The News Thread

[The Ozzman]

That's what the Marxists want: a socialist utopia with a dictator

 

[CiG]

Seems legit.

 

[Dak]

Since my quotes don’t support me...

You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about. You can’t even come remotely close to engaging with commentary on climate change to begin with, so it’s pointless to ask you to see beyond the climate change content and read the subtext.

Watts is writing about American myopia, and that’s what I’m getting from you. So fuck off.

So now we're onto "American myopia" rather than my original point that people prep for a variety of reasons, not just climate change. Ok.

His "*" functioned effectively as a semi-colon between the explicit IPCC related portions (your quotes), and the latter half where he rambles nearly incoherently about how US voters could have saved the day through such respectable alternatives as the Green Party and Ralph Nader, and then into accelerationistic MadMax fantasies. If one wants to broach the subject of myopia, Watts is a candidate. Even though several countries, including his native Canada, have per-capita fuel based CO2 emissions on par with the US, and China emits nearly double in total emissions, it is the US that is The Great Climate Satan and the US voters who are singularly deserving of his scorn. This is simply some TDS.

Unrelated to the above, but my favorite bit from the whole post:

You’ve had two weeks to internalize it; time to recoil, to internalize the numbers, to face facts.

To shrug, from what I can see. To go back to squabbling over gender pronouns, and whether science fiction has too many dystopias.

A book could be written on the subtext here.

 

[The Ozzman]

wew another shooting and act of political terrorism, this time a Ron Paul-loving Linux aficionado killing Jews.

Yep. Now we'll have to hear about it from the Jewish community every day for the next 70 years

 

[CiG]

"My husband died in 9/11"

"NYPD sodomized immigrants with their bully sticks so yeah your husband should probably rot in the grave"

Good ol' AntiFa.

 

[The Ozzman]

So brave

 

[The Ozzman]

Wouldn't even be mad for violating the 14th Amendment. Get rid of the anchor babies.

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...der-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

President Trumpplans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.


Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.

• "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.
• When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
• "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end." (More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)
• "It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."

The president expressed surprise that "Axios on HBO" knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. "

• Behind the scenes: "Axios on HBO" had been working for weeks on a story on Trump’s plans for birthright citizenship, based on conversations with several sources, including one close to the White House Counsel’s office.

The legal challenges would force the courts to decide on a constitutional debate over the 14th Amendment, which says:

• "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."

Be smart: Few immigration and constitutional scholars believe it is within the president's power to change birthright citizenship, former U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief counsel Lynden Melmed tells Axios.

• But some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas.
• John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" originally referred to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — green card holders and citizens.

Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration, recently took up this argument in the Washington Post.

• Anton said that Trump could, via executive order, "specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens" simply because they were born on U.S. soil. (It’s not yet clear whether Trump will take this maximalist argument, though his previous rhetoric suggests there’s a good chance.)
• But others — such as Judge James C. Ho, who was appointed by Trump to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans — say the line in the amendment refers to the legal obligation to follow U.S. laws, which applies to all foreign visitors (except diplomats) and immigrants. He has written that changing how the 14th Amendment is applied would be "unconstitutional."

Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary immigrants, Eastman said.

• Between 1980 and 2006, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants — which opponents of birthright citizenship call "anchor babies" — skyrocketed to a peak of 370,000, according to a 2016 study by Pew Research. It then declined slightly during and following the Great Recession.
• The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.

The bottom line: If Trump follows through on the executive order, "the courts would have to weigh in in a way they haven't," Eastman said.

 

[Dak]

If I break into your house and have a baby, it doesn't become a part of your family.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

"My husband died in 9/11"

"NYPD sodomized immigrants with their bully sticks so yeah your husband should probably rot in the grave"

Good ol' AntiFa.

this genuinely ticked me the fuck off.

 

[Einherjar86]

If I break into your house and have a baby, it doesn't become a part of your family.

If only countries were like houses, this analogy would make sense.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

If only countries were like houses, this analogy would make sense.

ummm, have you never heard anyone refer to their country as their home? I'd say his analogy makes perfect sense. Me and my family that live in this house should not have to take care of someone who broke in here illegally and popped out a kid when i wasn't looking.

 

[Dak]

If only countries were like houses, this analogy would make sense.

Well, some of us live in our countries. Mentally and physically. I guess the analogy doesn't make sense if one lives, mentally and/or physically, in "the world" (meaning mostly a handful of anglo-euro megacities). Anti-cosmopolitanism isn't such an anti-semitic dog-whistle after all.

Anyway.

https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/10/observations-from-washington.html

USTR's meteoric rise over the last two years is miraculous. Compared to what has happened with most executive agencies and departments, it seems almost magical. USTR's staff does not leak. They are far and away the most productive member of the executive branch. Trump and his kind have talked for years about overturning the old order. In their sphere, USTR has not only managed to actually do that; they also maneuvered America's trading partners into going along with them. In contrast to just about everyone else, they regularly produce tangibles for the President to trumpet about. They do this without any of the indecencies that other agencies and their leaders embarrass the President with. Their influence is now immense.
....................
How did this happen?

Part of the reason is that Trump likes all of this. Trump is happy to see foreign policy take backseat to trade policy. Part of the reason is the character and intelligence of Ligthizer himself, something that outsiders recognized set him apart from many administration picks even before he was confirmed. But Lightizer is more than just one man—he is the leader of a small network of men and women who think like he does. Lightizer does not just have policy ideas. He has the people he needs to make turn those ideas into realities.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, some of us live in our countries. Mentally and physically. I guess the analogy doesn't make sense if one lives, mentally and/or physically, in "the world" (meaning mostly a handful of anglo-euro megacities). Anti-cosmopolitanism isn't such an anti-semitic dog-whistle after all.

Someone’s house is their private property. Your country isn’t your private property, even though you live in it.

 

[Dak]

Someone’s house is their private property. Your country isn’t your private property, even though you live in it.

It's not personal or private property, and no one is suggesting that it is. But it is a collection of person's private and personal property as well as collectively administered public spaces. One should get zero benefits from forcing their way in, whether by popping bullets out of a gun or by being popped out of a vagina.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... our friendly neighborhood commie is clearly missing the point here. The country rightfully belongs to its citizens, just like how a house belongs to the people who live in it. It is illegal for outsiders to break into your country just like how it is illegal for someone to break into your home. It amazes me that he cant actually digest what is being said here.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Someone needs to make that meme of the superhero unsure of which button to press, the left reading "Dominicans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans are our future doctors and Nobel prize winners", the right reading "Social class mobility is a myth".

100. Dominican American : $32,300[9]
101. Honduran American: $31,000[9]
102. Somali American (2016): $24,185[3]
103. Salvadoran American : $20,800[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

The day Americans are freely able to move to Latin America, enjoy the same rights that we provide immigrants here, and gentrify the fuck out of their country is the day I'm OK with migrant caravans. Until then, fuck them, and I hope Trump uses any method he can to stop them from coming here.

 

[Dak]

I've been seeing so many shared tweets and FB posts since ~2015 of US liberals who claim to want to rush the Canadian border. chinstrokeface.emoji x10

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not personal or private property, and no one is suggesting that it is. But it is a collection of person's private and personal property as well as collectively administered public spaces. One should get zero benefits from forcing their way in, whether by popping bullets out of a gun or by being popped out of a vagina.

Collectively administered, yes--and some people (many, in fact) in the national community might not have a problem with opening those spaces to immigrants, especially since many of them obtain their own private property through entirely legal and taxable means.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Collectively administered, yes--and some people (many, in fact) in the national community might not have a problem with opening those spaces to immigrants, especially since many of them obtain their own private property through entirely legal and taxable means.

The democratically-elected government in control of the collective does have a problem. Virtually none of them own private property btw, they rent and live multiple families to a single residential unit.

 

[The Ozzman]

... our friendly neighborhood commie is clearly missing the point here. The country rightfully belongs to its citizens, just like how a house belongs to the people who live in it. It is illegal for outsiders to break into your country just like how it is illegal for someone to break into your home. It amazes me that he cant actually digest what is being said here.

Marxists don't know the meaning of the phrases 'sovereign nation', 'national security', or 'border control'