction in the meaning of sovereignty - when some mexican broad waddles across the border and shits out a spiclet, she and and the spawn are under the auspices of Mexican jurisdiction and sovereignty as she is a Mexican citizen and the spiclet is her spawn. The US may have limited jurisdiction over people within its borders as tourists (or criminals) but that is not complete, as is required by the Amendment. The full historical analysis, including the records of the Congressional debates which disclaim this insane interpretation are easily available.

 

[BullfrogBill]

People were stupid enough to vote for the puddin brained faggot, blame them, not the puddin brained faggot.

No they weren't and you know that.

 

[JustSomeDong]

or they now have a new owner not named Mossad.

Sure, Wilbur. Pull the other leg, its got bells on it. Not like Trump is in Bibi's corner...

 

[Jace on ice]

A lot of if not the majority of progressive ideals are just Christian ideals with the Jesus stuff stripped out.

Except instead of being charitable and generous to your family and community you're only generous to niggers that exist 20,000 miles away for some reason.

 

[IrishGuy088]

We're still on Epstein stuff. Okay, cool.

Trump didn't release the list because doing so would probably have caused serious damage to an allied nation's government or to our own government or one of its necessary agencies.

Do I like that? No. Do I understand that? Yeah.

 

[>IMPLYING]

"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"

I'd be really anal about this particular line: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Remove it from the amendment itself: "all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside"

So it's inclusion must matter or affect the rest of the amendment. The use of "and" could make it conditional, right? It specified conditions that ought to apply only once other conditions are met. So in order for someone to be born or naturalised in the US, they need to be abiding by its laws, so an illegal already isn't abiding by its laws (they are not acting in subject of the jurisdiction) and thus aren't afforded the rights in the prior line I.E. "If you don't abide by the laws of the jurisdiction you're residing in, then regardless of being born here or living her long enough to be naturalised, you are not a citizen." The children of illegals would also be within the country illegally and are also not afforded the same protections.

Is that valid?

 

[tehpope]

A lot of if not the majority of progressive ideals are just Christian ideals with the Jesus stuff stripped out.

Except instead of being charitable and generous to your family and community you're only generous to niggers that exist 20,000 miles away for some reason.

tldr leftists care more about strangers vs conservatives who care more about their immediate family and friends.

link to the actual study. pdf archive is in the post.

I got you Mr. Bravo.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12227-0

 

[Orchestral Hit]

Musk loves vague posting about Trump and his allies being "in the files". Which could just mean they're mentioned in there. In passing. Not that they're on the client list. People just assume Musk means "on the client list" because Trump and co. could sue Musk for slander/libel if he came out and said Trump is a pedo / on epstein's client list. Vague posting allows him to wind up people's imaginations and still not be in trouble for slander/libel.

I also highly doubt that Elon would even be able to take a glance at the files, and certainly not the parts that would damn a public figure. If the Epstein stuff really is the political equivalent to a nuke, they'd have that under lock and key, and the fewer eyes on it, the better. Elon is not someone who was working on the case, I don't think they'd say "Oh sure, Mr. Musk! Here's the Epstein master list! Pinky promise not to sperg on X, The Everything App about this?" He has an air of authority to him because he worked for the government, but I imagine his claims on who is or isn't in the files aren't solidly reliable. Perhaps you could argue his proximity to the case and potential clients would grant more confidence to his claims than any other random guy, but I'd say that we shouldn't take him on his word because of that.

 

[obsdj]

This makes sense, but I think maybe it's a bad idea to bar someone from running for office. People were stupid enough to vote for the puddin brained faggot, blame them, not the puddin brained faggot.

When I say he shouldn't have been permitted, I mean his family, friends, and loved ones, however few they may have been, as well as leaders in his own party, should have fucking chained him to a radiator and told him no, not that some legal machination should have necessarily been used to bar him from running (although cognitive testing and/or age limits might be worth considering).

As far as the election itself, nobody actually voted for the puddin brained faggot. Everyone who actually voted, either voted for Trump or against Trump.

 

[unaboomer]

Now I'm thinking the Officer just grabbed a random book from his kids room and I'm all for it.

I'd have them read Fox in Socks so I can weed out ESLs too.

 

[Terrifik]

Could this be a double-edged sword on the Left. If Trump takes this to the supreme court, he could put the court in a position where birth-right citizenship could get undone entirely, right?

not really i think the supreme courts still trying to mill around should they rule on it.

 

[obsdj]

This is a small tangent, but the fifth amendment is airtight, and lawyers often get set on fire when they try to assume something from the the silence/invocation of the 5th. Here is one of the most well known times a judge was spitting fire over it.

Ohhhhhh, that was a great time. I really enjoyed the Rittenhouse thread here, even though we were all constantly being admonished for using it as a chatroom. I still have the judge's cookie recipe book somewhere on my old hard drive from back then.

 

[Farmer McColl]

The only way a court can undo birthright citizenship is to interpret these words to mean something different than what they plainly mean:

"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"

If those words can mean something different than what they plainly say then so can the First and Second Amendments and that's the whole ballgame.

I'm not a lawyer, and have at best a passing interest in the subject, however, I am aware it's alleged that there's at least some ground to stand on here. The basic idea is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "sole jurisdiction thereof", IE: if you can go to another nation and be welcomed, you're not an in-born American. Popular reasoning and legal thought of the time.

The children of diplomats born in the US are not born-citizens. Their parent(s) have diplomatic immunity, releasing them from the inherent jurisdiction of the USA, but the newborn is not inherently granted this immunity and they are not citizens of the United States. Further, an law had to be passed in 1924 to grant Amerindians citizenship-by-birth, as it was understood that they did not inherently have it via the 14th. The 1873 SCOTUS Slaughterhouse case stated "The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States."
It was in the Supreme Court case brought by Wong Kim Ark in 1898 in which it was decided "A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution".
That case was, to my understanding, about a child born to parents legally living and working within the US. I believe they haven't ever properly litigated the idea of persons illegally within America, it's always just been taken as fact after this ruling.

Ironically, Ark also had this gem within the decision:

Nobody can deny that the question of citizenship in a nation is of the most vital importance. It is a precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition, and I cannot think that any safeguard surrounding it was intended to be thrown down by the amendment.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

The full historical analysis, including the records of the Congressional debates which disclaim this insane interpretation are easily available.

Also available is the plain and simple final text of the 14th Amendment and that makes all the stuff you mentioned irrelevant. The words say what the words say. The only legitimate way to change that is with another Constitutional Amendment.

 

[BullfrogBill]

We're still on Epstein stuff. Okay, cool.

I'm more concerned with trump going full neocon war hawk mode in the past few days, saying we are going to continue to fund Ukraine and shilling Lindsey Graham. This is a huge reversal of what Trump has promised us and how he's behaved in office previously and it's extremely concerning. The Epstein stuff is big but it's surprising that more people aren't criticizing this. It's directly 100% anti MAGA, it fundamentally goes against everything MAGA stands for and Trump voters are making excuses for it for some delusional reason.

 

[MrJokerRager]

If Biden and Garland had decided to close down the Epstein case with the same rationale as Trump and Bondi is using.

Would pundits like Ben Shapiro and other conservative leaning people looking to hush up the case.

React in the same way?

 

[Bindo]

We're still on Epstein stuff. Okay, cool.

Trump didn't release the list because doing so would probably have caused serious damage to an allied nation's government or to our own government or one of its necessary agencies.

Do I like that? No. Do I understand that? Yeah.

President Trump's agenda currently stands on a mountain or raped, probably murdered kids.

Not acceptable.

The fact that a LOT of the accounts (not you, OP) trying to hand wave this away are the same ones who will sperg and froth at the mouth for months about a 30 year old woman's vtuber model, a drawing, being "pedo bait" for looking "too young" is enlightening.

 

[Turkey Beef]

George Floyd was a career criminal who died of a fentanyl overdose while resisting arrest. His death was exploited by Democrats to encourage riots and railroad an innocent police officer. Given the way higher education has decayed into a system of neoliberal indoctrination, who better to rename a university after than patron saint of shitlibbery?

University of Houston professor David McNally proposed renaming his school to “George Floyd University” and abolishing tuition and grades at the Socialism 2025 conference Saturday.

Taxpayers are already picking up more than their share of the tab for Professor McNally’s doubtlessly excessive salary. Let’s hope they won’t mind paying the rest.

While wearing a keffiyeh, McNally spoke on a panel in Chicago about what fighting the state would look like in the “context of growing an insurgent mass movement.” Among McNally’s ideas for the “de-stateification” of the University of Houston, which is a public university, included honoring Floyd after his highly publicized death in May 2020.

Applying the neolib agenda to incrementally impose an omnipresent, omnipotent Cloward-Piven state is now called “de-stateification.” This is consistent with the shitlib practice of calling things the opposite of what they are, lest people recoil in horror from their malevolent ideology.

McNally reminisces fondly on the Black Lives Matter riots:

“All of a sudden you got a glimpse of what it means when we control the streets because the cops were backing off. They were completely outnumbered,” McNally recalled. “You begin to sense what happens when the balance of social forces, even in one small situation, shifts and how the horizons of possibility change. For that period of time, that part of downtown Houston was not in their hands anymore. It was in our hands. It was in insurgent hands.”

Insurgency does not mean a few people getting out of hand at a protest against election fraud like on January 6. It means libshits subverting institutions until they are in a position to seize control of the country and abolish the system of government in favor of slavery to the state.

His other proposals were abolishing campus police and replacing them with “democratically constituted and elected safety committees,” restoring the LGBTQ+ center, declaring the school a “sanctuary campus” from ICE officers and fighting to “abolish tuition and grades.”

Until the Orkin Man is called in to deal with the George Floyd cultists, this is what Americans are expected to cough up money for when they fund universities:
https://nitter.tiekoetter.com/thestustustudio/status/1941672343002099907

As well as this:

Post in thread 'African-American Appreciation Thread'

Jul 10, 2025

Neoliberalism happened.
https://nitter.tiekoetter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1942299450405269537

• Turkey Beef

• 
• 
• 

 

[IrishGuy088]

President Trump's agenda current stands on a mountain or raped, probably murdered kids.

Not acceptable.

The fact that a LOT of the accounts (not you, OP) trying to hand wave this away are the same ones who will sperg and froth at the mouth for months about a 30 year old woman's vtuber model, a drawing, being "pedo bait" for looking "too young" is enlightening.

So people have double standards and are hypocrites. Get over it.

The entirety of civilization is built on a mountain of raped, definitely murdered or enslaved kids. You don't have to like it. Maybe if the world were a better place and America didn't have major geopolitical rivals willing and able to take advantage of and subvert a crisis like the one this list would cause, we could get the list. But we do not and so we will not.