IceBear wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 10:16 am
He wants to slap 25% tariffs on us (all the reasons he has been giving for it - border security, trade deficient) are bullshit. If they are fixed, he'll find another reason. Once he has us in economic ruin he's just hoping that we beg to become a state so we can get out of the recession/depression that he caused. So he's not annexing Canada, we are asking to be a state (I will seriously look at moving to Australia or somewhere far from this BS if that happens)
We'll be in economic ruins from those tariffs before you are. Remember: Trump is an economic idiot.
But my point was not to lessen the threat of Trump to everyone. But rather a warning not to be distracted by his attempts to throw up smokescreens that hide his attempts to do shitty things he can actually do.
"OOOH OOOH LOOK AT ME! PLEASE TELL ME I DID GOOD! DID I SUFFICIENTLY KISS YOUR ASS SIR? YOU'RE TRULY THE BESTEST, GREATEST, BIGLIEST PRESIDENT THERE EVER WAS! ALL THOSE OTHERS WERE JUST POOPIE-HEADS COMPARD TO YOU DONALD! PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEEEEE!" - Andy Ogles, probably
Also semi-hilariously it was written to prevent Obama from running for a third term (since it excludes people who have been elected to consecutive terms).
There are enough blue states to prevent ratification of this, but I bet it gets farther than one would think (I suspect some version of this will get passed by Congress and ratified by some red states).
Not to give them too much credit, but I think the argument wasn't that they weren't citizens, but that they weren't necessarily citizens under the 14th Amendment. They're citizens under a separate, later law (passed in 1924, I think). Part of the "under the Jurisdiction" language was meant to exclude Native Americans, if what I've read can be trusted, due to treaties with Tribes and promises that we wouldn't make them citizens without their consent.
So if people born here are no longer citizens because they aren't under our jurisdiction then wouldn't that mean that they can break the law and not be charged?
Also if they aren't under our jurisdiction then how can we force our immigration laws on them?
That's the absurdity of the whole claim. The pool of people in the US who are not subject to US jurisdiction is very small these days - largely diplomats and their family here that have diplomatic immunity.
Punisher wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 12:48 pm
So in theory this would actually be good for undocumented immigrants? Or any immigrants?
If by good you mean rounded up a and put on military flights out of the country, sure. It's good. Free vacay.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "“I like taking the guns early...to go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.” -President Donald Trump. "...To guard, protect, and maintain his liberty, the freedman should have the ballot; that the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the Ballot-box, the Jury-box, and the Cartridge-box, that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country." - Frederick Douglass MYT
Blackhawk wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 12:47 pm
I think they're playing off of the 'tribal sovereignty' aspect of the reservation system, which makes jurisdiction more complex.
Right, but it became moot with the 1924(?) legislation which made Native Americans citizens regardless.
Punisher wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 12:48 pm
So in theory this would actually be good for undocumented immigrants? Or any immigrants?
If by good you mean rounded up a and put on military flights out of the country, sure. It's good. Free vacay.
But if they're not under our jurisdiction then doesn't that also mean they are not subject to our laws? Just like diplomats.
Or am I misunderstanding this?
By misunderstanding I don't mean Trump's intent. Just the way the executive order is written. Just like his antitrans executive order was written so that we are all now legally female. (Whoch would also mean that Trump is now in a lesbian marriage)
President Trump on Friday teased signing an upcoming executive order targeting the Federal Emergency Management Agency that could overhaul or eliminate the entire agency.
Trump, during a visit to survey damage caused by Hurricane Helene in North Carolina, took questions from reporters in Fletcher where he suggested such an order. He continued to criticize the agency suggesting that bringing in FEMA was a waste of time for states.
“I’ll also be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA or maybe getting rid of FEMA. I think, frankly, FEMA’s not good,” Trump said.
“I think when you have a problem like this, I think you want to go and — whether it’s a Democrat or Republican governor — you want to use your state to fix it and not waste time calling FEMA and then FEMA gets here and they don’t know the area, they’ve never been to the area,” he added.
“They want to give you rules that you’ve never heard about, they want to give you people that aren’t as good as the people you already have. And FEMA’s turned out to be a disaster.”
President Trump confirmed Friday he stripped security protections from former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, the latest in a pattern of retaliation against political adversaries.
Why it matters: All of Trump's targets have received death threats during a time of heightened political violence.
The former NIAID director lost his protection late Thursday night.
Fauci has repeatedly been forthright about death threats against himself and his family. He's now hired his own security detail, per the New York Times.
"You can't have a security detail for the rest of your life because you worked for government," Trump said on Fox News on Friday, when asked about Fauci.
Says the man with a history of inciting violence against said government worker.
ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 12:19 pm
Not to give them too much credit, but I think the argument wasn't that they weren't citizens, but that they weren't necessarily citizens under the 14th Amendment. They're citizens under a separate, later law (passed in 1924, I think). Part of the "under the Jurisdiction" language was meant to exclude Native Americans, if what I've read can be trusted, due to treaties with Tribes and promises that we wouldn't make them citizens without their consent.
That's the way I read it too, although the ambiguity means it's easier weaponize, and I wouldn't put it past him to do so. It'll mean that he'll be able to undercut them if he wants to, using whatever interpretation he's using.
waitingtoconnect wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:53 am
The left needs to decide if it’s worth fighting trump on one of the few areas of trumps policy that most Americans could well support giving him airspace to do his meme coins and other highly questionable stuff.
You think most Americans would support revoking birthright citizenship?
What I’m saying is it comes down to is it worth putting something like this as a priority in terms of fighting back or is it better to focus on the most unrealistic nut case ideas like annexing Canada.
I'd put as a priority the one that is actually happening. He wants us to expend energy resisting something outlandish like annexing Canada.
Smoove_B wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 2:35 pm
Next up, FEMA:
President Trump on Friday teased signing an upcoming executive order targeting the Federal Emergency Management Agency that could overhaul or eliminate the entire agency.
Trump, during a visit to survey damage caused by Hurricane Helene in North Carolina, took questions from reporters in Fletcher where he suggested such an order. He continued to criticize the agency suggesting that bringing in FEMA was a waste of time for states.
“I’ll also be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA or maybe getting rid of FEMA. I think, frankly, FEMA’s not good,” Trump said.
“I think when you have a problem like this, I think you want to go and — whether it’s a Democrat or Republican governor — you want to use your state to fix it and not waste time calling FEMA and then FEMA gets here and they don’t know the area, they’ve never been to the area,” he added.
“They want to give you rules that you’ve never heard about, they want to give you people that aren’t as good as the people you already have. And FEMA’s turned out to be a disaster.”
Let me be the first to say, fuck this guy.
I'm going to hazard a guess and say you AREN'T the first to say that...nor will you be the last.
"You laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at you because you're all the same." ~Jonathan Davis
"The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives." ~Robert M. Hutchins
Punisher wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 3:44 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one of the points of FEMA that the states don't always have the resources to handle disasters?
The entire intent here is for Trump to be the sole arbiter to withhold federal disaster relief and distribute it only to those places that he feels have sufficiently kissed his ass or have relented to his completely unrelated political demands.
It’s holding federal aid hostage until he gets what he wants, basically.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Punisher wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 3:44 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one of the points of FEMA that the states don't always have the resources to handle disasters?
And that disasters cause problems that don't respect state lines?
Fuck it, why not just push disaster response down to the level of county governments?
When do you guys start pushing back on your elected officials that this wasn't what you voted for? And, yes, I understand the majority here didn't vote for Trump, but until those that pass these laws fear for their jobs rather than kiss the ring, I don't see them standing up to him
IceBear wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 4:04 pm
When do you guys start pushing back on your elected officials that this wasn't what you voted for? And, yes, I understand the majority here didn't vote for Trump, but until those that pass these laws fear for their jobs rather than kiss the ring, I don't see them standing up to him
In the Emergency Management community, there's hope that all state governors are going to push back against what he's claiming because (1) they know they cannot handle / support response without a FEMA backstop and (2) they like having someone above them to "blame" when the response is slow/limited/less than stellar.
I'm not entirely convinced that will happen. It seems much more likely the Red states know Trump isn't going to target them for punishment after an emergency and this will encourage them to enact gross things to ensure he'll help them. Transactional Trump already said he'd help CA if they enact voter ID laws, so we're entering a new age after four days of his nonsense.
I don't really know how voters push back when Trump seemingly has the authority to erase an entire department and take control of their funds with the stroke of his pen. I didn't think that was possible, but I guess we'll just sit and wait for Congress to do something? Honestly, we might be through the guardrails at this point.
IceBear wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 4:04 pm
When do you guys start pushing back on your elected officials that this wasn't what you voted for? And, yes, I understand the majority here didn't vote for Trump, but until those that pass these laws fear for their jobs rather than kiss the ring, I don't see them standing up to him
For individual citizens, the system is set up so that there's very little we can do between elections (other than organize towards the next election).
Hundreds of thousands or even millions of people could take to the streets and march in every major city, and the only result would be (maybe) some vulnerable representatives adjusting their positions. And even then, the next crisis to grab the news cycle will take the pressure off.
I mean, there's always the possibility of some kind of scattered political violence, but all that would do is justify a total authoritarian crackdown.
I mean the following without snark: does Canada have better options? Is it possible for citizens to force the ouster of government, or is that something the elected officials themselves determine?
IceBear wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 4:04 pm
When do you guys start pushing back on your elected officials that this wasn't what you voted for? And, yes, I understand the majority here didn't vote for Trump, but until those that pass these laws fear for their jobs rather than kiss the ring, I don't see them standing up to him
For individual citizens, the system is set up so that there's very little we can do between elections (other than organize towards the next election).
Hundreds of thousands or even millions of people could take to the streets and march in every major city, and the only result would be (maybe) some vulnerable representatives adjusting their positions. And even then, the next crisis to grab the news cycle will take the pressure off.
I mean, there's always the possibility of some kind of scattered political violence, but all that would do is justify a total authoritarian crackdown.
I mean the following without snark: does Canada have better options? Is it possible for citizens to force the ouster of government, or is that something the elected officials themselves determine?
Officially, morally, and logically you are correct in the emphasized part above.
However, there *ARE* some interpretations of the 2nd amendment that allow for “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”
I am not in any way, shape, or form advocating for that. The right tried that on Jan. 6 and if failed, but still...technically there is an alternative.
"You laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at you because you're all the same." ~Jonathan Davis
"The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives." ~Robert M. Hutchins
Ok, I wasn't sure if it could be some sort of campaign - letter writing, what have you, where the general populous could write to the congressman / woman and governors to express their concern. Was thinking if they felt they won't get votes in the mid-terms they might not vote for the laws. I had read that was how Musk bullied a few Republicans in the past that were thinking of siding with Democrats on some votes
Enough wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2025 3:39 pm
Looking at uni admins around the country, it does not give me great confidence that leadership will not kowtow to the orange one.
Viktor Orban pacified Hungarian universities by tightening control over their funding. It went pretty smoothly. Trump is going the same way. We will see how many American academics will be ready to risk their careers in defense of #AcademicFreedom
.
NIH funding has a huge influence on universities and so it will be a test.
The crazy thing is I studied in Hungary on fellowship right when Orban's party was coming into power and let's just say they really flipped from the people I met when I was there. I even got to meet Fidesz folks like Orban himself in the early 90s. Back then they were raging idealists that would recoil in horror over the very same things they are doing now. It's wild to see how power apparently can corrupt one pretty thoroughly.
Another connection I have is one of my best friends in life turned out to be a maga talking head (Michael Shellenberger). When we were in high school he started an ACLU chapter and in college was a raging progressive. Now he is one of the main scribes of the twitter files for Elon, regularly appears on Fox, Rogan, etc. and even got a gig as Chair of Politics, Censorship, and Free Speech at the safe-space University of Austin that Bari Weiss has been grifting on. Seeing his descent hurts a lot. I was often in disagreement with him but very proud of him for his work when he was younger in working with Earth First in the redwoods and then later becoming a leading advocate for resuming nuclear energy. Now he comes to my state to help headline an anti-trans conference and as of late he's even gotten in on the UFO grift and has become something of a hero to the many ufo communities on reddit and elsewhere. Shit is so weird to see in person in one's life.
Do you think he believes the bullshit or is he just a grifter?
I looked up his speaking fees when they were online once and it seems he gets like $50k a pop at times, so the grift has to be a factor. He's also bragged about booking a 7 figure donation for his foundation on a ski lift. But he's always been someone who passionately believes in something on the extreme end of things. When he was on the progressive side he would often go further in his beliefs than I ever felt comfortable back then as well. So my guess is a little of column A and a bit of column B. Honest question, if there is a ketamine click going on in San Fran could that be a factor? He's never said he uses it, but I have wondered if the recent extra weirdness of the valley might somehow be linked.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
Punisher wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 3:44 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one of the points of FEMA that the states don't always have the resources to handle disasters?
The entire intent here is for Trump to be the sole arbiter to withhold federal disaster relief and distribute it only to those places that he feels have sufficiently kissed his ass or have relented to his completely unrelated political demands.
It’s holding federal aid hostage until he gets what he wants, basically.
ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 5:06 pm
All of my elected representatives are Democrats until you get to the White House. They already oppose all of this.
All mine are full-blown MAGA.
Since I'm not a MAGA, they don't give a shit what I think. To them I'm an "enemy", not a constituent.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Enough wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2025 3:39 pm
Looking at uni admins around the country, it does not give me great confidence that leadership will not kowtow to the orange one.
Viktor Orban pacified Hungarian universities by tightening control over their funding. It went pretty smoothly. Trump is going the same way. We will see how many American academics will be ready to risk their careers in defense of #AcademicFreedom
.
NIH funding has a huge influence on universities and so it will be a test.
The crazy thing is I studied in Hungary on fellowship right when Orban's party was coming into power and let's just say they really flipped from the people I met when I was there. I even got to meet Fidesz folks like Orban himself in the early 90s. Back then they were raging idealists that would recoil in horror over the very same things they are doing now. It's wild to see how power apparently can corrupt one pretty thoroughly.
Another connection I have is one of my best friends in life turned out to be a maga talking head (Michael Shellenberger). When we were in high school he started an ACLU chapter and in college was a raging progressive. Now he is one of the main scribes of the twitter files for Elon, regularly appears on Fox, Rogan, etc. and even got a gig as Chair of Politics, Censorship, and Free Speech at the safe-space University of Austin that Bari Weiss has been grifting on. Seeing his descent hurts a lot. I was often in disagreement with him but very proud of him for his work when he was younger in working with Earth First in the redwoods and then later becoming a leading advocate for resuming nuclear energy. Now he comes to my state to help headline an anti-trans conference and as of late he's even gotten in on the UFO grift and has become something of a hero to the many ufo communities on reddit and elsewhere. Shit is so weird to see in person in one's life.
Do you think he believes the bullshit or is he just a grifter?
I looked up his speaking fees when they were online once and it seems he gets like $50k a pop at times, so the grift has to be a factor. He's also bragged about booking a 7 figure donation for his foundation on a ski lift. But he's always been someone who passionately believes in something on the extreme end of things. When he was on the progressive side he would often go further in his beliefs than I ever felt comfortable back then as well. So my guess is a little of column A and a bit of column B. Honest question, if there is a ketamine click going on in San Fran could that be a factor? He's never said he uses it, but I have wondered if the recent extra weirdness of the valley might somehow be linked.
In my experience extremism is more of a personality trait than a specific set of beliefs. So it's much more common to go from one extreme to the other than from an extreme to the middle.
ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 5:06 pm
All of my elected representatives are Democrats until you get to the White House. They already oppose all of this.
And all of mine are Republicans from a solidly red state. They're not terribly worried about losing blue votes that they know they weren't going to get anyway.
The simple fact is that the kind of pressure you're describing (talking to IceBear) is only relevant in a few places in the country where there is a genuinely competitive contest and the votes actually matter.
IceBear wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 5:54 pm
Thanks...I wasn't sure how it worked there. Was hoping there was a chance, but seems like no unless you are in a swing state I guess?
Not necessarily in a swing state, but in a state/district/etc that has close races (which don't always correspond to swing states.) Like those members of Congress who happen to get elected as Republicans from places that usually vote Democrat. Those people care about pressure.
But even then, you're hoping the people you elected would stand up *now* and oppose whatever is happening - even in the Red states where their representatives know this is wrong, like the 9 (?) GOP House members from California that are currently learning that their communities are now subject to the whims of a tinpot dictator.
You'll forgive me if I don't believe upcoming midterm elections or the 2028 elections are part of any decision making right now. Contacting them (overwhelming them) with requests to push back against this is all voters can do right now, and hope that when the time comes they do the right thing.
ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 5:06 pm
All of my elected representatives are Democrats until you get to the White House. They already oppose all of this.
Except for Mayor, mine were until this year. Big shift.
Hyena wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 4:53 pm
However, there *ARE* some interpretations of the 2nd amendment that allow for “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”
I think this interpretation is a myth. The Amendment itself only speaks of a "well-regulated militia," and rebellion is by definition unregulated. Even George Washington put down an armed rebellion in Virginia during his second term.
There's no conceivable world in which the government would accept the demands of an armed rebellion because "Well, the 2ndA gives them the right."
The only *practical* effect of the 2ndA in history has been to allow some Americans to restrict the rights of other, less privileged Americans. It has never once been used to prevent or correct government behavior.
