Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
These idiots are quadrupling down on it. They really think this is their breakthrough argument and not something that makes them look like gullible morons who ate up a bunch of nazi propaganda? Or is it Trump ordering them to back him up on it so he isn't the only one looking like a moron?
It's worth pointing out that a good portion of the US media is laundering this narrative - straightforward Goebbels shit with zero consequences - only profits, the end of democracy, then a series of genocides if the narrative works.
How dumb do you have to be to confuse a chicken with a cat?
This is going to get someone killed. At this point I think they're actively trying to get someone killed for a news cycle that's not about how awful Trump is doing.
That's exactly what they are trying IMO.
The debate went so bad, and trump just look old and tired now.
That loony crazy conspiracy woman sure fits the same narrative too.
I wonder what's next, I wouldn't be surprised by something like JD vince coming out as gay or something just to buzz.
He's married with kids, no way he would do that. There will be a lot more doubling down on rascism until the election.
They aren't even attacking Kamala directly much anymore, it's just stochastic terrorism. That's all the munition they have left.
(Disclaimer: Not a US citizen, just an outside observer nervous about Orange Hitler getting a second chance at a 4th Reich.)
coming out as gay or something
His base would call him a groomer.
I didn’t think I could hate anyone more than Trump until this guy.
I'm afraid he won't go away after this election.
Oh but he will. Trump will put all the blame on Vance. He threw him under the bus during the debate and he'll do it again.
Vance will try to be reasonable but forgets he isn't dealing with reasonable people. Eventually he'll turn on Trump as a way to cozy up to "normal" Republicans. He'll get a few TV appearances and then disappear.
When 2028 comes around he might try to run in the primary but he'll get stomped on and be one of the first to drop out.
He's in the Senate now and that's where he'll stay. Maybe he'll get reelected, but I doubt he'll be around much longer than that.
Subscribed.
I like your positivity
Maybe they'll both drink themselves to death before the next election like Joe McCarthy
Hamberders are the anti-heroes we don't deserve!
He'll get beat out by Tucker Carlson or Ivanka Trump in 2028.
He’ll get a few TV appearances and then disappear
Same way with the old, weak, orange felon. He will wear out his moron base and MAGA will return to being normal people after his final defeat, but with psychological scars for the rest of their lives, much like the former Nazis after Germany was defeated.
Honestly for big boy I hope so, but don't know. Assuming he loses this year, and assuming he survives until 2028, I would hope he'd be gone, but I can't be sure. I assume 2026 midterms will give us a rough idea.
And even if Ronald McDonald finally gets him, someone's going to copy this brand of politics and continue this march towards fascism.
They'll try, but you need just the right personality to do that. Usually, when the personality at the center dies, the whole thing collapses and goes away for at least a few generations.
Rule 1 of Trump politics. Never admit you’re wrong. Even if you claimed Alf was real.
These MAGA monsters need to pay for the consequences of their lies. They need to be sued for every last dollar and spend the rest of their lives in jail for the deaths that will occur because of their lies.
I love that these christian fascists keep making themselves look like the psychos that we all know they are.
And those same people were fine with accepting RFKs endorsement, despite all of his roadkill stories.
A visual comparison of skinned cats prepared for laboratory use and whole-plucked chickens suggested the animals in the video are almost certainly not feline.
This is fucked up on so many levels.
When I took anatomy class in high school we dissected euthanized cats. I'm not sure if they do that anymore but it was standard at the time.
The thing is that if the loonies actually come across that unpleasant little fact check their only takeaway will be Science Murders Kitties: Checkmate Tay Tay.
Am I reading this right, it’s a gop plea for the vegan vote? lol this timeline is just goofy.
Can confirm that /c/vegan officially endorses the Trump/Vance ticket.
well that explains the past weeks craziness over there!
Obviously the story about Haitians is fake and racist. The real story is ~~that an American woman did get arrested for torturing, killing, and eating a cat in front of other people in Canton, Ohio, which is about 170 miles (~275 km) from Springfield.
Politifact: Arrest of a Canton, Ohio, woman unrelated to baseless claims about Haitian immigrants in Springfield~~ one comment down.
However, my preferred theory is that JD Vance heard that liberals eat pussy, and the random hateful sentiment generator in his head came up with migrants eating cats.
No. It's a completely fabricated story. People are now trying to associate it with real but unrelated events in order to sane-wash the Republicans.
This was eloquently stated and I'll need to remember that last line. Thank you!
These people may not have the legal right to defend themselves, verbally or physically. It is entirely possible that the current SCOTUS would deny them the right to free speech; the right to bear arms; the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure; the right not to incriminate themselves; the rights to speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, and legal counsel; or the protection from excessive bail and cruel or unusual punishment.
This is how the threatened "mass deportations" are going to happen, and it will be completely legal. Hell, deportations? They could be executed without trial, and that would still be legal.
I can speak to the 2A. My wife is a legal immigrant, not a citizen, so I checked around a good deal before getting her a pistol for Christmas.
She is 100% in the clear to own, carry and defend herself. (This is Florida, YMMV on carry laws.)
Are you confident that the 11th Circuit or SCOTUS will keep that in place? Are you confident that some fascists won't arrest and deport her on the basis that she doesn't have 2A rights, just in order to get it to SCOTUS?
Good for her and good on you for checking.
Just pointing out that one can have statutory rights - provided by law - that aren't outright in the Constitution. You are correct to add the "YMMV" caution - as in theory, it might be Florida's laws rather than the 2A which give your wife the right to carry. Florida's laws attempt to implement the 2A but in practice they might have opened the requirements wider than absolutely mandated by the 2A.
It is not a settled matter of law that the protections and rights provided by the Constitution to "the People" extend to non-citizens, even when those non-citizens are legal immgrants with long-standing ties to their community in the United States.
This is wrong. From the article you linked to,
Courts have held “the people” of the First and Fourth Amendments to include noncitizens, even including illegal aliens inside the country
And note that this part of the article cites earlier US Supreme Court decisions, e.g.
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990) (holding that aliens receive constitutional protections when they enter the country and have “developed substantial connections”)
What the article makes clear is that gun ownership by noncitizens hasn't been directly ruled on by the Supreme Court yet. Some district courts have ruled on legal permanent residents having this right (1)
Others have said that for temporary visa holders, they don't have the same right (2)
Of course, this is not to say that the SC cannot upend existing settled law. By reversing Roe vs Wade, they proved that they can. But that's different from saying the law hasn't been settled yet.
(1)
The District of Massachusetts, in Fletcher v. Haas, ruled a state law unconstitutional because it categorically excluded noncitizens from firearm ownership. The court found “no justification for refusing to extend the Second Amendment to lawful permanent residents” because they have “developed sufficient connection” with the United States.
(2)
In 2012, the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled that a state statute barring temporary visa holders from purchasing weapons was valid. The court distinguished Fletcher on the grounds that it applied only to permanent legal residents, and an open question existed as to Second Amendment protections for temporary residents. It ruled that those protections did not extend to temporary visa holders.
Different federal circuits have ruled in different ways on these matters. Considering the current SCOTUS' "interesting" interpretation of concepts like bodily integrity and immunity, I stand by my statement that constitutional rights and protections for non-citizens within the US is not a settled matter of law.
Different federal circuits have ruled in different ways on these matters.
Hence why I mentioned an SC decision, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, above. Can't get more settled than an SC decision - the only way that can be reversed is if the SC reverses itself later or if there's a constitutional amendment in response to the decision.
Considering the current SCOTUS' "interesting" interpretation of concepts like bodily integrity and immunity,
Would need to see the specific references to the rulings on this by the SC to come up with a fully informed response (and I apologize if these were actually mentioned in the article but I missed them).
If you're referring to the case that was recently decided as per https://www.justsecurity.org/95636/supreme-court-presidential-immunity/ then I'd argue that a) this is unrelated to the your statement below and b) is an example where the current SC has disrupted existing settled law.
I stand by my statement that constitutional rights and protections for non-citizens within the US is not a settled matter of law.
And I stand by my statement that it is settled law, albeit with the significant caveat that the current SC could undo that settled law any time the right case is brought before them.
I don't think we should waste anymore time tracking this story
Fucking weirdo who claims to be all country like can't figure out what a chicken like like.
Pathetic fucking weirdo.
At first glance, I read the title as "JD Vance shares vid claiming migrants are cats..." and wasn't surprised in the least.
Read that as “vid claiming migrants ARE cats” and I didn’t doubt it for a second.
Trump might actually believe some of what he says. JD knows he's a liar.