The Official 2024 Presidential Thread

[billisonboard]

Kamala Harris' Parents: All About Her Mom Shyamala Gopalan and Dad Donald J. Harris

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 21:18:25 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 3, 2024 21:00:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

tallguy - i actually have been begrudging you your position because i didn't understand it until now.

so you are saying that so long as the parents of non-citizens are pursuing a path to citizenship, that the children of those non-citizens should be granted citizenship?

note that i saved us the more lengthy explanation of why to bottle the point neatly.

also, did you read the article in Bulwark?  i think it is interesting.

I assume you meant non-citizen parents here?  No, that is not quite what I am saying.  I would prefer, as I stated in the clarification, that the children of legal non-citizens would "inherit" the legal status of the parents.  If they are legal residents under the law, then their children would be too.  The parents do not have citizenship so they cannot confer citizenship.  I acknowledge that they are not as easily excluded under the wording, though, so don't have nearly the same issue as with illegal immigrants.  It should be noted also that I do not stipulate that the parents must be pursuing a path to citizenship, because not all immigrants even want citizenship.  Some (or many) come here legally to work, but wish to remain citizens of their home country and plan to return later in life.  As I said, though, I do see both sides and likely would not argue for or against either if it were actually up for debate.  Does that explain it better?


I did read it.  I unfortunately went down the rabbit hole of trying to read all of the embedded linked articles as well, and then said, "Okay, that's enough" and closed it all.                

i think so, let me try again (pithily):

that non-citizen parents can confer the same rights as they have obtained?

does that encapsulate the idea?

[Opti]

Sept 3, 2024 21:22:45 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Kamala Harris' Parents: All About Her Mom Shyamala Gopalan and Dad Donald J. Harris

I feel this is a super impressive thing to teach your kids-


"She taught Maya and me a lesson ... she taught us to never complain about injustice, but do something about it," the vice president said.

[djAdvocate]

something very good economically is happening for Harris in the commodities market right now.

oil fell 5% today. now, mind you, this is because oil traders see an economic slowdown coming. but this is a THREE YEAR LOW, and will drive gas prices DOWN over the Summer. since for some (idiotic) reason presidents tend to be blamed for this stuff, i expect the benefit to accrue to Harris and Biden.

sometimes you are good.
and sometimes you are lucky.

and sometimes you are both.

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2024 21:57:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2024 21:18:25 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I assume you meant non-citizen parents here?  No, that is not quite what I am saying.  I would prefer, as I stated in the clarification, that the children of legal non-citizens would "inherit" the legal status of the parents.  If they are legal residents under the law, then their children would be too.  The parents do not have citizenship so they cannot confer citizenship.  I acknowledge that they are not as easily excluded under the wording, though, so don't have nearly the same issue as with illegal immigrants.  It should be noted also that I do not stipulate that the parents must be pursuing a path to citizenship, because not all immigrants even want citizenship.  Some (or many) come here legally to work, but wish to remain citizens of their home country and plan to return later in life.  As I said, though, I do see both sides and likely would not argue for or against either if it were actually up for debate.  Does that explain it better?


I did read it.  I unfortunately went down the rabbit hole of trying to read all of the embedded linked articles as well, and then said, "Okay, that's enough" and closed it all.                

i think so, let me try again (pithily):

that non-citizen parents can confer the same rights as they have obtained?

does that encapsulate the idea?

Basically, yes.  Again, though, that would only be my personal preference.  There is not really justification in the wording as written to exclude the U.S.-born children of legal non-citizens, since legal immigrants have in fact subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  According to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment they should receive citizenship.  I do not feel strongly enough one way or the other to have the argument in such a case, but would not be at all upset if it was overturned.   

[thyme4change]

Sept 2, 2024 11:12:51 GMT -5 Opti said:

I have to stop clicking on articles about Trump.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-praises-men-for-allowing-their-wives-to-attend-maga-rallies-without-them/ar-AA1pRryu?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=e956b513c5f24a8ab02bffbcf5709d11&ei=12

Trump praises men for ‘allowing’ their wives to attend MAGA rallies without them
Story by Alex Woodward • 1h • 2 min read

While his polling with women begins to sink, Donald Trump praised his supporters’s husbands for “allowing” their wives to attend his campaign rallies without them.

“Somebody said, ‘Women don’t like Donald Trump,’” he said from a rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania on August 30.

He pointed to a group of women from North Carolina who have traveled to 227 rallies.

“They’re wealthy as hell. Look at them. They’ve got nothing but cash,” he added. “Their husbands are great. But they allow them to go all over the country.

Anyone else see this? Time to click on articles on dogs and sales while getting ready for the next part of my day.

I heard someone say that mail-in voting puts pressure on women with conservative husbands. If they go into the booth alone - there isn’t much the husband can do - but sitting at the kitchen table and filling out the ballot may be subject to input.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 22:19:31 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 3, 2024 21:57:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think so, let me try again (pithily):

that non-citizen parents can confer the same rights as they have obtained?

does that encapsulate the idea?

Basically, yes.  Again, though, that would only be my personal preference.  There is not really justification in the wording as written to exclude the U.S.-born children of legal non-citizens, since legal immigrants have in fact subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  According to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment they should receive citizenship.  I do not feel strongly enough one way or the other to have the argument in such a case, but would not be at all upset if it was overturned.   

i guarantee you that they would use a broader stroke than the narrow exception you just articulated.

for that reason, i hope they leave it the hell alone.  though i DO find your position consistent.  which is.....so like you.  

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 22:19:58 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Sept 2, 2024 11:12:51 GMT -5 Opti said:

I have to stop clicking on articles about Trump.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-praises-men-for-allowing-their-wives-to-attend-maga-rallies-without-them/ar-AA1pRryu?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=e956b513c5f24a8ab02bffbcf5709d11&ei=12

Trump praises men for ‘allowing’ their wives to attend MAGA rallies without them
Story by Alex Woodward • 1h • 2 min read

While his polling with women begins to sink, Donald Trump praised his supporters’s husbands for “allowing” their wives to attend his campaign rallies without them.

“Somebody said, ‘Women don’t like Donald Trump,’” he said from a rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania on August 30.

He pointed to a group of women from North Carolina who have traveled to 227 rallies.

“They’re wealthy as hell. Look at them. They’ve got nothing but cash,” he added. “Their husbands are great. But they allow them to go all over the country.

Anyone else see this? Time to click on articles on dogs and sales while getting ready for the next part of my day.

I heard someone say that mail-in voting puts pressure on women with conservative husbands. If they go into the booth alone - there isn’t much the husband can do - but sitting at the kitchen table and filling out the ballot may be subject to input.

interesting perspective.  but their husbands are almost 100% guaranteed to not be around 100% of the time.  and if the wife can get it done while he is NOT around, they can MAIL it when they are out running errands.

i am not sure i see much of a difference either way, but i will admit that i had never considered your point.

[billisonboard]

How about we do away with citizenship based on any type of birthright and require everyone to earn it? 

[Tennesseer]

Trump gave another reason why he’s too old to run for president
And Democrats should not shy away from saying it.

In a Washington Post/ABC News poll taken after the presidential debate in June, 86% of Americans said President Joe Biden was too old to serve a second term. This survey and similar findings played an essential role in Biden’s decision to depart the presidential race, directly rebutting the president’s contention that only donors and media elites wanted him not to run. Vice President Kamala Harris’ momentum since entering the race, while running on a platform almost identical to Biden’s, has only confirmed the depth of voters’ concerns about the president’s age.

And yet since Biden dropped out, it has been largely forgotten that many voters are also rightly concerned about Donald Trump’s age. In the same Post/ABC poll, 60% of Americans, including 65% of independents, said Trump is too old for another term. But apart from a few initial articles and some jabs on social media, the question of Trump’s age has largely been forgotten.

Should the 78-year-old Trump win in November, he would be older upon taking office than Biden was when he took office in 2021. Trump has a history of heart disease yet habitually releases medical records lacking any useful details. His personal physician when he first ran for president later admitted Trump outright dictated the memo declaring that he would be “the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” In 2020, he and his team hid the seriousness of his Covid infection from the public. His assurances of his cognitive and physical health amount to “trust me.”

Four years in the White House did not age Trump as much as other presidents — perhaps because he spent less scheduled time working than any other president. But time comes for everyone, and Trump is no exception. Even a cursory contrast between Trump’s first and third runs for the presidency shows him clearly diminished from his initial campaign. His tendency to ramble has only grown, and the confident bluster of 2016 has given way to exhaustion. He loses track of his thoughts mid-sentence or even mid-word. He asks his supporters to vote 24 hours after asking them not to vote. He mixes up names with increasing frequency, confusing Nancy Pelosi with Nikki Haley and Biden with Barack Obama. He even struggled to keep his eyes open at his Manhattan criminal trial this year.

And Trump’s own staff knows his struggles. Just as Biden’s staff increasingly limited the president’s media and public appearances until June’s debate left it with no choice, so has Trump’s staff largely kept him confined to friendly venues. In his first two runs for the presidency, Trump frequently sat down with a wide range of media. This time around, he has stuck largely to Fox News and other such outlets. Trump’s disastrous appearance Wednesday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention showed exactly why his staff has built that bubble. Afterwards, at a rally in Harrisburg, Pa., Trump tried a new way to parse the issue. “81 is not old,” he insisted. “But [Biden] is a bad 81.” (In the same rally, he referred to Senate candidate Dave McCormick as Pennsylvania’s “future governor.”)

Rest of article here: Trump gave another reason why he’s too old to run for president

[ripvanwinkle]

Sept 3, 2024 18:40:56 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 3, 2024 12:29:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

refresh our memories, tallguy .  

Okay, so I am not in favor of birthright citizenship, and do not believe it should be the law of the land.  The key for me is of course the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."  There was a narrow exception carved out for foreign diplomats and agents not subject to U.S. laws and for Indians on reservations subject to treaty rather than law.  This is okay, but not sufficient. 

It should be remembered first that there was originally no such concept as an illegal alien.  In fact, there was no restriction on immigration at all and one of the charges in the case for independence (if I remember correctly) was that the King was restricting people from emigrating to America.  We WANTED to add people, and as many as we could.  That is not the case today, and has not been in my lifetime.  We have long had an immigration system and process to both limit the number of persons entering the country and control who they are and where they come from.  We simply cannot afford to bring in as many as wish to come, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.  I don't pretend to know what the numbers should be, but the fact remains that there is a system in place and it is a violation of law to avoid that process.  At any rate, there is no reason to think that because illegal aliens were not specifically named earlier that they should automatically be allowed to benefit.  The concept did not exist.

My primary objection to jus soli is to the idea that the children of illegal immigrants should be U.S. citizens simply because they were born on U.S. soil.  This flies in the face of logic.  By entering and remaining in the country illegally, the parents never subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  If they had, they would have been deported.  Their entry into the country was a violation of law, and their mere existence in this country is a continuing violation of law.  One of the basic tenets of jurisprudence is that one should not be allowed to profit from the committing of an illegal act.  That is the entire raison d'etre for the existence of Son of Sam laws.  Those were created to prevent David Berkowitz from potentially profiting by selling his story.  Similarly, American citizenship is a huge benefit to someone from another country.  Many people try for decades even after arriving and remaining here legally, working and supporting this country.  Logic and justice dictate that nobody should be allowed to receive citizenship as the "profit" from an illegal act.

I have far less of an issue (and can indeed see both sides) when referring to the children of those here legally.  They subjected themselves to the process, and the law, and have supposedly done everything asked of them to earn their place here.  I may prefer that citizenship follow the mother*, but would likely not argue for or against either side.  That is certainly not the case for those in the country illegally, and that status alone is sufficient for me to reject the idea.   


* To clarify, I would suggest that the children of non-citizens in the country legally should be allowed legal residency as their parents have, but citizenship should not be conferred simply by virtue of being born here. 

Tallguy...WOW!!That was eloquent. If anybody disagrees with it they are idiots. That's spot on. You could argue it before the US Supreme Court.

[thyme4change]

Sept 3, 2024 22:27:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2024 22:19:58 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I heard someone say that mail-in voting puts pressure on women with conservative husbands. If they go into the booth alone - there isn’t much the husband can do - but sitting at the kitchen table and filling out the ballot may be subject to input.

interesting perspective.  but their husbands are almost 100% guaranteed to not be around 100% of the time.  and if the wife can get it done while he is NOT around, they can MAIL it when they are out running errands.

i am not sure i see much of a difference either way, but i will admit that i had never considered your point.

Women who are independent will do what they do. It is women who aren’t so principled that may just do what their husband says. I don’t think this person was saying that men will force their wives to do something against their will - but if you are a low information voter and are on the fence and you get the ballot and think ‘maybe I should vote Harris’ and your husband says ‘we are Trump people’ she may just go with it.

I have told my husband I believe everything he says - he is well educated, smarter than me and is historically has been better informed (although that has changed some since 2016). Anytime I was 50/50 I would vote the way he was going to vote because I trust him. I can see how someone can affect people without I being abusive or oppression. We tend to value the opinions of people around us.

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2024 22:25:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2024 22:19:31 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Basically, yes.  Again, though, that would only be my personal preference.  There is not really justification in the wording as written to exclude the U.S.-born children of legal non-citizens, since legal immigrants have in fact subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  According to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment they should receive citizenship.  I do not feel strongly enough one way or the other to have the argument in such a case, but would not be at all upset if it was overturned.   

i guarantee you that they would use a broader stroke than the narrow exception you just articulated.

for that reason, i hope they leave it the hell alone.  though i DO find your position consistent.  which is.....so like you.  

Well thank you, I think.   

Unlike noted hypocrites such as Antonin Scalia, who consistently allowed his desired outcome to influence exactly how "originalist" he wanted to be, I determine my position based on the logic involved in analyzing the issue. 

And like many liberals, and almost zero conservatives, I find it not at all inconsistent to hold two differing positions on issues.  The first is my personal and private position, which is essentially, "What do I consider right for me personally in my life?"  The second is my public position, which is essentially, "What must or must not be necessary for us to maintain a free and just society?"  Sometimes they overlap.  Sometimes they diverge.  I am perfectly content to have them diverge, as long as I always remember which is which.  

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 22:38:22 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Sept 3, 2024 18:40:56 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Okay, so I am not in favor of birthright citizenship, and do not believe it should be the law of the land.  The key for me is of course the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."  There was a narrow exception carved out for foreign diplomats and agents not subject to U.S. laws and for Indians on reservations subject to treaty rather than law.  This is okay, but not sufficient. 

It should be remembered first that there was originally no such concept as an illegal alien.  In fact, there was no restriction on immigration at all and one of the charges in the case for independence (if I remember correctly) was that the King was restricting people from emigrating to America.  We WANTED to add people, and as many as we could.  That is not the case today, and has not been in my lifetime.  We have long had an immigration system and process to both limit the number of persons entering the country and control who they are and where they come from.  We simply cannot afford to bring in as many as wish to come, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.  I don't pretend to know what the numbers should be, but the fact remains that there is a system in place and it is a violation of law to avoid that process.  At any rate, there is no reason to think that because illegal aliens were not specifically named earlier that they should automatically be allowed to benefit.  The concept did not exist.

My primary objection to jus soli is to the idea that the children of illegal immigrants should be U.S. citizens simply because they were born on U.S. soil.  This flies in the face of logic.  By entering and remaining in the country illegally, the parents never subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  If they had, they would have been deported.  Their entry into the country was a violation of law, and their mere existence in this country is a continuing violation of law.  One of the basic tenets of jurisprudence is that one should not be allowed to profit from the committing of an illegal act.  That is the entire raison d'etre for the existence of Son of Sam laws.  Those were created to prevent David Berkowitz from potentially profiting by selling his story.  Similarly, American citizenship is a huge benefit to someone from another country.  Many people try for decades even after arriving and remaining here legally, working and supporting this country.  Logic and justice dictate that nobody should be allowed to receive citizenship as the "profit" from an illegal act.

I have far less of an issue (and can indeed see both sides) when referring to the children of those here legally.  They subjected themselves to the process, and the law, and have supposedly done everything asked of them to earn their place here.  I may prefer that citizenship follow the mother*, but would likely not argue for or against either side.  That is certainly not the case for those in the country illegally, and that status alone is sufficient for me to reject the idea.   


* To clarify, I would suggest that the children of non-citizens in the country legally should be allowed legal residency as their parents have, but citizenship should not be conferred simply by virtue of being born here. 

Tallguy...WOW!!That was eloquent. If anybody disagrees with it they are idiots. That's spot on. You could argue it before the US Supreme Court.

did you catch the part that the the 14th is at best, unclear, and at worst, directly contradicts this position in at least one respect.

note: Jefferson and Washington both fail this test.  their parents were not born in the US and never became US citizens.  but i am sure you and others will dismiss this case.

tallguy has been refining this position for as long as i have known him.  this is, indeed, a pretty solid, and consistent position.

i would add one more measure that some others have added, here.  the qualifications for VP are the same as president.  ergo, Harris has already passed this test.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 22:45:47 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 3, 2024 22:25:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i guarantee you that they would use a broader stroke than the narrow exception you just articulated.

for that reason, i hope they leave it the hell alone.  though i DO find your position consistent.  which is.....so like you.  

Well thank you, I think.   

Unlike noted hypocrites such as Antonin Scalia, who consistently allowed his desired outcome to influence exactly how "originalist" he wanted to be, I determine my position based on the logic involved in analyzing the issue. 

And like many liberals, and almost zero conservatives, I find it not at all inconsistent to hold two differing positions on issues.  The first is my personal and private position, which is essentially, "What do I consider right for me personally in my life?"  The second is my public position, which is essentially, "What must or must not be necessary for us to maintain a free and just society?"  Sometimes they overlap.  Sometimes they diverge.  I am perfectly content to have them diverge, as long as I always remember which is which.  

given all of these things, what is your position on Harris?

and yes, that was a compliment.  you are very consistent.  as are a few other posters here.  it is one of my metrics of "reasonable", which is a slightly lower standard in the minds of most people, but the highest standard i see fit to use on the boards.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 22:41:10 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Sept 3, 2024 22:27:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

interesting perspective.  but their husbands are almost 100% guaranteed to not be around 100% of the time.  and if the wife can get it done while he is NOT around, they can MAIL it when they are out running errands.

i am not sure i see much of a difference either way, but i will admit that i had never considered your point.

Women who are independent will do what they do. It is women who aren’t so principled that may just do what their husband says. I don’t think this person was saying that men will force their wives to do something against their will - but if you are a low information voter and are on the fence and you get the ballot and think ‘maybe I should vote Harris’ and your husband says ‘we are Trump people’ she may just go with it.

I have told my husband I believe everything he says - he is well educated, smarter than me and is historically has been better informed (although that has changed some since 2016). Anytime I was 50/50 I would vote the way he was going to vote because I trust him. I can see how someone can affect people without I being abusive or oppression. We tend to value the opinions of people around us.

yeah, and one can't overlook the abnormal imbalance of power in MANY marriages.  women can't afford to rock the boat because, in many cases, their path to opportunities they seek lies WITHIN that marriage.  and this has been true pretty much forever.  it is probably LESS true now than it ever has been, but Trump and Vance and others are trying to change that- to tip the power dynamic even more in their favor by denying reproductive rights.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 22:38:08 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Trump gave another reason why he’s too old to run for president
And Democrats should not shy away from saying it.

In a Washington Post/ABC News poll taken after the presidential debate in June, 86% of Americans said President Joe Biden was too old to serve a second term. This survey and similar findings played an essential role in Biden’s decision to depart the presidential race, directly rebutting the president’s contention that only donors and media elites wanted him not to run. Vice President Kamala Harris’ momentum since entering the race, while running on a platform almost identical to Biden’s, has only confirmed the depth of voters’ concerns about the president’s age.

And yet since Biden dropped out, it has been largely forgotten that many voters are also rightly concerned about Donald Trump’s age. In the same Post/ABC poll, 60% of Americans, including 65% of independents, said Trump is too old for another term. But apart from a few initial articles and some jabs on social media, the question of Trump’s age has largely been forgotten.

Should the 78-year-old Trump win in November, he would be older upon taking office than Biden was when he took office in 2021. Trump has a history of heart disease yet habitually releases medical records lacking any useful details. His personal physician when he first ran for president later admitted Trump outright dictated the memo declaring that he would be “the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” In 2020, he and his team hid the seriousness of his Covid infection from the public. His assurances of his cognitive and physical health amount to “trust me.”

Four years in the White House did not age Trump as much as other presidents — perhaps because he spent less scheduled time working than any other president. But time comes for everyone, and Trump is no exception. Even a cursory contrast between Trump’s first and third runs for the presidency shows him clearly diminished from his initial campaign. His tendency to ramble has only grown, and the confident bluster of 2016 has given way to exhaustion. He loses track of his thoughts mid-sentence or even mid-word. He asks his supporters to vote 24 hours after asking them not to vote. He mixes up names with increasing frequency, confusing Nancy Pelosi with Nikki Haley and Biden with Barack Obama. He even struggled to keep his eyes open at his Manhattan criminal trial this year.

And Trump’s own staff knows his struggles. Just as Biden’s staff increasingly limited the president’s media and public appearances until June’s debate left it with no choice, so has Trump’s staff largely kept him confined to friendly venues. In his first two runs for the presidency, Trump frequently sat down with a wide range of media. This time around, he has stuck largely to Fox News and other such outlets. Trump’s disastrous appearance Wednesday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention showed exactly why his staff has built that bubble. Afterwards, at a rally in Harrisburg, Pa., Trump tried a new way to parse the issue. “81 is not old,” he insisted. “But [Biden] is a bad 81.” (In the same rally, he referred to Senate candidate Dave McCormick as Pennsylvania’s “future governor.”)

Rest of article here: Trump gave another reason why he’s too old to run for president

another case study in the failure of the MSM to do its job in a "fair and balanced" way.

[tallguy]

Sept 4, 2024 0:17:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2024 22:45:47 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Well thank you, I think.   

Unlike noted hypocrites such as Antonin Scalia, who consistently allowed his desired outcome to influence exactly how "originalist" he wanted to be, I determine my position based on the logic involved in analyzing the issue. 

And like many liberals, and almost zero conservatives, I find it not at all inconsistent to hold two differing positions on issues.  The first is my personal and private position, which is essentially, "What do I consider right for me personally in my life?"  The second is my public position, which is essentially, "What must or must not be necessary for us to maintain a free and just society?"  Sometimes they overlap.  Sometimes they diverge.  I am perfectly content to have them diverge, as long as I always remember which is which.  

given all of these things, what is your position on Harris?

and yes, that was a compliment.  you are very consistent.  as are a few other posters here.  it is one of my metrics of "reasonable", which is a slightly lower standard in the minds of most people, but the highest standard i see fit to use on the boards.

I hope Harris beats the sh** out of Trump, and ends not only his political career but the adoration from the dumbest among us.  Wait, that probably wasn't what you were referring to....   

Harris is a natural-born citizen under the rules in effect at her birth and is perfectly qualified to run for and serve as both Vice-President and President of the United States.  Whatever the rules are, and whatever they become at some unknown future date, the ONLY thing to be sure of is that such changes can never be applied retroactively. 

There are certainly reasons why someone's citizenship should be revoked, and I have argued on these pages that continued support of a traitorous former president in his attempt to destroy American democracy should be a qualifying event.  An administrative rule change is not.

[happyhoix]

Trump admits he lost the 2020 election’by a whisker’ in an interview last night.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-lex-fridman-podcast-interview-b2606533.html

[scgal]

Sept 3, 2024 12:35:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2024 10:11:48 GMT -5 scgal said:

Walz is a turd. Infact anything in blue is no good. Hell I would take crazy Marg over Walz. 

Why?

She is a Republican. I said many many times before I do not want any Democrats in office. I never used to be like this but with this Harris coup I have become more and more upset. I didn't want Trump to run and I said I would not vote for him and I won't. He is still better than Harris she has done nothing in the Senate nothing as VP except to follow a mindless pos around wiping his ass

[Tennesseer]

Sept 4, 2024 8:37:45 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 3, 2024 12:35:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Why?

She is a Republican. I said many many times before I do not want any Democrats in office. I never used to be like this but with this Harris coup I have become more and more upset. I didn't want Trump to run and I said I would not vote for him and I won't. He is still better than Harris she has done nothing in the Senate nothing as VP except to follow a mindless pos around wiping his ass

As you do trump's fat, dirty ass. You'd probably change his diapers too if you could.

[Tennesseer]

The Borowitz Report

Vance Advocates Posting Ten Commandments Inside Uterus

PITTSBURGH (The Borowitz Report)—Calling the measure “long overdue,” JD Vance on Wednesday proposed posting the Ten Commandments inside every American uterus.

“Thanks to the woke mob, American kids today are being exposed to a godless society,” Vance alleged. “Having access to the Ten Commandments in utero will get them started on the right path.”

As for the logistical challenges inherent in his proposal, Vance said, “If we can develop the technology to keep our ‘precious’ cats free of fleas, I think we can get the word of God into 170 million uteri.”

“Communists like Kamala Harris and Tim Walz don’t want prayer in school,” he added. “If Donald Trump is president, we’re going to have prayer in womb.”

Vance Advocates Posting Ten Commandments Inside Uterus

[happyhoix]

The Arlington mess continues.

First Trump said the cemetery worker did not get pushed. She did.

Then he said he was just doing what the families wanted, so that made it ok. Nope, still illegal.

The current spin he is trying is to blame it on Harris. She arranged it just to make him look bad.

I remember teaching my son when he was about six that it’s better to confess and ask forgiveness than to keep trying to shift the blame. Too bad Trump had such shitty parents.

[happyhoix]

Sept 4, 2024 8:37:45 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 3, 2024 12:35:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Why?

She is a Republican. I said many many times before I do not want any Democrats in office. I never used to be like this but with this Harris coup I have become more and more upset. I didn't want Trump to run and I said I would not vote for him and I won't. He is still better than Harris she has done nothing in the Senate nothing as VP except to follow a mindless pos around wiping his ass

Why do you think it was a coup?

We have VPs for a reason. They step in when the president is incapacitated, sometimes temporarily (like when he’s undergoing surgery) and sometimes permanently (like when he’s assassinated).

When Biden participated in the debate it was clear he was having issues- pretty much everyone admitted that. So the VP stepped in.

True, no one did that during an election cycle before but then we never had such an old candidate before.

Most importantly, Biden has appeared in public with Harris advocating for her campaign. I don’t think he would do that if this was a coup.

Trump keeps calling it a coup because he wants to run against Biden, not Harris, but we have to think of the good of the country, not just what Trump wants.

[pulmonarymd]

How is it a coup? Biden voluntarily said he was pulling out. He had yet to be officially nominated. I think scgal has been drinking Trump' KoolAide. If Trump says something it is likely a lie. 

[tbop77]

Are they jealous that the DEMS put up a nominee that can speak sentences and they are stuck with Trump? 


I guess if you listen to the RW media, you will become the kind of person who hates anything DEM even if it is for the good of the country.  Heck, you might become the type of person who will go to the Capitol and try and over throw an election.  

[tallguy]

Sept 4, 2024 9:35:20 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

Are they jealous that the DEMS put up a nominee that can speak sentences and they are stuck with Trump? 


I guess if you listen to the RW media, you will become the kind of person who hates anything DEM even if it is for the good of the country.  Heck, you might become the type of person who will go to the Capitol and try and over throw an election.  

You know if all of those people truly wanted to Make America Great Again they would go home, get their guns (which we KNOW they have), put them to their heads, and pull the f***ing trigger.  Removing themselves from society would go FAR in making us what we should be as a nation.  

[Tennesseer]

Sept 4, 2024 8:48:18 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

The Arlington mess continues.

First Trump said the cemetery worker did not get pushed. She did.

Then he said he was just doing what the families wanted, so that made it ok. Nope, still illegal.

The current spin he is trying is to blame it on Harris. She arranged it just to make him look bad.

I remember teaching my son when he was about six that it’s better to confess and ask forgiveness than to keep trying to shift the blame. Too bad Trump had such shitty parents.

I don't believe I have ever seen anyone give a thumbs up with a big smile in front of a fallen soldier's grave.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Sept 4, 2024 8:48:18 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

The Arlington mess continues.

First Trump said the cemetery worker did not get pushed. She did.

Then he said he was just doing what the families wanted, so that made it ok. Nope, still illegal.

The current spin he is trying is to blame it on Harris. She arranged it just to make him look bad.

I remember teaching my son when he was about six that it’s better to confess and ask forgiveness than to keep trying to shift the blame. Too bad Trump had such shitty parents.

So she is too incompetent to be president but she is more than capable of orchestrating a plot to make him look bad by convincing his entire publicity team and the family of certain veterans that using Arlington as a backdrop for one of his videos is an awesome idea AND managed to ensure every single one of them remained silent on the matter?

Okey dokey.  
Thank God I don't understand the mental gymnastics going on there because then I'd be one of them. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 4, 2024 8:37:45 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 3, 2024 12:35:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Why?

She is a Republican. I said many many times before I do not want any Democrats in office. I never used to be like this but with this Harris coup I have become more and more upset. 

ok, so you think that there was a "coup", and that is why you don't want her?  if it is MORE than that, please say WHY.

Biden quit the race of his own accord.  if he had not, he would still be the candidate.