Harris Vs Trump 2024 US Presidential election - read the warning in the OP posted 18/09/24

Ireland seems to be the only useful idiot country taxing their citizens in the name of “climate change” anymore.

Other mature countries have woken up and realized what matters first.

Identity politics in America has peaked.

While recognising that it happened in prior elections, I think there is a creeping over-emphasis of voter groups by both politicians and more obviously, the US media. "Why didn't Harris appeal to Latino voters?" , "Why did Blacks vote for Trump?". These are the head-scratching questions being asked on CNN (and likely a slew of other news media right now).

America is a melting pot. Yes, there is inequality among races, gender etc. but the whole point of the 'American dream' is that it shouldn't matter where you come from or the colour of your skin.

Maybe people are just sick of being pigeon-holed into a 'voter demographic' based on the colour of their skin or if their granny was Mexican.

It's always the economy, safety and 'can my kids have a good life, the way this is going', what's in it for me? etc. In 2024, regardless of your colour, gender etc., you are going to vote for the candidate that has a better story to right the wrongs.

Nothing to do with Harris at all. Joe should have stepped aside sooner. There were also some voters for Trump who said they may have voted differently, but said they couldn't vote for Harris as she had not been tested against other potential candidates through a primary, which is normal procedure.

White House Chief of Staff announced and it's a woman. First time ever.

Sounds like that's what Americans voted for including some that may well be caught up in it...one thing you can say about Trump and his team, they're not hiding their intentions andthe voters lapped it up

It got mentions alright.As you say ,though it seemed completely overshadowed.

I remember when Kamala said she would allow fracking it was on the basis of her administration meeting its committments towards agreed climate policy anyway.

Think that was fair (if it was true)

I assume the New Republicans will stiff those agreements*.They are hardly men of their word and they seem buoyed by self righteousness and victimhood (that they will probably share around with their real victims)

• Obviously hope they either don't or are just too busy deporting the undeserving foreign residents.

Well, I read that social media post and can honestly say I found it to be most eloquent, articulate and beautifully polished turd I have ever seen.

He talks about "open borders", which effectively nobody advocates. He talks about defending the police, a concept that relatively few people ever got behind in any manner thay got it beyond very isolated implementation. He talks about transgender medicine, something which pertains to a relatively miniscule community and is in no way a widespread issue.

He talks about Covid lockdown conspiracies in a world where Covid lockdowns were a feature under Trump's first term too and are now gone. He talks about the Democrats being woke scolds while conservative Christian voters whose morality is predicated on the dictations of ancient scriptures and seek to impose such mores on others flock to Trump.

He talks about the perceived persecution of his views in a situation where via peaceful democratic process a President who apparently represents his views has been elected resoundingly — which makes me think this guy doesn't quite understand what persecution actually is.

He talks about Democrats and the left descending into hyperbole and mass condemnation when the Trumpist Republicans have massaged a narrative that moderate centrists are in fact rampant communists seeking totalitarian absolute power.

He then talks about all the awful consequences of the past 10 years as if a certain President elect didn't preside over almost half of those.

Yes. An eloquent, articulate and beautifully polished turd that guys post is indeed.

Yes, that's the attitude right there. Keep them alienated, mock them for their attempts at navigating this world where women see them as predators, and then learn nothing.

del

Having fun in your head?

On its face sounds like riling people up and heinousness, and it is still pretty poor form, and like I said in an earlier post, probably only hurt the country economically, however denaturalization itself isn't some fascist pipe dream in its current state but a long established concept whereby the courts have held that naturalized citizens can be denaturalized upon narrow grounds, such as determining that their naturalization was obtained through fraud, or shortly after getting naturalized, moving out of the country, specifically living back in their home country for an extended period.

Now with a Trumpian SCOTUS they for sure could expand this to be even more broad and capricious but we'd have to wait an see. Hopefully this only pertains to people who obtained naturalization fraudulently however given the Trump administration's own track record of truly awful attention to detail, due process, etc. (think the child separation where they didn't bother to make any records), it will in practice hurt a lot of naturalized citizens who don't deserve this treatment under the law — a nonzero amount who will have likely voted for the face-eating leopards. However if everything follows the spirit and letter of the law, anyone who lawfully naturalized and met all the prerequisites diligently is now considered a full citizen of the united states and isn't in any secondary class, ie. deporting them would be, at least in jurisprudence, unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; . . .

The concept of naturalization typically concerns the grant of citizenship to a person who has lived in the United States for a specified time period and meets certain other requirements; to groups of people in newly-acquired territories who acquire citizenship by statute or treaty; and to children born outside the United States who become U.S. citizens upon birth to a U.S. citizen parent, or who derive their citizenship upon their parents’ naturalization in the United States. Congress has also addressed the concept of denaturalization, which refers to the revocation of citizenship from a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Congress’s power over denaturalization derives from its power [t]o establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and from its power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof.1 In describing the theory of denaturalization, the Supreme Court has stated that [a]n alien has no moral nor constitutional right to retain the privileges of citizenship if, by false evidence or the like, an imposition has been practiced upon the court, without which the certificate of citizenship could not and would not have been issued.2 Thus, there must be strict compliance with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship. Failure to comply with any of these conditions renders the certificate of citizenship ‘illegally procured,’ and naturalization that is unlawfully procured can be set aside.3

The Naturalization Act of 1906 was the first law to provide for denaturalization.4 It authorized judicial proceedings against a naturalized U.S. citizen for the purpose of setting aside and canceling the certificate of citizenship on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally procured.5 The Act provided that if a naturalized U.S. citizen returned to his native country or went to another foreign country and established a permanent residence there within five years of being admitted as a U.S. citizen, such facts were prima facie evidence that he or she lacked the intention to become a permanent citizen of the United States at the time of filing the naturalization application.6 Absent countervailing evidence, the naturalized citizen’s permanent residence in the foreign country would be sufficient in the proper proceeding to authorize the cancelation of his certificate of citizenship as fraudulent, . . .7

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C4-1-5-1/ALDE_00013170/v

The vote has already happened. Men swung right. This stuff isn't in my head.

Everything is showing that young men feel disenfranchised and hated, and you are the typical response to that because you don't give a shlt and think them suffering is pathetic.

You can't be surprised that people "vote for a rapist" when you call them all rapists-in-waiting and say you'd rather be eaten by a bear than risk walking past one of them.

The "Dems" are smarter per say but they're taking America in a direction the majority don't want. They're really idiots.

I see JD Vance wrote to the ambassador about our ridiculous hate speech bill. Our lot and the Brits (labour) could feel the wrath of the land of liberty.

"Vote for a rapist" in quotes?

Well being a President is 10 tenths of the law now.

He doesn't even need his clarifiers any more.

The lightning speed at which the left turned on minority men when they voted the wrong way is remarkable.

Men without degrees, white men, Latino men, black men.. All utter shlt.

And then they dish out student loan forgiveness to the people who they actually like - White university-educated people.