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/

 

[Sweeter and Savoury]

The judge in the Maryland Man and all round example of the height of humanity itself; Kilmar Garcia, has indeed ordered him released from Federal custody and flown back to Maryland at the taxpayers expense.

When ICE agents said they were planning on taking Kilmar into custody the moment he left jail another judge, from the same district in Tennessee, has now ordered that ICE not to detain him unless such documents pertaining to the arrest and or deportation are filed with his court at least 72 hours before hand...you know so this judge can then pump out a few more injunctions to stop them and ensure Kilmar can make it back to Maryland and dissapear into the woodwork.

This particular circuit of judges really really wants Garcia to walk free no matter what they have to do to make it happen. Right now you have 3 separate judges working together to cover each other lack of jurisdiction so when one judge's order is appealed and over-ridden the next one does the exact same thing and so on. Talk about a huge waste of taxpayer money, these judges are juggling Kilmar from case to case to ensure ICE never has the chance to nab him and send him back to his home country. Hell the Fed's can't even start prosecuting him on the trafficking charges as these judges won't allow him to be transfered to Texas where he's facing multiple Federal charges.

Must be nice to have such devoted and powerful friends...I wonder has any single person in US history ever had so many judges doing everything they can to subvert the legal process just to protect them from being tried for crimes?

Anyway here's is a completely non-biased, totally fair and nuanced and legit not fake news take on the judge proceedings brought to you by the wonderful human beings at CBS Newshour.

 

[Conan]

Muslims in Brooklyn blocked a highway, exited their vehicles and began chanting, “globalize the intifada.”

https://x.com/Liberacrat/status/1949451016992182598

View attachment 7700380

run em over.
blocking a freeway is unlawful restraint

 

[Blewberry Nausea]

Muslims in Brooklyn blocked a highway, exited their vehicles and began chanting, “globalize the intifada.”

https://x.com/Liberacrat/status/1949451016992182598

View attachment 7700380

Of course they are all in overpriced cars. And what’s with the kid? Gee let’s bring them along to a dangerous demonstration.

 

[not william stenchever]

Just ignore that faggot, he's pulling things out of his ass.

Even as an abstract hypothetical I see nothing wrong with the supposed course of action. It would be retarded to just let yourself die for the safety of some fucking bulbheads.

The idea of a bunch of somalians zeroing in mortars should have set off my bullshit alarm though.

 

[StudMccool]

What determines the citizenship of the parents? Their parents? What about their parent's parents? Following that logic only the direct descendants of people who were already here in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified would be legal citizens.

The only way that begins to work is if you start by declaring that every person on US soil in this moment a US citizen and these are the new rules going forward. No thanks.

they dont think that hard about it. There line of thinking, unironically is

"man in power remove brown people, y u no want brown people gone? must be brown or brown supporter!"

Thats the FULL extent of the thought, no critical thought to what rules, rights and morals are bent and broken to do so, its all chaff willingly thrown onto the fiery fervor of "less browns under ANY cost"

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

My friend, this is just a dumb take. The 14th states "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." What determines US citizenship is being born or naturalized here AND being subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. The argument against birthright citizenship is that these anchor babies, birth tourism babies, and the like are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US government because their parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US government - they're subject to the jurisdiction of whatever government controls their origin country. It's that simple. There's no need to dig back decades/centuries and, as pointed out several times already ITT, if God willing the Supremes overturn birthright citizenship it's guaranteed that those who had it prior to the Court's decision will be grandfathered in.

I agree with you. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity and unintended consequences of eliminating birthright citizenship. You'd be surprised how many people shitting on birthright citizenship are descended from Irish or Italians who snuck in 100-150 years ago and would by their own logic immediately become illegal immigrants themselves without birthright citizenship.

It's a moot argument anyway. The language of the 14th that you posted leaves no wiggle-room. There's no re-interpreting this, you're gonna need a new Constitutional Amendment:

"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."

 

[quaawaa]

Trump, while sitting next to the General Secretary of the Union of European Socialist Republics, talks about how bad windmills are:

Source (Archive)

 

[StudMccool]

found this gem on a video of ICE

Politics makes strange bedfellows

 

[Historical Strelkov]

"man in power remove brown people, y u no want brown people gone? must be brown or brown supporter!"

But you can't even answer that question.

 

[BullfrogBill]

I've been thinking a lot about the natural born citizen thing and wonder if that did get overturned what would make any of us citizens? Because your parents were citizens? How are they citizens, because of their parents, etc? If that's the qualification then it seem your ancestors would've had to have been here when the 14th Amendment was ratified and everyone who came after along with their descendants would also be illegals.

If SCOTUS decides birthright citizenship shouldn't be given to the children of non-citizens, I'd suspect the ruling would only be effective moving forward because retroactive application would create an ex post facto situation not allowed under the law.

What determines the citizenship of the parents? Their parents? What about their parent's parents? Following that logic only the direct descendants of people who were already here in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified would be legal citizens.

My friend, this is just a dumb take. The 14th states "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." What determines US citizenship is being born or naturalized here AND being subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. The argument against birthright citizenship is that these anchor babies, birth tourism babies, and the like are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US government because their parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US government - they're subject to the jurisdiction of whatever government controls their origin country. It's that simple. There's no need to dig back decades/centuries and, as pointed out several times already ITT, if God willing the Supremes overturn birthright citizenship it's guaranteed that those who had it prior to the Court's decision will be grandfathered in.

As David Floyd George here said, the 14th amendment applies only to those who are here under US Jurisdiction, you can't just be a random illegal that walked in through the border and have a kid here and claim birthright citizenship. It doesn't work that way. You need to be here under the allowance of our government for this to work. This system can still be easily gamed. This is why Sanctuary cities are such a big deal right now because it blurs the lines between what immigrants are here under US Jurisdiction and which ones aren't. Republicans believe that Sanctuary cities aren't legitimate therefore they don't count as being here under US jurisdiction and others will claim that they are here under US jurisdiction if you have cities literally telling the immigrants that this is their sanctuary and they are welcome to stay.

I'd rather just see them all either deported or gassed but I have to admit that we are kind of fucked in this situation because we have had law enforcement and politicians declare these cities as safe zones for these immigrants, we can't just take that back lol. What are we going to say "these politicians and law enforcement officers that told you you can stay here aren't correct, because these politicians and law enforcement officers over here say so." Well who the fuck do we even believe at that point anyway? Who's word is the law? Well, the constitution's word is the only law and by the rules of the Constitution these immigrants in sanctuary cities are here under US jurisdiction lol. It's a giant headache of a topic. The Democrats essentially gamed the Constitution with the 14th amendment and sanctuary cities, checkmate for the Democrats.

 

[Quence]

Did U know that LEGAL immigration is destroying America?​

The battle over illegal immigration is a wonderful distraction from the fact that even legal immigration, by itself, is more than enough to transform America into a BLACK AND BROWN country where Whites are nothing but a small and persecuted minority.

What are the top two countries of origin for Green Card holders? Mexico and India! Thank god for the Hart-Celler Act and for Jewish immigration advocates who want America to be less White and therefore less racist!

Bonus fun fact: 12 of the top 15 countries of origin for Green Card holders are BROWN and the other three are asian (China, South Korea, and Vietnam).

 

[babyDunk]

What determines the citizenship of the parents? Their parents? What about their parent's parents? Following that logic only the direct descendants of people who were already here in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified would be legal citizens.

The only way that begins to work is if you start by declaring that every person on US soil in this moment a US citizen and these are the new rules going forward. No thanks.

You know the US did not invent birthright citizenship right? You know a bunch of countries had it at a time, noticed it was being exploited, or they knew it was no longer needed and as such,stopped it in similar fashion.What happened in those scenarios? Was citizenship removed after being back dated?

Trump, while sitting next to the General Secretary of the Union of European Socialist Republics, talks about how bad windmills are:

Its so funny when he does this and you can see the clear displeasure on a euros face. To be fair, he is bullshitting about windmills i believe.

Thank god for the Hart-Celler Act and for Jewish immigration advocates who want America to be less White

It is right and Just.

 

[gaysexenjoyer]

What are we going to say "these politicians and law enforcement officers that told you you can stay here aren't correct, because these politicians and law enforcement officers over here say so."

I mean the Supremacy Clause in article 7 of the constitution kind of addresses this. Federal laws take precedent if state or local law contradict them, and immigration policy is definitely in the wheelhouse of the federal government as far as enforcement is concerned.

 

[David Floyd George]

they dont think that hard about it. There line of thinking, unironically is

"man in power remove brown people, y u no want brown people gone? must be brown or brown supporter!"

Thats the FULL extent of the thought, no critical thought to what rules, rights and morals are bent and broken to do so, its all chaff willingly thrown onto the fiery fervor of "less browns under ANY cost"

I don't know how you do it, but you're getting dumber by the post. You seriously need to cut back on the drinking.

 

[StudMccool]

I mean the Supremacy Clause in article 7 of the constitution kind of addresses this. Federal laws take precedent if state or local law contradict them, and immigration policy is definitely in thewheelhouse of the federal government.

I think 1934 onward and maybe as early as Marberry V Madison we live in a post constitution country, its a nice set of ideals but the courts and congress dont abide by it and havent for a LONG time

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

the 14th amendment applies only to those who are here under US Jurisdiction

Where does this say what you typed:

""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.""

'And subject to the jurisdiction thereof' simply means the law of this place applies to them. I.E. the parents weren't foreign diplomats with immunity and/or subjects of foreign allegiances. I understand the new novel internet theory you're going with but it's just not serious. Many SC cases would need to be overturned first.

 

[David Floyd George]

This is why Sanctuary cities are such a big deal right now because it blurs the lines between what immigrants are here under US Jurisdiction and which ones aren't.

I'd argue that "under US jurisdiction" quite clearly applies to the jurisdiction of the federal government only, and not to states, cities, territories, etc.

 

[gaysexenjoyer]

'And subject to the jurisdiction thereof' simply means the law of this place applies to them. I.E. the parents weren't foreign diplomats with immunity and/or subjects of foreign allegiances.

The people flapping around mexican flags and demanding more gibs don't feel very domestic in terms of their allegiances

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

I'd argue that "under US jurisdiction" quite clearly applies to the jurisdiction of the federal government only, and not to states, cities, territories, etc.

There have been several SC cases that dealt with the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It means diplomats who are still subject to the jurisdiction of another country while they're here. We didn't want their children to be automatic citizens if born here. That's it.

 

[Polyboros2]

All I know for certain is that 2028 will have a way lower voter turnout. Should Newsome get the nomination, we are in for a treat so far as vocal minorities and rainbow specials freaking out about how they have no one to vote for. They won't explore this feeling in any reasonable way, let alone extrapolate it, and 2032 Dems will be forced to run the biggest blackest dykiest disabledist shaniqua as a matter of course.

I think the 2028 Primaries are going to be wild on both sides.

For the Democrats, they've run out of the party any moderate charismatic candidates. Since Oct 7 they've run the Jews out of their bureaucracy and replaced them with faggots and sheboons.

Newsom is most likely the Party Elite supported candidate, he's Pelosi's legacy, her attempt to make a political dynasty. He's also a white male that they had to Election fortify to save from a recall before Covid and some of the worst of the fires. He's tried to rebrand himself as a moderate with his podcast, gaining absolutely no support from the center-right and absolutely villifying himself to the Left for talking to "Nazis." He's likely to be completely rejected by the Progressive Golem that the DNC anchored themselves with as a motivated base.

Buttgag is Obama's little pet project, he's white but at least he's a child buying faggot. He's absolute poison in the general cause niggers are not coming out to go for a queer. The Progs likely will still reject him because they are on a suicide cult of Black Women Leaders, even though he's probably the closest to a compromise candidate with the party elite, even if they know they'll have to cheat harder to make sure those black votes are counted even if they don't show up at the polls.

We are probably going to have a clown car full of variety of browns veying for the spot that the lower half of the DNC employees will riot over not getting their progressive dream candidate. Cory Booker is definitely trying again, I won't be surprised if Stacy Abrams sticks her tooth gap in it again. AOC is probably running as the Progressive Grifter Sanders stand in who just vacuums up money from the tankies and then concedes and gives it all to the Elite's choice.

However their primaries are not going to run as crookedly as they did in the past. Well, they will, but not to the benefit of the Elite. Those Caucus coin flips going to Hillary 95% of the time will be flipping the other way. The Dems drove the Jews and boomers out of their political work force. It's all progs that ran a completely shit show of a campaign for Kamala, wasting millions making Kamala look worse, pissing off donors and infuriating veteran campaign managers. That's who they have to rely on to act against their own self interests and it's not happening. I see the Dem primary being very contentious going into the DNC, with maybe not a clear winner, or possibly even a completely poisonous Libshit candidate. The mega wealthy are not going to open their wallets for Kamala 2.0. The Dems can steal it with Super Delegates for a more corporate/elite palettable and moderate candidate, but then they lose the Progs that are the gears in their machine. Gahenna talked about Biden being a very tenuous compromise candidate, and I don't see the Dems making that cleanly in 2028.

On the other hand the Republican primary will also have potential for issues.

It will be the first time Trump won't be on the ballot for 12 years. An unbelievable 12 years that have Republicans a success that was literally universally agreed to be impossible. Trump has to campaign, and has to have a full support successor. JD Vance seems to be the likely choice but it's really up in the air. Also the Old Rino Elite are not gone. They'd rather have the party slide into obscurity than go along with a party change, and this will likely be the last shot they get. I can see there being a lot of MAGAchurian Candidates that cuck out immediately and gut populism out of the party again. JD Vance might be one. I'll never trust Rubio no matter how good he does as Secretary of State. DeSantis will try again, but he sucks at campaigning. Vivek will probably wait until 32 or 36 to try again, but I can see another Jeet trying as the Big Tech candidate(even though JD is Theil's bid at executive power). Elon will probably try to puppet someone too, even with his spoiler party.

It really depends on if Trump wants to stay in as a political figure after 2028. I could see him not endorsing one candidate until after the RNC. Trying too not be king maker and upsetting to many people. He really needs to keep the populist momentum going. However that really relies on his health and prerogative.

I personally hope Trump stays the leader of the party after he leaves office. I think he likes being the star of huge rallies, and hope he continues that into the 2030s influencing the party positions and pushing up candidates he likes. But he's a bit of a traditionalist, and I could see him doing the typical stepping out of politics after wards. I think we're going to get a Republican party version of the multiple Roman Emporers civil war, where a bunch of Rino, Jeets, and sellouts name themselves the New Trump and none of them intend to live to too that.