- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Messages
- 96,066
- Reaction score
- 23,181
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yes, and their "segregation" has been rebranded and is now called "cultural appropriation". Everyone MUST stay in their own little "culture corner/pigeonhole" away from everyone else least they be accused of appropriating.
Like Jumbo Shrimp aren't really shrimp?Conservative Democrats.
Funny how you left that part out.
Because we had a deal with the Taliban to leave.That is a very simplistic way of thinking. We had figured out how to do it. No American killed for how many months? No fighting. No terrorism attacks.
And Biden stuck to that deal. What's the problem?A deal can be made with anyone, even the Taliban. Trump had made the deal.
That is an absurd fantasy given that the government collapsed in a matter of days with very little resistance.It only took bare minimal restricted area presence combined with our know air power to keep it place. The Taliban would take primary control. The coalition government of Afghanistanis would allow making business deals with us, not China.
"Wanted China to have it all."Biden wanted China to have it all and wanted the Taliban to literally obliterate our former Afghans friends. Gave them the means to do so completely.
I'm sure the cavemen in the Taliban closely studied the Vietnam War and really cared about the thoughts of Joe Biden.The Taliban knew Biden would let them burn it - and did. They knew it from his comments about the end of the Vietnam war and evacuation, him causing the Saigon moment and his declaring on the governing committee in Congress he didn't care if ANY Vietnamese were evacuated making that evacuation a disaster. The Afghanistan evac chaos was just Biden Evacuation 2.0. They knew Biden doesn't retreat - he runs away betraying everyone and everything.
Some would argue we had a Russian oligarch sympathizer before the repeal. I personally don't find common cause with American oligarchs sitting in the Oval office either.It's a predictable narrative. We'd probably have a Russian oligarch as president in the election after the repeal. No thanks.
After what has already happened, i can see it happening. I also see it as likely without that clause.I honestly cannot imagine this happening, actually happening. How will the election play out? It seems extremely unlikely to me anything like this would succeed, considering the current American public opinion of Russia, Vladimir Putin and Russian oligarchs.
It's best if we replace it rather than repeal it altogether. Add some residency requirements or something.
Before Punkinhead, i might have had a different opinion. It will be interesting to see if this idea becomes suddenly popular online.Some would argue we had a Russian oligarch sympathizer before the repeal. I personally don't find common cause with American oligarchs sitting in the Oval office either.
Maybe it would be best to judge each individual on their own merits, rather than engage in an idiotic policy of mass punishment.
It wasn't a strawman, I think we just perceive people's "democratic rights" differently.LMAO listen, if you post retarded strawman, nonsensical and dishonest claims like this your posts are only gonna look more stilly
having some requirements for the POTUS has nothing to do with being against democratic rights LMAO
Well, that's just how you interpreted what I said. I admit it was slightly ambiguous, but I elaborated a bit later on.oh but you did, you are free to backpedal and now clarify but you in fact did
you asked what point is there, like its the only one because if there were others there would be no need to ask your question
I suppose what I really want to know is what is the point of democracy if you're going to clumsily discriminate against foreign-born Americans in an effort to block foreign influence? Why allow them to vote at all if you distrust them so much?yes we know you feel that way. its not that way and i dont agree with you
there arent any rights being denied by this no matter how many times you falsely say it
You said "we still have age restrictions", but I was pointing out the difference. Young people are governed by older people but they'll get a turn. Older people might be governed by younger people but they had a turn already. Some people will never get a turn for really no good reason at all.nobody said they would
But you have been given access. Let's say you've grown up in the United States. You are an average American schoolboy or schoolgirl.and?
and?
correct
because "earth" isn't the united states of America, just like being born on the planet doesn't even grant you access to some counties and places LMAOP this isn't a hard concept
You seemed to make it sound like being a "foreigner" somehow curtailed their ability to serve as President just as well as any other American who'd grown up in the US. Why? What if they'd been an American citizen since they were a child? What problem do you have with this person becoming President? What good reason do you have?because that's factually accurate for what i actually said, so YES really
ill say my factually accurate statement AGAIN
"ill never agree with just letting a foreigner simply become a citizen and instantly allowing them to be president, no thanks!"
a person is a foreigner before they are a citizen, you're welcome LMAO
It's the LOCATION OF YOUR BIRTH, as I keep repeating. It has no bearings on your character, or your allegiance to any country. Where you were raised might.yes we get you feel that way, so far though you haven't presented anything that really suprots your feelings or adds up to the level of "ridiculous" only factually wrong and false claims or rights being denied which isn't happening
They might be disingenuous, in your opinion, but is it really immoral of them to want a better life for themselves and their families?- To answer your question I believe if the US did not have the requirement for President from the beginning the country would be different than it is today. Not sure how to rate it if that would be better, worse or the same.
imo, there was a time people migrated to the the US because they wanted to become a citizen. They appreciated what the US had to offer and the freedom compared to the country they came from. In the last decade or two, I believe some migrants are coming here because they see a chance for the social programs the US offers. I see more coming in illegally rather through proper channels. Some are using the flaw in the sanctuary law that allows them to enter illegal and claim they are seeking sanctuary.
And do you think he would have made a good President?I support the requirement for natural born to be President. That requirement does not exist for other government elected position. Arnold S. was able to become governor of CA , for example.
Well, the stuff about Biden and his son being blackmailed into being puppets of China and Russia was the conspiracy theory I meant, and a bit of a wild conclusion to draw from this information.Which do you claim is a conspiracy theory?
Biden should down oil and gas exploration on federal land and offshore. Oil and gas wells are like gas tanks. they go empty. Oil can only be pumped so fast or it sours the well. That all is fact, not conspiracy. Not a conspiracy but fact that Biden ended the USA's opposition for Russian NG lines into the EU.
It is a fact that all the wind turbines come from China. Most solar comes from China. I could go on with that too.
Afghanistan certainly is debatable, but Biden did nothing with the Taliban broke the deal for a unity government - and totally ignored ALL military advice on the evacuation. Everything Biden said was false - whether deliberate or stupidity, nor has the government we supported totally collapses. The VP rushed to the mountains where Afghanistan has always held off invaders for a stand. In return, Biden gave the Taliban $85 BILLLION in military equipment to go destroy our allied government and gave them a list of names of Afghans who were anti Taliban to hunt them down with - the ultimate betrayal.
As for China in Afghanistan, that of course is debatable. There is no "conspiracy theory" in any of this other than I suppose Biden's motive for selling out us and our country to Russia and China.
Why would she be made President of ExxonMobile in the first place?That's like saying Greta Thornberg would serve the best interest of the company if she were made president of ExxonMobile.
I'm not talking about just people coming to the US with the specific intention of running for President. I'm talking about all foreign-born Americans.Dont like it?
Dont come to the US with the intent to run for president....see how easy that is?
Note that the same people, or rather their descendants born into the same Southern culture voting Democrat when the KKK "were Democrats" are now solidly Republican.
yes it was and a very dishonest or topically ignorant one, pick oneIt wasn't a strawman, I think we just perceive people's "democratic rights" differently.
no . . that is in fact what you said, there was no interpretationWell, that's just how you interpreted what I said. I admit it was slightly ambiguous, but I elaborated a bit later on.
and that's why your posts keep failingI suppose what I really want to know is what is the point of democracy if you're going to clumsily discriminate against foreign-born Americans in an effort to block foreign influence? Why allow them to vote at all if you distrust them so much?
and? what you are missing is its meaningless it doesn't have anything do with the rules that bother you so muchYou said "we still have age restrictions", but I was pointing out the difference. Young people are governed by older people but they'll get a turn. Older people might be governed by younger people but they had a turn already. Some people will never get a turn for really no good reason at all.
no you haven't or else you wouldn't be having this discussionBut you have been given access.
Let's say you've grown up in the United States. You are an average American schoolboy or schoolgirl.
You ask, "Mommy, can I be President some day?"
"No, son, because you were born in Panama. Sorry about that."
My point is that the LOCATION OF BIRTH has nothing, NOTHING (necessarily) to do with the PERSON THEMSELVES, and does not in itself affect the qualities they may or may not possess that would make them a good American President.
no what i did is point out the fact they would be a foriugnerYou seemed to make it sound like being a "foreigner" somehow curtailed their ability to serve as President just as well as any other American who'd grown up in the US. Why?
I already answered this, im fine if they arent allowed or if requirements are decided on like 20 years of living here i wouldn't be against itWhat if they'd been an American citizen since they were a child? What problem do you have with this person becoming President? What good reason do you have?
actually its not being a born citizen and its being a foreigner. It is NOT just the location of birth. SO no matter how many times you repeat it doesn't matter.It's the LOCATION OF YOUR BIRTH, as I keep repeating. It has no bearings on your character, or your allegiance to any country. Where you were raised might.NOT the location of your birth. You could have been born anywhere, then moved to America at one month old and lived exactly the same life. How do people not see this?
They might be disingenuous, in your opinion, but is it really immoral of them to want a better life for themselves and their families?
And do you think he would have made a good President?
If you just want to stop a dangerous perverse, conservative, Russian-backed Trump-like person being elected President again, then I agree. But at all costs? Would you deny conservatives the right to stand for office simply because they're conservatives? Or what about the right to vote?Before Punkinhead, i might have had a different opinion. It will be interesting to see if this idea becomes suddenly popular online.
I suggested you seemed to be against democratic rights, you said no, that was a strawman, and I accepted that we must have different perceptions of what democratic rights are. Anyway...yes it was and a very dishonest or topically ignorant one, pick one
there is no different prespective What you speak of are factually related
Yes, I said something and you interpreted it a certain way.no . . that is in fact what you said, there was no interpretation
The argument for democracy, taken to its logical conclusion, would come to complete and universal suffrage, and the argument against personal dictatorship, taken to its logical conclusion, comes to everyone being allowed to stand for the highest office as Head of State. I'm sure many Americans would balk at an absolute monarchy, which equals absolute discrimination against everybody except against a few individuals. But many people would say it was in the country's best interest. Even if you had a great ruler who was an absolute monarch, would you not fight for the right of anybody to be elected President instead, because you believed in it?and that's why your posts keep failing
having these rules does not defeat or lesson democracy or defeat the point of what democracy is
Yes, it's a stupid system, isn't it? In any case, have you actually provided a good reason why that American schoolchild can't grow up to become the American President?and? what you are missing is its meaningless it doesn't have anything do with the rules that bother you so much
no you haven't or else you wouldn't be having this discussion
Let's say you've grown up in the United States. You are an average American schoolboy or schoolgirl.
You ask, "Mommy, can I just go to <insert country here>,
"No, son, because you were born in here in the US Sorry about that."
My point is that the LOCATION OF BIRTH has nothing, NOTHING (necessarily) to do with the PERSON THEMSELVES, and does not in itself affect the qualities they may or may not possess that would make them ok to be in that country.
see . . meaningless and an empty failed argument that holds no rational merit
You might as well say, "I like the idea of only allowing liberals to stand for office". Perhaps that sounds good to a lot of liberals and they'd think the country would be better-off if that was the case. But obviously it's a ridiculous notion because it ignores a large amount of the populace simply because other people think allowing them to stand for election would be dangerous to the country. It's not democratic.no what i did is point out the fact they would be a foriugner
and that im more than ok with somebody who was a foreigner NOT having the ability or having MORE requirements to be the president of my country because that's logical, not to make sense i like the idea of somebody actually living here, growing up here and having that experience. DOesnt matter what you or anybody else thinks of that lol
It's being not a "natural-born citizen". Have you been labouring under a misapprehension?I already answered this, im fine if they arent allowed or if requirements are decided on like 20 years of living here i wouldn't be against it
actually its not being a born citizen and its being a foreigner. It is NOT just the location of birth. SO no matter how many times you repeat it doesn't matter.
Why not? You don't think it's a pressing enough issue? You don't have a stake in it yourself?again we get it, you dont like but again you haven't really presented anything that matters besides a false claim od denying rights and hurting democracy . .
it such a none issue, if it never changes im completely okl with it
if they change it but put some rules in it like 20 years of citizenship, i wouldn't be AGAINST that but i wouldn't fight for it
Right.this isn't going to change for me
And did that have anything to do with the location of his birth?- He was an average Governor. No. I don't think he would have been a good President.
Sad thing is that those who fly the Confederate battle flag don't share American values, either. And they are actual citizens...The law is in place as a precaution. At the rate the liberals are allowing illegals from all over the world to cross into our country along the southern border, we need these protections even more today. America is America because of our foundational values, our system of government, our freedoms and right to exercise those as we choose. Other countries and many other people don't share those values and don't want America to continue to be the America we have.
imo, Yes. He did not come to the US till he was 21.And did that have anything to do with the location of his birth?
and that is factually wrong, you proved you dont know what rights areI suggested you seemed to be against democratic rights, you said no, that was a strawman, and I accepted that we must have different perceptions of what democratic rights are. Anyway...
nope, it was exactly what you saidYes, I said something and you interpreted it a certain way.
so not actual real world democracy fantasy you are making up, let me know when we are discussing president of earthThe argument for democracy, taken to its logical conclusion, would come to complete and universal suffrage, and the argument against personal dictatorship, taken to its logical conclusion, comes to everyone being allowed to stand for the highest office as Head of State. I'm sure many Americans would balk at an absolute monarchy, which equals absolute discrimination against everybody except against a few individuals. But many people would say it was in the country's best interest. Even if you had a great ruler who was an absolute monarch, would you not fight for the right of anybody to be elected President instead, because you believed in it?
yes what you are saying isYes, it's a stupid system, isn't it?
yes because they arent a natural born citizen and i have said many times if it was changed to 20 years citizen or something like that that would be ok to but it should never just be openIn any case, have you actually provided a good reason why that American schoolchild can't grow up to become the American President?
never said it did, that was one of the dishonest strawmen you started hammering on that is meaninglessEven if you continue to disagree, do you at least admit that the Location of Birth has no effect whatsoever in itself on the merits of an individual and their fitness to serve as American President?
this is the dumbest and most dishonest thing you have said yet and it is not analogous in anyway LMAO wow . . . . so much desperation to make your point but you keep hugely failingYou might as well say, "I like the idea of only allowing liberals to stand for office". Perhaps that sounds good to a lot of liberals and they'd think the country would be better-off if that was the case. But obviously it's a ridiculous notion because it ignores a large amount of the populace simply because other people think allowing them to stand for election would be dangerous to the country. It's not democratic.
sweet irony if you won't like the fact your statement is wrong that's on youIt's being not a "natural-born citizen". Have you been labouring under a misapprehension?
because unlike you i live in reality and understand the fact that its nor a violation of rights nor does it hurt democracyWhy not? You don't think it's a pressing enough issue? You don't have a stake in it yourself?
correct, you haven't provided any rational reason to actually care or for this issue to be brought to the front of the lineRight.
I'm not for denying any person who currently qualifies for president the ability to run. I also support HR1.If you just want to stop a dangerous perverse, conservative, Russian-backed Trump-like person being elected President again, then I agree. But at all costs? Would you deny conservatives the right to stand for office simply because they're conservatives? Or what about the right to vote?
Would you deny the vote to conservatives simply because they'd vote for Trump? I assume not. They have the right to vote, and they should have the right to vote.
Would you deny southerners the right to vote? Would you systematically deny anyone who'd ever purchase a MAGA hat the right to vote? It might solve the problem and prevent anybody like Trump from being elected again. But it wouldn't be right to randomly discriminate against a certain group because some of them - even the majority of them - might cause damage to America while exercising their rights. Because then certain perfectly fine people are being denied the same rights as most other people purely because of something they can't help that has nothing really to do with the content of their character, or their individual merits, or their fitness to serve as President.
There is a former president who spoke highly of those two. Guess who it was.No, the Democratic Party would make China's Jinping president and Russia's Putin Vice President. The White House exists as their employees already now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?