news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[Hex]

1 hour ago, dabunique said:

ma'am u stronger than me, i'd wouldn't even show up 

the more I've sat with my emotions about it, the more i'm leaning in that direction...

[dabunique]

2 minutes ago, Hex said:

the more I've sat with my emotions about it, the more i'm leaning in that direction...

like i can't really stop seeing family but friends and acquaintances can get to steppin lol

[ClashAndBurn]

3 hours ago, Vermillion said:

 

Well, I mean, none of that matters. He sailed through confirmation with "bipartisan" help.

 

 

And Democrats have already moved on from "We need more Manchins" to "We need more Fettermans"  

 

 

 

[woohoo]

14 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

The, uh, interesting implication is that if it applies retroactively, Kamala Harris probably doesn't lose her citizenship due to being married to Doug, but… she becomes ineligible to run for president.

 

However that probably doesn't become litigated unless she runs for the presidency in 2028 and liberals are stupid enough to re-nominate her. SCOTUS finding her ineligible to run right before the election would be the nightmare scenario.

I'm glad you have the privilege to only worry about this scenario first and foremost when I'm here worrying about one of my friends whose parents immigrated here 30 years ago losing citizenship and being sent to Korea with her parents  

[Hex]

3 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Well, I mean, none of that matters. He sailed through confirmation with "bipartisan" help.

 

 

And Democrats have already moved on from "We need more Manchins" to "We need more Fettermans"  

 

 

 

We need Earth to collide with the sun.

[Chemist]

I suppose it's still too early to say, but seeing such a high approval rating despite all the terrible things he has done already makes me think America is beyond saving.

[FameFatale]

The drama already  

 

 

 

[wastedpotential]

19 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

The, uh, interesting implication is that if it applies retroactively, Kamala Harris probably doesn't lose her citizenship due to being married to Doug, but… she becomes ineligible to run for president.

 

However that probably doesn't become litigated unless she runs for the presidency in 2028 and liberals are stupid enough to re-nominate her. SCOTUS finding her ineligible to run right before the election would be the nightmare scenario.

Given the numbers involved, it would seem to me that retroactively stripping citizenship from people would be pretty logistically impossible en masse, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it used as a punishment in a crime. I've got no idea what the legal framework would look like (and there's the giant can of worms in statelessness), but "as someone who robbed this bank and whose parents weren't citizens/permanent residents, you'll be stripped of your citizenship, and after x years in prison you'll be deported to whatever country they came from". Maybe that's impractical and I haven't seen anyone discussing it as a ramification, but if the Kamala clause becomes the legal norm it seems like the next logical step (before tracking down and deporting the however many millions of citizens would qualify). 

[ClashAndBurn]

11 minutes ago, woohoo said:

I'm glad you have the privilege to only worry about this scenario first and foremost when I'm here worrying about one of my friends whose parents immigrated here 30 years ago losing citizenship and being sent to Korea with her parents  

I thought you were bragging about how you found me insufferable and put me on ignore.
 

I'm sorry for your friend, but that's what over half the country very clearly voted for. Mass Deportations Now was never a joke, and many more people are going to be thrown out to places they have zero connection to. If anything, many of those who get forcibly removed won't be accepted and they become stateless. Which is, again, what the xenophobic rubes of this irredeemably evil country explicitly want.

 

Like wastedpotential said, it might be too impractical to implement so your friend's status may become questionable but she'd only face deportation if accused/charged with a crime under the Laken Riley Act (which 12 Dems willingly voted Yes on).

 

We are truly at the whims of the Trump SCOTUS. And it could honestly go either way.

Edited 8 hours ago by ClashAndBurn

[wastedpotential]

4 minutes ago, FameFatale said:

The drama already  

 

 

 

I- 

 

I guess he's pissy because the hypothetical spinoff company for Grok wasn't involved? 

 

[ClashAndBurn]

1 minute ago, wastedpotential said:

Given the numbers involved, it would seem to me that retroactively stripping citizenship from people would be pretty logistically impossible en masse, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it used as a punishment in a crime. I've got no idea what the legal framework would look like (and there's the giant can of worms in statelessness), but "as someone who robbed this bank and whose parents weren't citizens/permanent residents, you'll be stripped of your citizenship, and after x years in prison you'll be deported to whatever country they came from". Maybe that's impractical and I haven't seen anyone discussing it as a ramification, but if the Kamala clause becomes the legal norm it seems like the next logical step (before tracking down and deporting the however many millions of citizens would qualify). 

I think it would end up being impractical to try to deport everyone that way, yes. If it succeeds though, I think it'll be selectively used to try and prevent people like Harris and Obama (since they cried so much about his father being Kenyan) from becoming president via judicial fiat, and come close to pretty much making it so only white Republican men are eligible to run.

[tiejc]

24 hours in and Russia's war on Ukraine is still on. Another Trump failure to the long list 

[FameFatale]

1 minute ago, tiejc said:

24 hours in and Russia's war on Ukraine is still on. Another Trump failure to the long list 

Speaking of

 

 

[Thuggin]

10 minutes ago, Chemist said:

I suppose it's still too early to say, but seeing such a high approval rating despite all the terrible things he has done already makes me think America is beyond saving.

The rational part of my brain says, "okay maybe a bunch of people simply won't give an answer because he's barely started his presidency" but it is still insane that Trump at any point would have +6 net approval 

 

Even if barely anything changes, Trump will say the economy is great again, crime is over, immigration is fixed, and world peace is achieved, and I guess we'll see if half the country still believes it come a few years from now

[dabunique]

oh so he revoked da equal employment  opportunity act of 1965 last night

 

 

[FameFatale]

 

[Ms. Togekiss]

It's only been 2 days and despite my efforts to stay away from politics for my own mental wellbeing I'm already ******* exhausted  it's going to be a long 4 years 

[Marianah Adkins]

16 hours ago, Relampago. said:

 

This tweet having 131k likes… but yeah Liberals are VERY different from Conservatives! 

 

It's sickening.

Libtards are basically conservatives with conscience— who refer it not out of altruism or genuine care but out of egotistic self righteousness. 

 

 

[wastedpotential]

3 minutes ago, dabunique said:

oh so he revoked da equal employment  opportunity act of 1965 last night

 

 

He nuked EO 11246, which was the framework under which all affirmative action/DEI requirements were set for all federal contractors. There are still some legal protections codified in legislation, but this was a big one dating back to LBJ, and probably sets the stage for further overturning of minority employment protections 

[FameFatale]

I need this every damn day for 4 years. Push back on them. 
 

 

[Thuggin]

It's funny how at one point we all thought the steady decline of religiosity in this country post-9/11 would lead to more trust in science and flourishing of social progressivism. In reality, while people may be going to church less, they're less in touch with the purported teachings of Jesus but more in touch with the purely tribalistic aspect of the religion they inherited from their parents. And also more susceptible to being taken advantage of by charlatans as they look for new absolute truths. I guess most people will always crave simple answers so they feel like they have control over their lives.

[FameFatale]

 

[ClashAndBurn]

Thats the thing about the Dems though. They aren't weak at all! They fight VERY forcefully…. Against the left, and for their donor base. Much moreso than they do against the right wing. But they've made it clear they do not want us in their coalition, yet consistently lash out and blame us when they lose.

[Marianah Adkins]

2 minutes ago, FameFatale said:

 

This issue is one part where the Republicans always manages to get under the Dems skin. 

We should be upholding the rights of undocumented laborers not only as residents but also as workers and yet you have libtards proudly displaying their smug contempt of them, always referring to them as "the ones who will clean their toilets, clean the streets. Republicans arent any better (they are way worse) but they get one thing right with pointing that these undocumented workers are basically legalized slaves (as usual with the Repugs, they cut out the essential detail that they are legalized for the sake of corporations wanting cheap and disposable labor). 

[Thuggin]

It just will never make sense to me that the majority of this country has become this right-wing on immigration. Because if you're supporting mass deportations from a cost saving perspective - rather than being against the "browning of America" - that hypothesis falls apart under the mildest scrutiny. Basically if you simply think about it for more than 10 seconds.

 

You're going to take millions of people who are already feeding, sheltering, and clothing themselves, and now spend a lot of money from the rest of us to continue doing those things? At least until they can be deported. But first you have to burden law enforcement to round them up and detain them, and I'm sure they'll need more funding for that. AND you need to hold trials for them, unless Trump decides undocumented people aren't entitled to due process. And then even if you do deport them, you need to arrange transportation for millions of people. All to do what exactly? Lose out on the tax revenue they do contribute while not being able to obtain the same benefits that legal citizens do?

 

And of course it shouldn't even need explaining why deporting even some people who were born here is asinine. What country will take them? But Americans are so myopic they don't even care to think that far ahead. Hell, they're probably okay with tossing them in the Atlantic Ocean and letting them swim to the nearest country.