No More Identity Politics by THG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2025 12:56 PM

A storm of dissent against MAGA is brewing into a hurricane

The momentum has shifted. President Donald Trump’s shock-and-awe approach to MAGA governance is generating shock and disgust among Americans.

Massive protest rallies brought millions of people into the streets of big cities and small towns in every state on April 5. People showed up for more reasons than could fit on any one of the many brilliant homemade signs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-a-storm-of-dissent-aga
inst-maga-is-brewing-into-a-hurricane/ar-AA1CY5BV?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDBBAN&cvid=4fe707eec57843e88d017a603b217895&ei=12

"The momentum has shifted."

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2025 1:56 PM

You've been saying this for 3 months every day and yet it never materializes.

You don't have a political party, Ted. There is no opposition to Trump.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2025 2:07 PM

'Likely to do severe damage': Conservative group sues Trump for 'unprecedented power grab'

A conservative, pro-business nonprofit group is now taking President Donald Trump's administration to court, alleging that he is stepping outside the bounds of his authority to set new tariff rates.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/likely-to-do-severe-damage-con
servative-group-sues-trump-for-unprecedented-power-grab/ar-AA1CV2dc?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDBBAN&cvid=45158796b9bc481f830c4629da93dc5a&ei=100

No opposition? You need to get out more.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2025 2:29 PM

'Mugged by reality': How the 'dissident right' is rebelling against MAGA

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mugged-by-reality-how-the-diss
ident-right-is-rebelling-against-maga/ar-AA1CX8JC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDBBAN&cvid=45158796b9bc481f830c4629da93dc5a&ei=184

No opposition Jack? Are you sure?

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2025 3:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
'Likely to do severe damage': Conservative group sues Trump for 'unprecedented power grab'

A conservative, pro-business nonprofit group is now taking President Donald Trump's administration to court, alleging that he is stepping outside the bounds of his authority to set new tariff rates.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/likely-to-do-severe-damage-con
servative-group-sues-trump-for-unprecedented-power-grab/ar-AA1CV2dc?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDBBAN&cvid=45158796b9bc481f830c4629da93dc5a&ei=100

No opposition? You need to get out more.

T

There is no opposition to Trump.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2025 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

You've been saying this for 3 months every day and yet it never materializes.

You don't have a political party, Ted. There is no opposition to Trump.

No opposition you say. 3 months you say. In January Trump was at +1 with independents. Now, he is at -29.

tick tock dummy

T

Trump gets the news he’s feared from his OWN voters.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2025 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

You've been saying this for 3 months every day and yet it never materializes.

You don't have a political party, Ted. There is no opposition to Trump.

No opposition, 3 months you say. And I'll remind you that these sentiments are mostly based on anticipation of what is going to happen with the cost of everything. Once it does happen, oh boy.

T

Opinion: Trump now owns the creaky economy, lock, stock and imported barrel

Six weeks ago, a bare majority of the public approved of Trump’s handling of the economy. Now, a clear majority disapprove.

The go-to Republican response is to blame Biden for our national economic woes, but the CBS poll demonstrates that this sorry excuse will fall on deaf ears. If the bad financial news continues into 2026, Republicans in competitive districts and states will need to scramble to hang on to their seats

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/opinion-trump-now-owns-the-cre
aky-economy-lock-stock-and-imported-barrel/ar-AA1CYT4T?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDBBAN&cvid=0a1dd1a147804b6787c7b8c786d632b1&ei=100

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2025 6:37 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2025 9:15 PM

Oh yeah?

Were were you the last 4 years?

Glad to see you come around now. Although with a dead party it doesn't appear that you really have any choice in the matter.

Had you been reasonable on issues like this, Harris would probably be President right now. But you weren't so she isn't.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2025 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

You've been saying this for 3 months every day and yet it never materializes.

You don't have a political party, Ted. There is no opposition to Trump.

No opposition, 3 months you say. And I'll remind you that these sentiments are mostly based on anticipation of what is going to happen with the cost of everything. Once it does happen, oh boy.

IF it happens.

99% of every prediction you or your article writers and clickbait video creators make does not ever happen.

I can only think of one since I sobered up and met you for the first time, and it wasn't a prediction from you. It was when Peter Z predicted that EVs were going to be a huge flop.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2025 2:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Massive protest rallies brought millions of people into the streets of big cities and small towns in every state on April 5. People showed up for more reasons than could fit on any one of the many brilliant homemade signs.

"The momentum has shifted."
T

That is how they are trying to spin this?

I keep hearing actuality clips from these.
The kids don't know what they are protesting, who they are protesting, what their signs say, what the words on the signs mean, they keep trying to get the answers from their sheets of Talking Points, which they were given along with the signs, from those people over there, who are the ones paying them to be there.
What a joke. Can't even pretend to protest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2025 10:44 AM

I post what is being reported on. When others here argue they think they are arguing against me. They are not. So, they should offer up facts to counter what I post; they don’t. Much of what I post are plain and simple facts. Yes, I will post some opinion pieces. If, in my opinion they ring true. In most of these opinion pieces, facts are being expressed to make the point. Some do express a philosophy.

If my posts appear to be mostly against republicans and Trump, it is because of the danger both present to America. I offer as evidence of that, how the rest of the world is dumping, getting out of Americas bond market. How Trump is pushing to destroy the rule of law. The list of his improper behaviors is endless. It all points to his believingg he will never leave office.

Much of what I see in the form of push back from others here is based on emotions, no facts to back their opinions. Just insults and lies hurled at everything and everyone. Bullshit propaganda that can’t stand up to facts.

Jack has been making shit up about my political leanings for so long that he has convinced himself they are true. He has been posting lies and conspiracies for so long now, he believes them to be true. Most of what he does, he does as a troll. An angry world hating incel. So, no surprise he posts the way he does.

JSF posts lean one way politically one day, and another the next. There’s no rhyme or reason for what he posts. Often, he posts lies that are currently being pushed to distract from truth. Posting known untruths shows a lack of care for what the truth is. That’s a disqualifier.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2025 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:

Massive protest rallies brought millions of people into the streets of big cities and small towns in every state on April 5. People showed up for more reasons than could fit on any one of the many brilliant homemade signs.

"The momentum has shifted."
T
That is how they are trying to spin this?

I keep hearing actuality clips from these.
The kids don't know what they are protesting, who they are protesting, what their signs say, what the words on the signs mean, they keep trying to get the answers from their sheets of Talking Points, which they were given along with the signs, from those people over there, who are the ones paying them to be there.
What a joke. Can't even pretend to protest.

With all the evidence out there JSF, shame on you for backing the lies. I could find someone at a republican rally who thinks Obama was president at the time of 911.

Hey, these rallies are fighting against oligarchies. Where the fuck is comrade signym now? Years of her bitching about this yet now, silence.

T

‘We got ‘em scared!’: AOC and Bernie draw massive crowds in red states

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2025 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Massive protest rallies brought millions of people into the streets of big cities and small towns in every state on April 5. People showed up for more reasons than could fit on any one of the many brilliant homemade signs.

"The momentum has shifted."
T
That is how they are trying to spin this?

I keep hearing actuality clips from these.
The kids don't know what they are protesting, who they are protesting, what their signs say, what the words on the signs mean, they keep trying to get the answers from their sheets of Talking Points, which they were given along with the signs, from those people over there, who are the ones paying them to be there.
What a joke. Can't even pretend to protest.

Here is an example how propaganda works. It's easy to spot as Texas Paul takes umbrage with Trumps attempt to circumvent a clear violation of our laws, by pushing hate and state propaganda.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2025 12:37 PM

Your Identity Politics is propaganda.

And just because James Carville is calling for the removal of IDPol from your dead party, not only is it far too late for that now, but that is the exact opposite of where your dead party is heading.

The DNC just put two excessively IDPol propagandists as their new chair and co-chair.

And SurveyUSA just did a poll among Democrats that showed that 50% of Democrats want the party to go MORE progressive.

https://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5c0c334e-0fbc-4f37-
814e-30303621ed45

And now... I know that I always tell you what's wrong with cherry-picking polls, and even I don't believe that anywhere close to 50% of Democrat party voters want the party to go further off the rails, so I looked into what bias SurveyUSA had, and I found this article from CBS/Five Thirty Eight:

Pollster Scorecard:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pollster-scorecard-surveyusa/

Quote:
Let me show you the scorecard for SurveyUSA, which has an exemplary track record...

— SurveyUSA has also held up well over different political cycles. They kicked butt in 1998, an environment in which many other pollsters struggled. And they’ve been very good from 2004 onward. That leaves 2000 and 2002, in which their performance was only average. But no polling firm is going to nail every cycle; if it can manage to be average, rather than below average, in its off years, that is usually a good sign.

— Over the long run, SurveyUSA has had essentially zero partisan bias. It did have a clear Republican lean in 2000, and a clear Democratic lean in 2002 — not coincidentally, these were its relatively weaker cycles. But generally, its polls have been straight down the middle, and especially so in recent election cycles.

As I hope is obvious, SurveyUSA is a very strong polling firm; no company has done more to contradict the notion that a “robopollster” need be inferior. Although it’s not my place to make any endorsements, it would certainly make the life of electoral forecasters easier if SurveyUSA were to get more

Now... The polling size was only 1,600 people in America, and it would be extremely easy to manipulate a small non-election year poll to show you the results that you wanted to see without anyone catching you.

But I'm just illustrating the point that this wasn't some Fox News poll telling octagenarian Republican voters ragebait to keep them watching boner pill commercials. This was from a polling firm that modern-day FiveThirtyEight considers exemplary.

If you want your party to refrain from IDPol and to start winning some elections again, that's going to be on you. Maybe take a fraction of the time you waste watching clickbait and posting it here and start contacting your senator and house rep and let them know how you feel.

Because if you don't and you wait around for a Bernie Sanders/AOC ticket in 2028, your party is never going to win an election again.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2025 1:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
With all the evidence out there JSF, shame on you for backing the lies. I could find someone at a republican rally who thinks Obama was president at the time of 911.

Hey, these rallies are fighting against oligarchies. Where the fuck is comrade signym now? Years of her bitching about this yet now, silence.

Why would Sigs post anything about this? They can call the rally whatever they want to, but THEY ARE THE OLIGARCHY.

Wake up.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2025 1:27 PM

Think Must, Trump, Russia.

T

Federal Employee Alleges Possible Data Breach by DOGE at NLRB

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2025 2:11 PM

Nobody cares.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2025 10:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Nobody cares.

You Jack, you don't care. We know that. You are a pissed off incel who is hell bent on destruction. Even your own.

T

Japan Rep DESTROYS Trump in FLOOR SPEECH

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2025 11:24 AM

Coffee With Texas Paul! Kilmar Abrego Garcia Confirmed Alive!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2025 2:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
T

Coffee With Texas Paul! Kilmar Abrego Garcia Confirmed Alive!

Glad to hear that your wife-beating, ganglord illegal alien invader is still alive.

For now.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2025 6:12 PM

Yup, as he says. You can have a party that is ideologically pure or you can win elections. A hundred years or so ago women did not have the right to vote. There was no bill of rights and schools were segregated. The center left changed all that but it took time. All one need do is look at all the changes to see the center left is winning and always has been. Drop the purity crap and let's win elections.

Hell, look at the post above. Jack is pissed because the left is beating Trump, and the guy he hates only because of Trump, is about to come home. Hey Jack, laughing here. And Jack, if the democrats win the house in 2026, as is likely, they have to approve sending money to El Salvador to keep the people we've sent there. How likely is that? Or is it more likely if they are not back already, they'll be coming back then as well?

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2025 7:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Hell, look at the post above. Jack is pissed because the left is beating Trump

I'm not pissed because the Left is doing no such thing.

Your party is dead and irrelevant. They've got at least another 4 years of destroying each other before they even figure out what the hell they even stand for anymore and what they're going to do going forward.

The DNC? They're 1,000% on board with continuing the DEI and all the Identity Politics.

They're going to have to fight Nancy Pelosi, who I have little doubt is going to start swinging far to the right if she wants to have a chance at taking her party back from the lefty lunatics that destroyed the Democratic party from within.

Good luck. You'll need it.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2025 2:09 AM

The ignorance is so overwhelming that it eventually becomes astounding. This is why Libtard Democrats think the Sun orbits Earth, every 24 hours (unless they legislate differently)

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Yup, as he says. You can have a party that is ideologically pure or you can win elections. A hundred years or so ago women did not have the right to vote.

Until the sensible freedom-loving right Republicans granted it, despite the Democrat left endlessly fighting to keep women subjugated - Wilson even threw Sufferrage protesters in prison.
Quote:
There was no bill of rights
Until sensible freedom-loving right Republicans finally got enough Senate seats to pass it, despite the neverending opposition from Left Democrats, and forcing LBJ into a corner.
Quote:
and schools were segregated.
Until sensible freedom-loving right Republicans ended Segregation, despite the endless fighting against by left Democrats.
Quote:
The center left
"center left" only exists in Libtard Democrat/Socialist Talking Points, and in Fake News. The American Center is the political "right" - and yes, it was this Republican Right which fought for and

Quote:
changed all that but it took time. All one need do is look at all the changes to see the center ~~left~~ right is winning and always has been. Drop the purity crap and let's win elections.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2025 3:02 AM

^ Post of the month, certainly. If not post of 2025 so far.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2025 1:37 PM

Actually, there is an error in that exchange.

The phrase "bill of rights" was used, and I also quoted that language in my reply.

I had misread that phrase to say "Civil Rights" and I had also inferred that was what the original statement had intended.

Obviously, The Bill of Rights was the first 10 Amendments to The Constitution, enacted more that 200 years ago, so that is not what was referenced as "a hundred years ago or so."

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Republicans overrode the Democrat President's Veto) was also more than 150 years ago.
The Civil Rights Acts of 1875, 1957, 1960, 1968, or 1991 are not what I had in mind, but may have been intended in the original post.
I was thinking of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Remember, the Congress of 1964 had been elected in 1962 - when racist Liberal Democrat LBJ had not been President.

In the final Senate passage of The Civil Rights Act, 27 of the 33 Republican Senators voted in favor, as they always had for years, but they were able to also swing 46 of the 67 Democrat Senators over to their side, to invoke cloture, to end the record-long filibuster, and pass the bill.
Yes, the Majority Party, The racist left Democrats, were filibustering the Civil Rights Act (as they always had), for Record duration. The Minority Republicans had to swing over most of the Majority Democrats to end the Democrat's filibuster.
Some Republicans wanted a different version of Title II in the bill.

In The House, 138 of the 172 Republicans (80%) voted for it, while 152 of the 248 Left Democrats (61%) voted for it.

Some of the prior attempts by right Republicans to enact Civil Rights legislation, all of which were defeated by the racist left Democrats controlling The Senate:
1957: Senate Bill 83,
S. 1658,
1958: S. 3257,
1959: S.955,
S. 956,
S. 957,
S. 958,
S. 959,
S. 960,
1960: S. 3001,
S. 3823,
S. 3829,
1962: S. 2750,
S. 2979,
S. 2980,
S. 2981,
S. 2982,
S. 2983,
S. 2984.

They were never able to get enough liberal Democrats to sensibly vote for Civil Rights. Even in 1958, with a 49D 47R Senate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2025 3:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Thanks to JSF'S rigorous reading of history, I learned that REPUBLICANS did more to advance civil rights than Democrats.

THGR, you derailed your own post - a post that just about everybody here agrees on (IDK about SECOND) - to engage in identity politics and to collectively attack a group people.

You should be aware that Dems, more than Republicans, advocate identity politics with their trans/ LGBTQXYZ 59 genders/ BLM policies.

This has led to nonsensical workplace policies. For example, in CA, people are "protected" from workplace harassment on the basis of sex, race, religion, sexual preference, gender, age, disability, ethnicity etc. The only category NOT officially protected? Able-bodied white Christian males age appx 20-55.

How about just requiring people to ACT CIVILLY TO EVERYONE?

And then you've got the whole "safe spaces/ snowflake" issue, where ppl melt in the face of "micro aggression" and everybody is supposed to walk around on tip toes for fear of setting off some emotional catastrophe.

Yanno, I had the privilege (if you can call it that) of watching a sexual harassment investigation and hearing unfold, and reading the finding. I was shocked that the accused, Mr X, wasn't allowed to question his accusers, or even know who they were, or to speak in his defense. In the report, all of the exculpatory evidence was missing.

Now, I happen to know who the accusers were: a few Asian women got together and cooked up the initial and supporting allegations. The initial allegation was that Mr X rubbed someone in a manner that scared her.

I know that that was bullshit bc the "victim" wasn't his type: she was old, Asian, and not particularly attractive. Mr X had a type: young, tall, athletic, and blond.

None of the other Asian women that he supposedly harrassed were hus type either.

Not only was the investigation and hearing a farce, it wasn't just a peculiarity of our workplace, THAT WAS THE WAY TITLE IX HEARINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE.

And it's not like this was inconsequential either. It led to a 2-week suspension, workplace ostracism, and eventually a messy divorce. Mr X wound up retiring early and moving to Panama.

So, how about we just commit to treating everyone equally, and civilly, and with equal justice?

No more identity politics. Let's agree on that and move on.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2025 3:56 PM

And we need to eliminate the concept of the "Hate Crime" completely from the lexicon as well.

A crime is a crime is a crime.

All a "Hate Crime" is, is an additional punishment that gets doled out on top of anything else, but only if you're a white male between the ages of 18 and 55. It's just been another tool in the Establishment arsenal for decades.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2025 4:55 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And we need to eliminate the concept of the "Hate Crime" completely from the lexicon as well.

A crime is a crime is a crime.

All a "Hate Crime" is, is an additional punishment that gets doled out on top of anything else, but only if you're a white male between the ages of 18 and 55. It's just been another tool in the Establishment arsenal for decades.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

Totally agree. Assault is assault. Battery is battery. The only category I would carve out is crimes against children.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2025 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And we need to eliminate the concept of the "Hate Crime" completely from the lexicon as well.

A crime is a crime is a crime.

All a "Hate Crime" is, is an additional punishment that gets doled out on top of anything else, but only if you're a white male between the ages of 18 and 55. It's just been another tool in the Establishment arsenal for decades.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
Totally agree. Assault is assault. Battery is battery. The only category I would carve out is crimes against children.

Yeah...

But you've always got to be REAL careful with that one.

According to quite a few politicians, many of them no doubt in your own state, it is a crime against a child if you don't allow them to mutilate their reproductive organs if they feel like they're not a boy or a girl that week.

The problem with anything having to do anything with "for the children" attached, is that anybody in power seems to really like using that as a cudgel to get stuff that they want that isn't even logically related to the children unless you're willing to follow them down rabbit holes.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2025 7:10 PM

Bill of Rights and Later Amendments
Index to this page
Bill of Rights
Amendment 1 Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
Amendment 2 Right to bear arms
Amendment 3 Quartering of soldiers
Amendment 4 Search and arrest
Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases
Amendment 6 Right to a fair trial
Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
Amendment 8 Bail, fines, punishment
Amendment 9 Rights retained by the People
Amendment 10 States' rights

The Bill of Rights became law on December 15, 1791. On the 150th Anniversary of that historic date, December 15, 1941, this program was broadcast to an estimated 63 million listeners (almost half of the U.S. population).

Later Amendments
Amendment 11 Lawsuits against states
Amendment 12 Presidential elections
Amendment 13 Abolition of slavery
Amendment 14 Civil rights
Amendment 15 Black suffrage
Amendment 16 Income taxes
Amendment 17 Senatorial elections
Amendment 18 Prohibition of liquor
Amendment 19 Women's suffrage
Amendment 20 Terms of office
Amendment 21 Repeal of Prohibition
Amendment 22 Term Limits for the Presidency
Amendment 23 Washington, D.C., suffrage
Amendment 24 Abolition of poll taxes
Amendment 25 Presidential succession
Amendment 26 18-year-old suffrage

Amendment 14
Civil rights

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Trumps trying to change some of these laws including the one right above.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2025 9:59 PM

Proof, dummy.

Also, you forgot the apostrophe in "Trump's" again because you are a very stupid person who is incapable of learning any lessons.

Also, also... none of those laws in the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution. Some, such as the prohibition of alcohol, were decided after the fact to have been a mistake and they were ratified.

Maybe we'll be ratifying more. But I doubt it very much. Any addition or subtraction to the Bill of Rights requires a 2/3rds vote in the house and senate.

I was 13 years old the last time this happened. I don't see any point in the near future where any one party is going to have that much control, and getting enough of either party to go with the other one to pass a 2/3rd majority is impossible in this climate.

The only way this is going to happen is if Democrat Politicians keep doing things that piss everyone off and even more people defect.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2025 11:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This was originally meant to grant citizenship to former slaves.
In its historic context, IDK what the highlighted phrase means.

Does anyone?

Supreme Court might rule on this

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 12:11 PM

Even the Supreme Court can read polls. If MAGA thinks they win if Trump is made all powerful, wow. They are too stupid to realize, from day one of that occurring they lose all their rights. And Trump only leaves office when he dies with the next dictator ready to take over. If that's what they want then life is just too much for them to handle. It's like a women staying in an abusive marriage. She does that because she is damaged. Jack, you're a fucking mess.

T

Trump's MOST DESPERATE Ploy HAUNTS HIM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 12:19 PM

You heard it here, boys.

We're Legal As Fuck.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You heard it here, boys.

We're Legal As Fuck.

Put the bottle down Jack. Your post makes no sense.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This was originally meant to grant citizenship to former slaves.
In its historic context, IDK what the highlighted phrase means.

Does anyone?

Supreme Court might rule on this

It's a great question. Certainly made me think.

It's funny how the mind works. You've gone right to asking about historical context, and my mind went straight to geography.

Dug into it a little and here's a brutally and terrifyingly honest read of that line from the American Immigration Council...

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/researc
h/Birthright%20Citizenship%20091509.pdf

Quote:
We begin, of course, with the text of the Citizenship Clause.
To be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. is simply to be subject to the authority of the U.S. government. The phrase thus covers the vast majority of persons within our borders who are required to obey U.S. laws. And obedience, of course, does not turn on immigration status, national allegiance, or past compliance. All must obey.

The more bright among you probably picked up on the fact that while they go very far out of their way to let everyone know that the illegals must obey like the rest of the cattle, they also don't fail to let you know that there are those walking among us who are not required to obey U.S. laws.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 12:43 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
there are those walking among us who are not required to obey U.S. laws.

Diplomatic immunity comes to mind. It's not enuf to be a citizen of another country visiting or living in the USA to be exempt from our laws, but diplomatic immunity will do. IDK if (some? all?) tribal reservations - which are their own nations - are subject to USA law.

Now, IDK if "diplomatic immunity" was a "thing" back then when that was written, so I don't know if that's what is being referred to.

If your quote is correct, then everyone born in the USA is automatically a citizen (except children of foreign diplomats who apparently inherit their parents' citizenship) and "anchor babies" are legal.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 1:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What happened to "No More Identity Politics"?

Identity politics:

"Political attitudes or positions that focus on the concerns of social groups identified mainly on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation." -American Heritage Dictionary

"politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group" -Mirriam Webster

You turned this thread into a nonstop, and mostly baseless, hysterical attack. Here's your latest example:

Quote:
Even the Supreme Court can read polls. If MAGA thinks they win if Trump is made all powerful, wow. They are too stupid to realize, from day one of that occurring they lose all their rights. And Trump only leaves office when he dies with the next dictator ready to take over.

First of all, the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be ruling on the basis of opinion polls but on insightful reading of the Constitution and subsequent case law.

Secondly, I guess you haven't been keeping track of what's been happening to our "rights" over the past few decades, have you?

The first big incursion happened under GWB. The so-called Patriot Act (written BEFORE 9-11), the definition of "enemy combatant", splitting into AT&T international communications cables to scrape content as it passed thru the the SF center, establishing torture sites and a prison not subject to American law or Geneva Convention, expanding the right of government to dig thru information on citizens held by third parties (doctors, libraries, etc) turning the USA into a "surveillance state"

Quote:
The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

https://www.aclu.org/documents/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act

Then, Obama upped the ante by estblishing a ginormous data center in Utah, holding all that snooped data on you and me, he also designated an American citizen as an enemy combatant and had him executed without trial or conviction. He also made direct CIA propaganda in the USA legal. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spread
s-government-made-news-to-americans/ and failed to close Guantanamo, like he promised.

UNDER TRUMP'S FIRST TERM, I CAN RECALL NO SUCH INCURSIONS INTO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. If you have any examples, please post them.

The Biden* admin went completely off the rails, engaging in both censorship and propaganda on a massive scale. So much so that our President was non compos mentis for at least half his term, and was being puppeteered by unelected staff who were actually running our country.

*****

So, you see THGR, whittling away at our Constitutional rights has been BIPARTISAN project. Welcome to our Brave New World!

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You heard it here, boys.

We're Legal As Fuck.

Put the bottle down Jack. Your post makes no sense.

T

That's what "LegalAF" means. Yanno... The dumb shit clickbait channel you just posted another dumb shit clickbait video from.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
there are those walking among us who are not required to obey U.S. laws.
Diplomatic immunity comes to mind. It's not enuf to be a citizen of another country visiting or living in the USA to be exempt from our laws, but diplomatic immunity will do. IDK if (some? all?) tribal reservations - which are their own nations - are subject to USA law.

We know we live in a 2-tiered justice system. I just found it cute that they don't make any attempt to hide it anymore.

Quote:
Now, IDK if "diplomatic immunity" was a "thing" back then when that was written, so I don't know if that's what is being referred to.

Well, right.... right? Who knows? Nobody knows. How many are there? How did they get this status? Why do they have this status? Are they citizens? If not, what is their business here and how long will they be staying? Are there any living on my block?

All questions that you'll never have answers to because nobody with more than 5,000 twitter followers is ever going to ask and Elon Musk isn't going to re-tweet it. It should go without saying that the media will never ask this question.

Quote:
If your quote is correct, then everyone born in the USA is automatically a citizen (except children of foreign diplomats who apparently inherit their parents' citizenship) and "anchor babies" are legal.

Oh... Trust me. I have no opinions on how true or untrue this quote is. It's an extremely watered down interpretation for normies of what might be thousands of pages of legalese.

Even if the agency didn't have a bias either way and was planted firmly in the realm of reality, I think that's a really tall order.

I wouldn't go making any assumptions based off of that, and even if they state that specifically somewhere in the document, I'd want to see the actual proof or at least look into other people's interpretation of it.

Even if there is a string of legal cases that set a precedent for them to come up with this assessment, and even if their assessment was 100% correct as the laws stand today, these are all very low-level to mid-level court cases that have yet to make it up the chain. Things may look very different on this issue in 4 years with the speed at which things are playing out right now.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You heard it here, boys.

We're Legal As Fuck.

Put the bottle down Jack. Your post makes no sense.

T

That's what "LegalAF" means. Yanno... The dumb shit clickbait channel you just posted another dumb shit clickbait video from.

Like I said, put down the bottle.

T

The Fourteenth Amendment begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 2:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Well, right.... right? Who knows? Nobody knows. How many are there? How did they get this status? Why do they have this status? Are they citizens? If not, what is their business here and how long will they be staying? Are there any living on my block?

It applies to diplomats ... official representatives of foreign governments. Apparently there has been some form of diplomatic immunity since ancient times, protecting messengers and envoys, but that was all formalized in 1961.

Doubtful any living on your block, since they tend to live in residences next to their embassies in DC, or attached to consulates (one step down from full embassy) in major cities, or the UN in NYC.

Get some sleep, SIX. And take a break from this place.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You heard it here, boys.

We're Legal As Fuck.

Put the bottle down Jack. Your post makes no sense.

T

That's what "LegalAF" means. Yanno... The dumb shit clickbait channel you just posted another dumb shit clickbait video from.

Like I said, put down the bottle.

T

The Fourteenth Amendment begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Like I said. Quit shitting up the boards with your clickbait trash everyday.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Well, right.... right? Who knows? Nobody knows. How many are there? How did they get this status? Why do they have this status? Are they citizens? If not, what is their business here and how long will they be staying? Are there any living on my block?
It applies to diplomats ... official representatives of foreign governments. Apparently there has been some form of diplomatic immunity since ancient times, protecting messengers and envoys, but that was all formalized in 1961.

We know it applies to Diplomats. What gives you any reason to believe that's the only people that it applies to? That's not at all what the quote stated.

On lower levels they get away with shit like this all the time...

Quote:
A member of Congress generally cannot be held liable for statements made during official legislative activity due to the Speech or Debate Clause in the U.S. Constitution. This clause protects them from being sued for what they say or write in relation to their legislative duties.
Elaboration:

Speech or Debate Clause:
This clause, found in Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, grants members of Congress (Senators and Representatives) immunity from lawsuits and other legal actions based on their legislative activities.

Scope of Protection:
The clause's protection extends to any speech or debate in either House of Congress, as well as related writings and actions.

Purpose:
The purpose of the clause is to ensure that members of Congress can freely exercise their legislative functions without fear of being sued or prosecuted for their words or actions, thus promoting the proper functioning of the legislative process

Exceptions:
The immunity provided by the Speech or Debate Clause is not absolute. It does not protect them from arrest for certain serious crimes like treason, felony, or breach of the peace. Additionally, while they are protected from civil lawsuits, they may still be subject to disciplinary actions by their respective houses (House or Senate).

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 2:46 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, from our discussion here, it seems that

We agree on "no more identity politics"

Anchor babies are legal (unless found otherwise by SCOTUS)

Chipping away our Constitutional rights has been a bipartisan project

...

Correct?

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2025 2:54 PM

I'd say that's a reasonable assessment of the situation.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 22, 2025 2:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, from our discussion here, it seems that

Anchor babies are legal (unless found otherwise by SCOTUS)

...

Correct?

Strongly disagree.

Just because you found a lefty shill site to support your opinion does not mean anybody needs to agree with you.

try using a decent search engine (I tried duckduckgo) and look for "Mark Levin birthright citizen"

then read or watch and educate yourself.

Mark Levin has covered this topic numerous times - because some folk are just slow.
His shows are in podcast form on numerous forums and formats, I hear.
Supreme Court Justices are known to quote his legal work in their Opinions.
He does a fairly good job explaining simply why there is no Birthright Citizen - unless and until SCOTUS specifically rules it so.

By Constitutionality, it is easy to see. But with Roberts and Barrett, tough to call.

Also, Amendments ARE part of The Constitution, just not the initial version. The First 10 were even discussed and debated during the Constitutional Convention, they just couldn't get enough Colonies/States to agree to get it ratified with them included, to start.

And Trump is not trying to change any part of The Constitution, he is trying to start enforcing it.

As a practical matter, the fallacy of Anchor Babies has been in practice for a while. So now there must be some cutoff date by which the Law can start to be enforced.
THAT was the purpose of Trump's declaration. IF it is decided to confer legal status to the fallacy of the past, that date can mark the turning point. Or any other date that SCOTUS chooses.

Regarding Natives, I believe their Laws are partially governed or restricted by their Treaties. Some can vote in U.S. elections. Some cannot. Some can adhere to specific rules and choose whether to or not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 22, 2025 3:06 AM