US 2024 Presidential Election

Chimpzy said:

MAGA: "We never wanted this."
Trump blabbers something
MAGA: "We've always wanted this."

Click to expand...

Whoops, you're wrong. Instead we got the other possibility - "It was Biden/Obama's fault!" In this case, they're now arguing that this is the inevitable result of the Iran nuclear deal existing at all.

hanselthecaretaker2 said:

Legal vs illegal is a matter of language, and that’s perhaps no more evident than visa overstays being considered “undocumented”

Click to expand...

That's because "undocumented" is a euphemism. It doesn't mean "lacks documentation" but rather "is here in violation of immigration law and policy". Calling them illegal immigrants is much more accurate terminology, but leads to people shouting about how people can't be illegal as though the claim is that the people are somehow innately illegal, rather than their immigration being illegal. Makes me feel bad for all the undocumented acquisitions specialists and unrequested euthanasia providers out there being defined by their actions.

The Rogue Wolf said:

Without Congressional approval, of course,

Click to expand...

That hasn't stopped a US president in a long time.

Schadrach said:

That's because "undocumented" is a euphemism. It doesn't mean "lacks documentation" but rather "is here in violation of immigration law and policy". Calling them illegal immigrants is much more accurate terminology, but leads to people shouting about how people can't be illegal as though the claim is that the people are somehow innately illegal, rather than their immigration being illegal. Makes me feel bad for all the undocumented acquisitions specialists and unrequested euthanasia providers out there being defined by their actions.

Click to expand...

There are much better reasons to object to the term "illegal immigrant"; it implies a criminal offence (which unauthorised presence alone is not), and it carries a presumption of guilt before the legal system has passed judgement-- After all, a thief is legally a /suspect/ until that ruling.

That said, "undocumented" isn't good either, because many such people do have documents.

"Unauthorised" seems like the least misleading.

Are there non citizens who deserve a right to vote more than citizens? Almost certainly, but that’s not the point.

This should really go a step beyond a mere citizenship requirement and include a core competency program that validates each potential voter’s -

A. General understanding of our government and what each branch is design to do.

B. General understanding of relevant issues at hand during each election cycle.

Hey, we also need to renew our drivers licenses every four years to maintain driving privileges, which would be a bit of a coincidence.

hanselthecaretaker2 said:

Are there non citizens who deserve a right to vote more than citizens? Almost certainly, but that’s not the point.

Click to expand...

I distinctly remember something about "no tax without representation", and I'm sure the USA has a lot of tax-paying non-citizens. I think there's a reasonable case for allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections.

hanselthecaretaker2 said:

A. General understanding of our government and what each branch is design to do.
B. General understanding of relevant issues at hand during each election cycle.

Click to expand...

There is just about no way that aptitude tests to permit voting will end well.

hanselthecaretaker2 said:

This should really go a step beyond a mere citizenship requirement and include a core competency program that validates each potential voter’s -

A. General understanding of our government and what each branch is design to do.

B. General understanding of relevant issues at hand during each election cycle.

Hey, we also need to renew our drivers licenses every four years to maintain driving privileges, which would be a bit of a coincidence.

Click to expand...

Sounds great, because I'm pretty sure this would disqualify many if not most currently eligible citizens from voting.

hanselthecaretaker2 said:

A. General understanding of our government and what each branch is design to do.

Click to expand...

The Republicans would never allow that. It would look Trump even more like a wannebe dictator.

To the surprise of anyone with an IQ in the negative, Iran has attacked a US military base in Qatar. Trump responded by saying "they've gotten it all out of their 'system'".


You can't make this shit up. Nobody would ever believe it. It's too clownish.

Schadrach said:

Whoops, you're wrong. Instead we got the other possibility - "It was Biden/Obama's fault!" In this case, they're now arguing that this is the inevitable result of the Iran nuclear deal existing at all.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't suggest it was an inevitable result of that, in as much as I think this is an equally likely end state if there were no nuclear deal, but I would not be terribly surprised to learn that this was the plan intended with that nuclear deal. "Hey, we'll support you (or at least stop opposing you) in a bunch of ways and let you refine uranium if you pinky promise not to make nukes to blow up Israel with it in the next 10 years" is an absolutely insane offer if your goal is for Iran to voluntarily never have nukes. If, however, you know they are doing their research hidden underground, and your goal is to get inspectors in to gather intelligence of where precisely they are doing their nuclear research so you can spend 10 years calibrating the precise payloads needed to bust their bunkers the moment they make a move, the nuclear deal begins to make a lot more sense.

Silvanus said:

There are much better reasons to object to the term "illegal immigrant"; it implies a criminal offence (which unauthorised presence alone is not), and it carries a presumption of guilt before the legal system has passed judgement-- After all, a thief is legally a /suspect/ until that ruling.

Click to expand...

"No Human Being Is Illegal"/"No One Is Illegal"/"No Person Is Illegal" is an oft repeated slogan by people who oppose immigration enforcement of any kind, and has been since the 1980s. Internationally, even.

I suppose "accused illegal immigrant" or "alleged illegal immigrant" would be better. But not distinguishing them as accused or alleged is not usually the complaint with the term brought up, but rather the whole notion of an illegal immigrant as a concept and the negative implications of the term (while "undocumented" has more of a "mixed up some paperwork" connotation, it's toothless and that's the point).

hanselthecaretaker2 said:

This should really go a step beyond a mere citizenship requirement and include a core competency program that validates each potential voter’s -

A. General understanding of our government and what each branch is design to do.

B. General understanding of relevant issues at hand during each election cycle.

Click to expand...

Sure thing. Of course, this will immediately be lambasted as extremely racist and invoke Jim Crow era literacy tests.

hanselthecaretaker2 said:

Hey, we also need to renew our drivers licenses every four years to maintain driving privileges, which would be a bit of a coincidence.

Click to expand...

Driver's license renewals are a state, not federal thing. And not always 4 years, for example in my state it's five years.

Schadrach said:

"No Human Being Is Illegal"/"No One Is Illegal"/"No Person Is Illegal" is an oft repeated slogan by people who oppose immigration enforcement of any kind, and has been since the 1980s. Internationally, even.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of that. That's principally a reaction to the shortcomings of the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegals".

"Immigrant" does, unavoidably, refer to the person. It may rely on their status to define the person, but as a noun, it refers to the person and not the action. And so linguistically, "illegal" does indeed refer to the person as well. Critics of the term find that reductionist (and find the shorthand "illegals" to be even more so). I'm inclined to agree.

My issue with "undocumented" isn't that it's toothless, but that it's inaccurate.

Silvanus said:

"Immigrant" does, unavoidably, refer to the person. It may rely on their status to define the person, but as a noun, it refers to the person and not the action. And so linguistically, "illegal" does indeed refer to the person as well. Critics of the term find that reductionist (and find the shorthand "illegals" to be even more so). I'm inclined to agree.

Click to expand...

And yet that is somehow not a problem with other nouns that describe a person who has committed a specific kind of transgression. Should we also be moving to unauthorized procurement specialist and unrequested euthanasia provider so that the noun we're using to refer to the person (specialist or provider) doesn't have a negative connotation?

Silvanus said:

My issue with "undocumented" isn't that it's toothless, but that it's inaccurate.

Click to expand...

But the reason that's the preferred term is because it's toothless. The whole point is that the connotation is "paperwork mishap" rather than "transgressor against federal law and policy". That's the reason it's that and not something like "unauthorized immigrant" or "international trespasser" or something, the point is to use the least negative term that isn't a blatant lie.

The Rogue Wolf said:

You can't make this shit up. Nobody would ever believe it. It's too clownish.

Click to expand...

This is standard diplomacy. Nations have a sense of honour, and they find it very difficult to accept the humiliation of being struck without reprisal.

In this case, Iran does not want escalation (quite the opposite) but they need to be able to do something to show they didn't just get slapped and do nothing. Therefore, Iran arranges a return strike, ensuring that this is not too deadly or damaging, and the USA magnanimously permits this to draw a line under the affair. The USA leaves happy because it got the better of the exchange, and Iran leaves... not happy exactly, but accepting, because it can say it stood up for itself.

Apparently Iran contacted the USA in advance. The message will have been something like "The missiles arrive at 2pm [so you've got 3 hours to make sure that anything essential you couldn't forgive getting destroyed is safe in a bunker]". Everyone will have known what the score was.

Schadrach said:

And yet that is somehow not a problem with other nouns that describe a person who has committed a specific kind of transgression. Should we also be moving to unauthorized procurement specialist and unrequested euthanasia provider so that the noun we're using to refer to the person (specialist or provider) doesn't have a negative connotation?

Click to expand...

The terms "thief" and "murderer" do not have an adjunct descriptor that refers to the person rather than their action.

If there was a single word that meant "person who has immigrated illegally", the response would not be the same.

But the reason that's the preferred term is because it's toothless. The whole point is that the connotation is "paperwork mishap" rather than "transgressor against federal law and policy". That's the reason it's that and not something like "unauthorized immigrant" or "international trespasser" or something, the point is to use the least negative term that isn't a blatant lie.

Click to expand...

So what if its "toothless"? The job of the term isn't to deliver a condemnation.

Silvanus said:

If there was a single word that meant "person who has immigrated illegally", the response would not be the same.

Click to expand...

Trespasser

Phoenixmgs said:

Trespasser

Click to expand...

Trespass has an existing legal definition that doesn't cover unauthorised immigration.

The US Supreme court can go fuck itself.

BrawlMan said:

The US Supreme court can go fuck itself.

Click to expand...

Eh, only 2/3 of them. They're extra fucking chickens for not writing an actual opinion to defend this particular bullshit, almost as though they know they can't.

Its pathetic we need to compliment the US president for clearing the intensely low bar of just behaving himself. But since that is the world the US electorate dementedly forced everyone to live in I suppose we should give credit were credit is due.

Yes. Trump seemed to have behaved himself at the NATO summit. He was a good enough guest and didn't ruin the party. However one might feel about this no longer being a given we should at least grant Trump the credit of saying his conduct of today was good.

Maybe that piece of filth Vance not being around to provoke fights helped with that. Maybe something the US should keep in mind when doing anything related with foreign politics