Quote (bogie160 @ 13 Aug 2020 04:54)

The American right-left debate is past its expiry date. The Republican party is alternatively obsessed with creating an Ayn Rand dystopia and establishing an idealized caricature of1950s America. Neither has any chance of happening. The Democratic Party envisions a party-media alliance in the form of Pravda, economic illiteracy, and a refusal to take accountability for the abject failure that has been its stewardship of the black community.

The parties need to dissolve, and new ones need to rise in their place. Trump is an agent of destruction. Accelerationism is in.

Quote (Goomshill @ 13 Aug 2020 06:03)

She is simultaneously one of the most liberal senators and yet also a right-wing authoritarian cop

Or more reasonably: She's a far left-authoritarian liberal cop, her politics cynical opportunism

Quote (Thor123422 @ Aug 13 2020 12:54am)

Seems like the kind of thing that would have been vetted a long time ago.

Quote (Goomshill @ Aug 13 2020 01:31am)

I mean the facts aren't in question, only the law and interpretation
Its public that she was born in Oakland to two non-citizen immigrant parents on temporary visas, and never took any naturalization action under the interpretation that she was a citizen by birth.
Under the precedent in Wong Kim Ark the US government has treated all births on US soil outside the narrow exceptions (diplomatic personnel) as natural born citizens, but Ark didn't necessarily extend that to temporary or illegal immigrants, as it was a question of permanent residents. And under the same basis that Ark could be consistent with a statutory redefinition that excludes illegal aliens, it could also prohibit temporary residents. Under current definitions, it doesn't.
So the legal professor is basically asserting his own view of how the vagueness left by the court could be settled, and then applying this retroactively to Kamala, even though this would never happen in reality.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 13 Aug 2020 08:38)

Might be interesting if it ever goes to court.

I'd still love to see a ruling from the supreme court on equal protections vs. natural citizens. Seems like the equal protections part of the constitution would afford the right to run for office to every citizen.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 13 2020 02:36am)

Does "equal protection" really encompass civil rights/rights which are a privilege, like the ability to run for office?
If your interpretation of the equal protection clause was correct and any differentiation between basic rights and civil rights (rights which are tied to citizenship or permanent legal residency) was moot, this would not only mean that Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ilhan Omar could run for president, it would also imply that international tourists at Disney World could cast a vote in presidential elections.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Aug 13 2020 01:38am)

Might be interesting if it ever goes to court.

I'd still love to see a ruling from the supreme court on equal protections vs. natural citizens. Seems like the equal protections part of the constitution would afford the right to run for office to every citizen.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 13 Aug 2020 10:07)

International tourists aren't citizens

Quote (Goomshill @ 13 Aug 2020 04:28)

It would mean overturning all of immigration precedent we have right now. Which frankly is long overdue and something that absolutely should be done, and make our law less vague and arbitrary.
But there's no reason it should go to court or be considered ambiguous, the ruling precedent right now says she's a citizen by birth.

Quote (bogie160 @ Aug 12 2020 10:40pm)

Obama ridiculed Romney on Russia, e.g. "The Cold War is over." The Obama administration was summarily abused. Hillary wanted to "reset" Russian relations, and the administration was taken advantage of. Obama established a "redline" in Syria. The line was crossed, and it turns out that Obama had no clothes. The Iranian theocracy was facing a historic domestic challenge to rule, with an economy teetering on collapse, and Obama threw out a lifeline.

The Democratic foreign policy approach over the last two decades has been centered around the assumption that foreign nations are good faith actors in just protest against an oppressive West led by the United States. It's fundamentally an intellectually poor frame through which to view the world. Nations are composed of individuals. Individuals are self-interested. Self-interest seeks personal advantage, and permissiveness does not inspire generosity.

The issue at its core is that the American left can't help but extend their domestic frame to the international sphere. If domestic politics is about a morally bankrupt elite oppressing the downtrodden, so must foreign policy. It's easy to see then how they end up supporting a reactionary Iran, or have sympathy for Hamas terrorists who blow up children. Dictatorship and incompetence in Venezuela? That's ok, because they're fighting the Imperialist. Famines be dammed.

The Bush foray in democracy building was a mistake. The United States should be asserting its rights abroad in order to protect and promote American interests. Foreign policy is not a moral issue. It's one of expedience. American politicians have a duty to protect and promote American interests abroad. While I take issue with both parties, the Republicans fundamentally understand that foreign policy is about power politics, the Democrats don't.

I could condense the last few paragraphs and say with respect to foreign policy your case has no merit. I'm more interested to know how the Democrats have demonstrated fiscal competence or economic stewardship, as the American public seems to heartily disagree.

Quote (JLAudio @ Aug 12 2020 11:57pm)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEIfUaT-1aY