Discussion of Concerns for Trump Presidency

[Fireballer 2,599]

1 hour ago, Death said:

 

I haven't said one issue was more important than another. I was responding to the assertion that abortion wasn't a national issue. 

Immigration being a national issue doesn't mean abortion isn't one.

There's that baffling MAGA pretzel logic again.

Abortion is a national issue whether you like it or not, and Trump's position is that it's up to states to decide that.

If he's all about those states' rights, if California doesn't want to kick in a door and drag off Aunt Lupe to a prison camp before air dropping her back into Chalupalajara, Trump should support that state's choice.

JFC yall are dense.  The feds can’t compel states in that way.  It’s the fuking 10th amendment.  But like I said, immigration law has been placed in a status that nearly immune from judicial review.  To mention that and abortion in the same breath is idiotic. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,164]

Wait, idiots think states have say over the federal government when it comes to immigration? WTF. Some of you are just morons. 

[Death 142]

46 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

JFC yall are dense.  The feds can’t compel states in that way.  It’s the fuking 10th amendment.  But like I said, immigration law has been placed in a status that nearly immune from judicial review.  To mention that and abortion in the same breath is idiotic. 

To say abortion isn't a national issue is even more idiotic. Immigration is a national issue. The economy is a national issue. Inflation is a national issue. Abortion is a national issue whether you like it or not.

[Death 142]

2 hours ago, shorepatrol said:

Sad 

 

I'm looking forward to it. 

[Baker Boy 1,647]

18 minutes ago, Death said:

To say abortion isn't a national issue is even more idiotic. Immigration is a national issue. The economy is a national issue. Inflation is a national issue. Abortion is a national issue whether you like it or not.

No, it isn’t, the Supreme Court just had a ruling on that. 

[Death 142]

19 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

No, it isn’t, the Supreme Court just had a ruling on that. 

Here's an actual poll that shows abortion as a national issue.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-2024-presidential-vote.aspx

Death always wins in the end.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,164]

Democrats just got blown out with abortion as their lead issue. Play it again Sam.  lol. 

[Death 142]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Democrats just got blown out with abortion as their lead issue. Play it again Sam.  lol. 

See, even Pickles here acknowledges abortion as a national issue.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,164]

6 minutes ago, Death said:

See, even Pickles here acknowledges abortion as a national issue.

It was a national issue.  Was. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,164]

Seems the cowardly upper echelon of the FBI is running for the exit before the bloodbath. Good luck getting those sweet gigs without your security clearance. lol. 

[The Real timschochet 5,232]

3 hours ago, shorepatrol said:

Cool, withhold all federal funding to California. Do what you do but not with my federal taxes 

OK let’s make a deal. We in California will pay nothing to the federal government and in return we get nothing back. Sound good to you? It does to me. 

[Strike 4,814]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

OK let’s make a deal. We in California will pay nothing to the federal government and in return we get nothing back. Sound good to you? It does to me. 

California doesn't pay taxes.  United States citizens pay taxes.  HTH.

[Dizkneelande 1,018]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK let’s make a deal. We in California will pay nothing to the federal government and in return we get nothing back. Sound good to you? It does to me. 

First time I’ve ever agreed with you

[nobody 2,461]

33 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK let’s make a deal. We in California will pay nothing to the federal government and in return we get nothing back. Sound good to you? It does to me. 

Dude thinks they wouldn't immediately raise state tax rate to higher than the federal level, and wouldn't California still enjoy the benefits of the US having the strongest military in the world?

He really has no idea who these people are.

 

[The Real timschochet 5,232]

13 minutes ago, nobody said:

Dude thinks they wouldn't immediately raise state tax rate to higher than the federal level, and wouldn't California still enjoy the benefits of the US having the strongest military in the world?

He really has no idea who these people are.

 

Benefits?

Ive never been much into this whole secession thing but California is the one state that could survive independently of the United States. We’d be just fine.

[nobody 2,461]

18 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Benefits?

Ive never been much into this whole secession thing but California is the one state that could survive independently of the United States. We’d be just fine.

Benefits... 

Not having to worry about being invaded.  Not having to field a state run army.  

Or does your proposal rely on the kindness of the horrible USA to defend you?  Because if California wasn't backed by the US military it would be under Chinese or Russian control.  Or do you think nations don't invade countries because they're nice?

Pretty easy to make money when you don't need to field a military.

[nobody 2,461]

Man, this dude wants his voice heard and doesn't even know a country needs some sort of defense force.  

This is what we're dealing with.  Dude thinks the world is a kindergarten classroom and wants to a seat at the table.  Yeesh.

[jbycho 208]

24 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Benefits?

Ive never been much into this whole secession thing but California is the one state that could survive independently of the United States. We’d be just fine.

There are a lot of crappy little countries around the world filled with corrupt people running the place into poverty and violence. 

You all would fit right in nicely.  

[TimHauck 2,449]

23 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Here's one. Trump will remove the ability to aquire American citizenship if someone is born here to illegal aliens. I'm good with it. We need to be selective as a country.

 

23 hours ago, Strike said:

Trump can't do that.  It's an interpretation of a constitutional amendment.  Now, that interpretation could be changed by the SCOTUS and I would welcome that.  Much like Roe, this SC ruling was always wrong so it would be great if they overturn it.

 

22 hours ago, Voltaire said:

The thing with abortion is that it isn't mentioned in the cosntitution. SCOTUS just fabricated a ruling wholecloth out of nothing in 1973 and pretended it was there.

That's different than birthright citizenship. It is mentioned specifically in the constitution.

Liberal justices start with the results they want then twist the Constitution into whatever form they want it to take or just ignore it's plain writing outright for expediency purposes.  Conservative justices do not do things that way. I agree that the birthright citizenship is BS but it IS there, it is addressed, and just ignoring the wording to achieve the outcome you want is acting like a sh*tbag liberal "living document" scumball. The conservatives on the court have too much respect for the Constitution to pull that.

Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment Explained

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

 

Sorry didn’t see this being discussed in here.  Getting rid of birthright citizenship seems to be a slippery slope.  The baby obviously did nothing wrong, but I’m sure the argument would be they’re being born into a bad situation or something so they shouldn’t be here.  But if that’s the case might as well deport babies born to low income people too.  Although I’m sure @iam90sbaby would be fine with that.

[The Real timschochet 5,232]

55 minutes ago, nobody said:

Benefits... 

Not having to worry about being invaded.  Not having to field a state run army.  

Or does your proposal rely on the kindness of the horrible USA to defend you?  Because if California wasn't backed by the US military it would be under Chinese or Russian control.  Or do you think nations don't invade countries because they're nice?

Pretty easy to make money when you don't need to field a military.

Oh well have a military. Along with a full nuclear arsenal. After all it was our people at Berkeley and Cal Tech that invented the damn things. And we’ll have an Air Force- it’s our aerospace industry that supplies it. 
 

Nobody’s invading California. And if there was ever a civil war, we’d kick your asses too. It’s funny that you think you’re defending us. We’re defending YOU. 
 

 

[nobody 2,461]

I live in California and I work in defense. 

I'm defending you.

[BrahmaBulls 627]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK let’s make a deal. We in California will pay nothing to the federal government and in return we get nothing back. Sound good to you? It does to me. 

Kind of like you do with the Mexicans at your job?

[nobody 2,461]

By the way, you can't build anything without the manufacturing bases out of the southeast.  Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama do a lot of the skilled touch labor to make complex electronic components... Cheap labor and all.  There are also key manufacturing centers in Florida and the Northeast.

Then you'd have to overcome this thing called ITAR that would prohibit any components used for weapons shipping out of the country.

You probably picked the wrong fight here on yet another topic you know nothing about (but of course have opinions on - I get you're joking though)

[The Real timschochet 5,232]

3 minutes ago, nobody said:

I live in California and I work in defense. 

I'm defending you.

Touché. And thank you. 
 

All I’m saying is that California would survive just fine as an independent state. Thrive even. I have no desire to secede. 

[The Real timschochet 5,232]

Just now, nobody said:

By the way, you can't build anything without the manufacturing bases out of the southeast.  Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama do a lot of the skilled touch labor to make complex electronic components.  There are also key manufacturing centers in Florida and the Northeast.

Then you'd have to overcome this thing called ITAR that would prohibit any components used for weapons out of the country.

You probably picked the wrong fight here on yet another topic you know nothing about (but of course have opinions on)

You’re rather patronizing, don’t you think? Of course we can’t survive without trade. What modern nation could?

[nobody 2,461]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

You’re rather patronizing, don’t you think? Of course we can’t survive without trade. What modern nation could?

Point being, the patronizing opinion that California would be fine without the rest of the US is overstated.

[Voltaire 4,965]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Oh well have a military. Along with a full nuclear arsenal. After all it was our people at Berkeley and Cal Tech that invented the damn things. And we’ll have an Air Force- it’s our aerospace industry that supplies it. 
 

Nobody’s invading California. And if there was ever a civil war, we’d kick your asses too. It’s funny that you think you’re defending us. We’re defending YOU. 
 

 

Your tranny forces would be intimidating in those sensuous cammo uniforms.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,164]

Abortion! 

[Horseman 1,987]

Tim has serious issues. Ee gad. 

[The Real timschochet 5,232]

9 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Your tranny forces would be intimidating in those sensuous cammo uniforms.

But they would be stylish! 

[The Real timschochet 5,232]

3 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Tim has serious issues. Ee gad. 

Nope nothing serious. I just watched a beautiful sunset at the beach. I live in absolute paradise. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,164]

Real Tim. Funny. All the rich hollywood diks are sure to not live in Cali over six months. Why’s that? 

[jerryskids 6,170]

6 hours ago, Death said:

 

I haven't said one issue was more important than another. I was responding to the assertion that abortion wasn't a national issue. 

Immigration being a national issue doesn't mean abortion isn't one.

There's that baffling MAGA pretzel logic again.

Abortion is a national issue whether you like it or not, and Trump's position is that it's up to states to decide that.

If he's all about those states' rights, if California doesn't want to kick in a door and drag off Aunt Lupe to a prison camp before air dropping her back into Chalupalajara, Trump should support that state's choice.

I love your Tia Lupe example.  AZ could declare itself an extradition state, and set up buses for folks who would prefer to go to Cali.   

Regarding abortion:  My idea with this thread is to determine reasonable topics that TDS folks like yourself might fear.  I don't find abortion to be one of those, as Trump has never supported a federal ban and has said he won't this time around.

 Before I add it to the list, convince me that abortion under Trump will be different than it would have been under Harris. 

 

 

[jerryskids 6,170]

Here is what I have so far:

Reasonable concerns:

- Tariffs -- If implemented as Trump has stated, would probably cause a mass disruption in our supply chain and prices.

- Mass deportation -- Also a mass disruption, economic issues with losing workers, civil rights concerns.

- Elon streamlining government -- Could introduce a huge number of (former) government employees into the workforce, many of which may not have (government) skills which easily translate to the civilian workplace.

- RFK's influence on health agencies -- Same as above. 

- End of gender affirming care -- I'm not really sure how this would manifest, for adults anyway.  I could see laws against medically transing kids, which I (and most rational people) would view as a good thing, but some like @squistionmight view that as a negative.

- End of naturalized citizenship for Dreamers -- Highly unlikely as it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  I might remove this one.

- Environment and climate change efforts -- Trump has vowed to "drill baby drill" which, along with a general disinterest in pursuing green initiatives, makes it likely that we'll invest less in this area.

- Abortion -- Waiting for Rusty / @Death to tell me why this is a reasonable concern for the POTUS election.

- SCOTUS -- Trump could potentially set 2 or 3 more conservative justices on the bench, securing a conservative court for decades to come.

[Maximum Overkill 1,394]

Trannies and abortion, that's all Liberals care about 

[Death 142]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I love your Tia Lupe example.  AZ could declare itself an extradition state, and set up buses for folks who would prefer to go to Cali.   

Regarding abortion:  My idea with this thread is to determine reasonable topics that TDS folks like yourself might fear.  I don't find abortion to be one of those, as Trump has never supported a federal ban and has said he won't this time around.

 Before I add it to the list, convince me that abortion under Trump will be different than it would have been under Harris. 

 

 

So much for "serious discussion only," throwing out that tired TDS label.

You can't even adhere to your own request for being reasonable.

[shorepatrol 1,828]

4 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Benefits?

Ive never been much into this whole secession thing but California is the one state that could survive independently of the United States. We’d be just fine.

Please do, just the coast though, 40 percent of Cali is still American 

[Dizkneelande 1,018]

6 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Benefits?

Ive never been much into this whole secession thing but California is the one state that could survive independently of the United States. We’d be just fine.

Let’s give it a shot. You have 300 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, receive 150 billion annually for Medicaid expenditures (higher than Texas and Florida combined) and are the highest state in per capita welfare spending. That should totally be sustainable on your own.

[TimHauck 2,449]

On 11/8/2024 at 8:36 PM, Strike said:

I'm concerned about an increase in unemployment of unemployable non skilled people due to massive layoffs in the Federal Government by Elon's efficiency initiatives.

 

On 11/8/2024 at 11:11 PM, jerryskids said:

 

Great one!  I was going to add this later; great minds think alike.   

Agree, this was the general premise of my “sounds like Elon wants to fire many government employees” thread 

[BirdGang 347]

9 hours ago, Horseman said:

Tim has serious issues. Ee gad. 

Is this thread where he and the other FBG lib crybabies come to shed tears?