Probably all or some subset of immigrants. People wanting to pull up the drawbridge after them is known phenomenon.

This is a thread about Trump so let's keep it to USA#190 and not prattle on about other places.

Ok so why would them wanting to fix a problem with illegal immigration be something that ruins society?

Maybe given they fled from specific places when it was hard to do they know that making it easy and subsidized to do will bring in exactly the same people they fled from? So we should trust their opinion on the topic?

Fourth is obviously a negative right but I wanted to see you get your panties in a bunch. You didn't address voting rights.

Fifth has a right to a grand jury and to remain silent. Double jeopardy protection is a negative right.

But who cares? I am sure you want to argue that the negative rights are more important than the positive rights because most positive rights aren't enumerated. Your belief that any right conferred in an unconstitutional manner should be abolished and it's sponsors should be murdered is not an issue worth arguing about with you.

Do we know it's restricted to illegal immigrants? Various politicians have floated the idea about removing birthright citizenship.

I did address voting right, check above.

Right to a jury is again an element the gvmnt must follow in order to use it's (otherwise unlimited) power if it wants to touch you. Remain silent is a limitation on what the gvmnt can do to you, if you refuse to answer (=nothing, if it could incriminate you to speak).

My argument was specifically to address the claim by pocket0, that trump wanting to condition federal funding to colleges on defending american and western values was a violation of free speech, when it isn't.

Do you agree?

I also think that the USA is a superior country (vs European countries) because it has approx no positive rights, especially not for education, general welfare, healthcare and so on but that's a different topic.

All to own the libs.

we have those, they’re just not constitutionally protected. but the framers were some of the earliest advocates for positive rights eg Jefferson with public education.

One of my "crackpot beliefs" which I've said for years is FEMA is a corrupt compromised agency. I've also been saying for years "if multiple fact checkers are denying something, it usually means it's true but will hurt their narrative so it's debunked".

Here's another "fact check" that turned out to be another lie:






It wasn't just "an employee" it was someone higher up in management and I don't even believe they fired that person, but that's just me.

You should be required to put this at the end of every post.

Don't know anything about Noem

Bah, I should have predicted divorces will spike between now and the inauguration, but it seems like cheating to predict now that it's already starting.

Best Governor for COVID (never a lockdown not even in March 2020), but she bragged about killing her dog when it was too violent

Factual information by PB sounds eerie

Don't worry, she doesn't know anything about anything.

Another pretty easy prediction to make: if trump appoints rfk there will be a large spike in death from preventable illness and a return of at least one basically eradicated disease. Those may take more than 4 years to manifest, but they will happen. That's not even a prediction, that's just cause and effect.

You're obviously clueless as to what he stands for with regards to health and nutrition.

The reason so many people (including kids) are obese is because of the standard american diet they consume which is full of carbs, sugar, highly processed foods and artificial ingredients. As a matter of fact, getting rid of these foods completely and replacing it with nutrient dense foods like meat and eggs has reversed type 2 diabetes in just about every case (as well as most all psychological issues), so you're "prediction" is wrong.

If it isn't constitutionally protected, it isn't a constitutional right no matter how much some specific framer of the constitution would have liked them to be one

She wasn't bragging about killing her puppy for barking; she legit thought that sharing that anecdote in her book would make her look like a person capable of making tough decisions.

No one in the country bought it... except for the Orange One because he wants to motorboat them teddies.

Then she went and did a bunch of interviews to promote her book and took great offense to being asked about the things she wrote in her book.




But seriously, this is a good pick for Trump. Someone with no experience, no objectivity, and she will do whatever Trump tells her to do because she's too stupid to think for herself.

Gtfo of here with your carnivore bullshit.

It's someone who with little special expertise (more than Harris though) at least answered right to the most important moral calling in western peacetime history: how to use emergency powers as the executive during COVID.

She was on the top 1% of best responders worldwide and will be forever remembered for the exceptional display of moral courage she demonstrated in not falling for horrifically violent authoritarian callings coming from everywhere else.

She chose freedom above everything else as the most important moral value of all (you die for freedom not viceversa) and that won't be forgotten.

That said she might very well be mediocre in this new task, no one is denying it.

But at least her moral fiber is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Pandemics are much easier to manage in a state like South Dakota because the population density is so low.

You said we don’t have positive rights in the US, not that we don’t have a constitutional right to positive rights.

Also the state constitutions can have positive rights if they so choose, so there could be states which say education is a constitutional right of the state.

I said you don't have positive rights in the american federal constitution that was the topic (ofc a generalization and perhaps a bad one as the right to a lawyer is definitionally a positive one. But you don't have positive rights to general welfare, education, healthcare and the like).

That was the topic given the 1a purported violation was a federal one and it isn't a violation as there is no positive right to subsidized speech, that was the topic originating the conversation on positive/negative rights

Have you ever been to South Dakota? No one ****ing lives there. Had she done that in a dense area they would have been piling up bodies.

The problem you have with covid is you're using information we know today about it and trying to retroactively apply that information. It doesn't work that way with novel viruses.