• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump's Second Term

shemp said:
Our tax dollars at work.
Not yours Andy.
Click to expand...
Government warns Trump's fireworks display will make air quality 'hazardous' (Alternet.org, July 2, 2026)
Sarah Burris on bsky, July 2, 2026
The highest population of pediatric asthma in the country will get hit with an air quality that is 4,000% higher than the worst air pollution in the entire world.
Government warns Trump's fireworks display will make air quality 'hazardous'
Click to expand...
Sanho Tree on bsky, July 2, 2026
Stay indoors, DC! This is INSANE!!!!
“The National Park Service included the detail in a draft analysis given to Politico, saying that the 35- to 40-minute program will deploy more than 850,000 fireworks shells. That's more than 100 times what is typically launched on Independence Day.“
Click to expand...

That'll teach 'em to appreciate the reflecting pool!
 
Darat said:
Most people also don't know that we don't know where the biblical Mount Sinai was, there are a few contenders, they need to check to see if any of the suspected mounts have a golden statue of Trump on it.
Click to expand...
I was thinking along parallel lines to you.

Except I was thinking that we see a mountain with Trump's face on it, we will have found Mt Sinai.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Trump: "I had the greatest year, the greatest opening year.
I ended 8 wars. The greatest economy ever. But even when you have a great president, they tend to lose the midterms. It doesn't make sense to me. We've had the greatest year in the history of the presidency, first year. We should be given credit."

Link
Click to expand...
(Me, previous Reply):
Oh, I thought he'd be up to 12 by now.
Click to expand...
According to his latest post, "some people" are saying he stopped 100 wars.
Well sure, if you start and stop the same one every day for weeks at a time!
 
dudalb said:
You don't get what a birthright citizen is, do you?
And do you have to drag race into everything/
Harris and Rubio are NOT Anchor Babies.. Offspring of immigragnts, yes, but that is the not the same as Anchor Babies, which is what the debate is about. Citizens.
Click to expand...
That is true. The overall debate over birthright citizenship is not, at least not yet, about the offspring of legal immigrants. Those are not "anchor babies," and to use those examples is poor debate technique for sure.

But the overall debate about birthright citizenship is also not only about anchor babies. Most of those affected are not going to be the disputable number of babies born to parents whose actual intent is to create American citizenship as a goal, but those born to persons who are trying, with or without good reason, to live and work and remain in the United States, and that includes, significantly, those whose residence was legal but not documented, temporary but with an understood duration and an understood and previously working mechanism for renewal, which has now been removed suddenly. It includes people who, right or wrong, over-optimistic or not, sought refuge and a new life in a country that once claimed to provide it, and once provided a mechanism for doing so, who have now been betrayed.

And, of course, as we keep on encountering situations about which only a short time ago we'd have said "no way, that can't happen here," including contention by the current administration that even citizens be deported, or have their citizenship nullified, for political reasons. So maybe we should be talking about "anchor babies" once again, because whether or not you think they're a problem we ought to worry about, they are outliers, and what they anchor may be the concept of who has the right to be a citizen at all. We often limit and control rights when it's clear that their exercise in certain circumstances can cause harm. No guns in your carry-on luggage, libel laws, and so forth. But I think it's a mistake to base such limits on what some here consider the criterion of "I don't like it." If you're lucky, the limitations and the liking will coincide, but that's a consequence, not a reason. Deciding on where a right is limited is very very different from deciding who gets the right in the first place.

I would contend that the proposed removal of birthright citizenship from all the children of all the undocumented inhabitants of this country is not that kind of harm, and that "I don't like it" is an opening for an assault on the right itself, not just for those so-called anchor babies but for any one of any group or any sort that the current majority thinks we should get rid of. Current arguments against birthright citizenship have devolved from questions of who is doing harm and what harm is done to abstract questions of what that harm is, and who is entitled to the right itself.

And I must add that it's a bit ironic to say the least, that this argument is so prevalent among those who so often contend that a person's personal life begins at the moment of fertilization, and that a person is an individual with the full tranche of rights from that moment on. But suddenly it seems if that baby's parents are the wrong sort of people the baby has no rights at all. A fetus, after all, has no control over the legal or illegal actions of its parents. To withdraw the right of citizenship smacks of attainder!
 
bruto said:
That is true. The overall debate over birthright citizenship is not, at least not yet, about the offspring of legal immigrants. Those are not "anchor babies," and to use those examples is poor debate technique for sure.

But the overall debate about birthright citizenship is also not only about anchor babies. Most of those affected are not going to be the disputable number of babies born to parents whose actual intent is to create American citizenship as a goal, but those born to persons who are trying, with or without good reason, to live and work and remain in the United States, and that includes, significantly, those whose residence was legal but not documented, temporary but with an understood duration and an understood and previously working mechanism for renewal, which has now been removed suddenly. It includes people who, right or wrong, over-optimistic or not, sought refuge and a new life in a country that once claimed to provide it, and once provided a mechanism for doing so, who have now been betrayed.

And, of course, as we keep on encountering situations about which only a short time ago we'd have said "no way, that can't happen here," including contention by the current administration that even citizens be deported, or have their citizenship nullified, for political reasons. So maybe we should be talking about "anchor babies" once again, because whether or not you think they're a problem we ought to worry about, they are outliers, and what they anchor may be the concept of who has the right to be a citizen at all. We often limit and control rights when it's clear that their exercise in certain circumstances can cause harm. No guns in your carry-on luggage, libel laws, and so forth. But I think it's a mistake to base such limits on what some here consider the criterion of "I don't like it." If you're lucky, the limitations and the liking will coincide, but that's a consequence, not a reason. Deciding on where a right is limited is very very different from deciding who gets the right in the first place.

I would contend that the proposed removal of birthright citizenship from all the children of all the undocumented inhabitants of this country is not that kind of harm, and that "I don't like it" is an opening for an assault on the right itself, not just for those so-called anchor babies but for any one of any group or any sort that the current majority thinks we should get rid of. Current arguments against birthright citizenship have devolved from questions of who is doing harm and what harm is done to abstract questions of what that harm is, and who is entitled to the right itself.

And I must add that it's a bit ironic to say the least, that this argument is so prevalent among those who so often contend that a person's personal life begins at the moment of fertilization, and that a person is an individual with the full tranche of rights from that moment on. But suddenly it seems if that baby's parents are the wrong sort of people the baby has no rights at all. A fetus, after all, has no control over the legal or illegal actions of its parents. To withdraw the right of citizenship smacks of attainder!
Click to expand...
See, it's not just birthright citizenship; this corrupt administration is just salivating to stip away citizenship from critics like Ilhan Omar and anyone else they deem as "anti-american." They needed a test case but scotus ◊◊◊◊ in their Cheerios.
 
dudalb said:
You don't get what a birthright citizen is, do you?
And do you have to drag race into everything/
Harris and Rubio are NOT Anchor Babies.. Offspring of immigragnts, yes, but that is the not the same as Anchor Babies, which is what the debate is about. Citizens.
Click to expand...

It isn’t though. It’s very much about race. “Citizenship” is just a fig leaf.

The Trump administration wants brown and black people out of the country, citizenship or legal residency be damned.
 
Deep State is completely disabled. Voters (at least 70 million, but who knows) put in the super oligarch Trump who wears a diaper. And vacuums up dollars. We got this guy...checking notes...because some independents did not like Kamala's cackle. Is that it? And she happens to be a woman so no black young male can vote for a mom for president.
Click to expand...
Link has the suit photo with butt sticking out.
www.threads.com

Tero Gervais (@tero55gervais) on Threads

Deep State is completely disabled. Voters (at least 70 million, but who knows) put in the super oligarch Trump who wears a diaper. And vacuums up dollars. We got this guy...checking notes...because some independents did not like Kamala's cackle. Is that it? And she happens to be a woman so no...
www.threads.com www.threads.com
 
jimbob said:
That is why Hunter Biden said he was nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, for stopping the same war 38 times
Click to expand...
I saw that and assumed it was a satire account. You just can't tell any more without doing some research. (Which I am only inclined to do only in vary rare circumstances. I do like the laughs, though.)
 
alfaniner said:
I saw that and assumed it was a satire account. You just can't tell any more without doing some research. (Which I am only inclined to do only in vary rare circumstances. I do like the laughs, though.)
Click to expand...
No, it's genuine. And he's coming out fighting
 
Is it genuine though?
It's been around for a few days but I can't find it anywhere other than people posting it on X.

Has anyone got a link to Donald's actual post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom