The 45th POTUS - Donald J. Trump

[96583UP]

the GOP are hilarious with their military talk at the border - the absolute worst thing they could do for their legitimacy is end up with a situation where there is video of white people (rogue militia or uniform military) shooting and killing unarmed latino women and children at the border

fortunately for them, the caravan is still 18,000 miles away and by foot they are on pace to arrive early in the 2nd year of Michael Bloomberg's first term

[McParadigm]

[dimejinky99]

Wow

[Bi_3]

I had forgotten about the birth tourism phrasing.

Weird thing is, even liberal media has been bitching about "Birth Tourism."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bi ... mi-n836121

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fe ... ts-n315996

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 16f5143664

And that site of the stabbing of many babies in NYC was a "birth tourist" site: https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspected-bi ... bing-spree

So there's bound to be some kind of SCOTUS decision defining this, since nobody saw this coming in 1868.

(The 14th Amendment was written to give slaves and descendants of slaves American citizenship, negating the bad Dred Scott SCOTUS decision.)

This Supreme Court decision attempted to settle the legal status of slaves in free territories to avert a civil war, but it provoked one instead. Dred Scott, who was born a slave in Missouri, traveled with his master to the free territory of Illinois. As a result, Scott later sued his master for freedom, which the lower courts usually granted. However, when the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, it ruled that Scott would remain a slave because as such he was not a citizen and could not legally sue in the federal courts. Moreover, in the words of Chief Justice Roger Taney, black people free or slave could never become U. S. citizens and they “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” The dissenting justices pointed out that in some states people of color were already considered citizens when the Constitution was ratified. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by granting citizenship to all those born in the United States, regardless of color.

I’m not so sure that last sentence is accurate in terms of “all those born in”.

[McParadigm]

Happy Friday

[Strat]

yea but jobs and economy and tax cuts.

[Electromatic]

yea but jobs and economy and tax cuts.

Se we aren't bringing up the DOW these days?


The first question I'd ask Sarah Sanders is how her 401K is doing.

[4/5]

Regarding the quote from the good Senator in 1867 and the text of the Citizenship Clause:
Who in the U.S. is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.? Foreign ambassadors. Anybody else in this country is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and the state wherein they reside. I think that STRONGLY suggests the proper way to interpret the Amendment.

Just to add to this, the "subject to the jurisdiction" would also have excluded Native Americans who still had sovereignty and weren't subject federal jurisdiction. They were granted citizenship by an act of Congress later on. So I maintain that the amendment itself is in fact very clear on the issue of birthright citizenship.

[washing machine]

jobs and economy and tax cuts.

All good things to consider when voting on Tuesday. Locally, then globally.

[Bi_3]

yea but jobs and economy and tax cuts.

Add healthcare and these are consistently the most important things to the majority of voters vs. what the muppet babies on Twitter would have to you believe. The question is has the long term stable state of the of the US economy over the last few years become taken for granted by a significant enough set of voters that they will vote against incumbents and the status quo of morons vs bigots.

[digster]

Judging by the way the Republicans have framed their messaging for practically this whole election cycle, they certainly don't seem to think their base and independents are voting based on the state of the economy. It would make no sense for them to run away from the economy, except for them either believing that a) Republicans don't care, or are voting for other reasons, or b) people know the economy is doing well, but do not give Trump/GOP credit.

[run2death]

Look over there!

IRAN!!!!!!

[Bi_3]

Look over there!

IRAN!!!!!!

2death?

[run2death]

Why are Republicans so fucking obsessed with Iran?

That shit was almost 40 years ago now.

[tragabigzanda]

There's a huge disconnect between the GOP's messaging on the economy, and the rural (agricultural sympathetic) voters they need. I don't know the numbers -- how much of our recent economic growth is in manufacturing, or other non-ag goods and services? -- but the trade wars and resulting farmer bail out are actually wreaking havoc on farmers. Corn producers are now getting pennies on the dollar for their bushels of corn, so they probably don't care that the economy is on an upswing when they don't get to come along for the ride.

[washing machine]

I wish I had more resources to draw from to answer or at least discuss that claim, trag. Cruz comes across as stronger than Beto to me when it comes to farm organization endorsements, but I suspect some wool is being pulled over some eyes here.

It’s not that farmers in Texas seem to like Cruz for direct reasons related to cash for crops. It feels more like Cruz is a friend to irrigation, an enemy of undocumented labor, and other secondary farming issues that farmers seem to be supporting. Feels like Cruz can get these farmers water and jobs, whereas Beto would get them some federal grants that they wouldn’t really see, so they like Cruz more.

[digster]

What.

[Peeps]

Look over there!

IRAN!!!!!!

[tragabigzanda]

I wish I had more resources to draw from to answer or at least discuss that claim, trag. Cruz comes across as stronger than Beto to me when it comes to farm organization endorsements, but I suspect some wool is being pulled over some eyes here.

It’s not that farmers in Texas seem to like Cruz for direct reasons related to cash for crops. It feels more like Cruz is a friend to irrigation, an enemy of undocumented labor, and other secondary farming issues that farmers seem to be supporting. Feels like Cruz can get these farmers water and jobs, whereas Beto would get them some federal grants that they wouldn’t really see, so they like Cruz more.

Two things here strike me as uniquely Texan:

1. Yours is primarily a beef state. Which would be very different from the corn and grain economic systems of the mid-west.


2. You're claiming they're against undocumented labor? Which would be a hardline approach quite different from the more moderate view of "we need these immigrants to make the numbers work, let's figure out a visa program that supports this." This view is propagated by FarmAid, Salon, New Food Economy, and perhaps most compellingly, by the Organization For Competitive Markets, who makes the case for migrant laborers importance to meatpacking and processing.

I'm not suggesting that your take on the machinations in TX are at all wrong, just that this sounds like another case of TX going its own way. What about the meatpacking and processing there? I know those jobs are frequently held by immigrants, but is there any serious push to transition those positions to US natives?

[washing machine]

thanks for the jumping off points. This was the counter argument and resources I was looking for.

Regarding a farming push against undocumented labor:

sure, the bottom line looks better when you can pay workers less and not claim them on taxes, but then what about the qualified farmhands who are out of farming jobs and are registered to vote in rural red districts?

(We can continue this in the midterm thread. I thought I was posting in that thread, actually. Oops.)