US Political News and Trump’s China visit

[j_hungary]

Hey bud, Thanks for the Tag but not sure how does it effect me (Greencard Holder) as I can't vote already, but I agree with the last part you said although chance are low for such a law to be overturned but the FACT it is being reheard by the SCOTUS is itself concerning.
US is going through a very interesting times in its history, from 9/11 to Obama Presidency to Trump, attack on Capital to here we are, unlike others I don't believe its the downfall of US, I always argue here with Americans who actually believe that US is going towards a ultimate demise is that one thing I admire America for is that they created strong independent institutions which keep working no matter who becomes president or which part is in majority, which keeps US from falling apart or going to point on no return, which is good... even small countries when they go towards chaos has significant affect on world, imagine the effects of US destabilization internally of the world.
I see this as we have a saying in Pakistan, " Pakistan Tareekh ke Naazok tareen daur se guzaar raha hai " which roughly translate to, Pakistan is going through a very critical phase in its history.

This goes WAY beyond the voting issue, with laws, you have one thing to protect against the other, in this case, it is the 15th Amendment was used to protect Voting Rights. Which means if SCOTUS were to cut into Voting Rights, they would have to cut into the 15th Amendment first, simply because they would need to justify somehow Voting rights were not covered by the 15th Amendment, so States can enact "racial" policy on voting, like literacy test before you can vote, or more ID or in this case, Gerrymandering the district.

Now, if we can argue Voting issue was not protected by 15th Amendment, can we also use the same argument, whatever that is, for the SCOTUS to justify that is not related to 1the 5th Amendment, like this was not written in our bills of rights (By the way, if you read our original Bill of Right, it's very racist and gendering as it was written in 1771). that it wouldn't applies to any other issue, like going to school (Brown vs Board of Education) or even going so far back to US Nationailty Law and start precluding people from certain race or certain people with Religion profile cannot enter the US or cannot become US Citizen, bear in mind, the current CItizenship law and standardisation was only enacted in 1906 with Naturalisation Act 1906, they can use the same argument for this and argue hey, 15th Amendment does not applies on Citizenship issue for example because that was a right, same as voting. It would also cut into anything related to civil right, like law enforcement, taxation and so on because you have to cut into 15th amendment to clear this.

Again, as I point out as my wife said, this is unlikely to overturn Louisiana v Callais because it just shook up the foundation to the core, and last time an argument was heard on this issue 4 months ago (this is a re-argument) only 1 dissent (Clarence Thomas, which funny enough, the only justice dissented on the issue is a Black Justice) but again, as my wife pointed out, if they are not going to rule on that and just let sleeping dog lies like before, why go along to hear it again in October

 

[PakFactor]

To all my fellow non-White, non-Christian American voters, YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS PIECE OF NEWS. Credit to my wife, a constitutional lawyer, who brought this up to me, she was watching the SCOTUS website the other day

Supreme Court is hearing a re-argument of Louisiana v Callais

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-109_l53m.pdf

Voting Rights Act (1965)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: An act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and for other purposes, August 6, 1965; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives View All...

www.archives.gov

MSN

You should read the 3 websites (fromthe Supreme Court of the United States, the National Archive, and the other from Huff Post) to find out what this is about yourself. But to sum up what the case is

The case is about Louisiana redistricting the election map and giving 5 white majority districts (Out of 6) inthe 2020 Census, also known as Racial Gerrymandering (As 1/3 of Louisiana were Black), which is a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 1965, which outlaw State Election Law that discriminate against Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation and Education Level. While Gerrymandering is legal in US, Racial Gerrymandering is not since it violates both 15th Amendment (Equality Act) and the Voting Rights Act.

Now, the SCOTUS is looking to hear a re-argument of Louisiana v Callais, which means if the SCOTUS overturns the case, it will overturn section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which gives specific rights for states to enact policies to hinder voting right for minority. Notice that this does not just apply to Gerrymandering, but ALLOWING ALL POLICIES that is discriminate based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and so all. The longer-term effect will be the legal status of the 15th Amendment, which gives equal rights to Americans regardless of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation since the backbone of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the 15th Amendment.

Now, my wife said most legal scholar agrees that this is not likely to overturn, since overturning it would mean equality does not apply in voting (that's what Voting Rights Act is all about), which would weaken or may even abolish the 15th Amendment, I mean it's quite straight forward that if you can be discriminated based on race and religion and etc on voting issue, you may not have Equality in the US (I don't see how you can say you cannot be discriminate upon, when they can enact race based voting policy). But the fact that SCOTUS is rehearing the case alone means they are interested in looking into it.

@RabzonKhan @Watandar @PakFactor @FuturePAF @Starlord watch out on this and good luck.

I never thought I would see this day. While institutions are strong, as long as you slowly chip away at their foundation, eventually, you will have a situation where political interests and party affiliation will guide the law.

My father says he eventually sees the U.S. could turn into a Pakistan 2.0, albeit a sophisticated one, as we have ill-trained and equipped people come to power. While some say the U.S. is what it is despite the president, that's true and not true simultaneously, as we've already seen with Roe v Wade and other cases, along with other questionable activities.

Trump has allowed others after him to do the exact same and further test their powers. It's a slippery slope moving forward.

 

[j_hungary]

I never thought I would see this day. While institutions are strong, as long as you slowly chip away at their foundation, eventually, you will have a situation where political interests and party affiliation will guide the law.

My father says he eventually sees the U.S. could turn into a Pakistan 2.0, albeit a sophisticated one, as we have ill-trained and equipped people come to power. While some say the U.S. is what it is despite the president, that's true and not true simultaneously, as we've already seen with Roe v Wade and other cases, along with other questionable activities.

Trump has allowed others after him to do the exact same and further test their powers. It's a slippery slope moving forward.

The issue here is checks and balances.

In the old days, we could depend on the administration to do the right thing, and if that is not the case, we could still depend on the judiciary system to do the right thing; it's one thing that checks on the other.

That is no longer the case here, we can't depend on both, and the legislative arm are largely irrevelent, which lead to the current situation.

I never through there would be a person who is more dangerous than Obama, well, and I never thought this would come from the people that have the same political view as me, but maybe I am glad that Obama give me the warning sign and move away? So I don't need to care about this anymore? But well...........

 

[RabzonKhan]

Well, there are two core issues with illegal immigration.

1.) The population of illegal is too big.
2.) The current law is flawed.

What compounded the problem is, those 2 issues are feeding on each other, which then made the situation worse. Which means you need to break the chain first, then tackle the issue.

I don't see employment opportunities are a deciding factor for Illegal, and it's very hard to change, doin't forget why people hire illegal in the first place, it's because they are a lot more accommodative and cheaper than legal migrant, unless the requirement for H-2A is significantly lower, which is the part of "Legal Reform" I was referring to, people are still going to hire illegal, because nothing had changed.

AS I explained with @Hamartia Antidote, you can try to enforce the law however you want, but again, the number is just too different; you had over 10 million illegal and only about 80000 CBP and ICE agents, and most of them are going to be needed at the actual border.

With that big number, you need people to leave willingly; otherwise, this will make no difference. Which means to solve that big blob of numbers, you will need them to cooperate, enforcing the law will not make them comply, because at worst, they will just come back crossing the border again, $3000 a head, and you need to pay a CBP agent $65,000 a year, you do the maths. You need them to leave voluntarily, not go underground, which means you will need a legal system that works for them, at least on paper.

This is what Biden has done right, and that's why his 2023 and 2024 numbers are up a lot, because you need them to trust the system to show up for court. You dangle a carrot in front and make them come out of hiding, and then process these people, most people don't understand that Illegal immigrants have already broken the law, they wouldn't care about being blacklisted or arrested, for them, that's better than 1 day in life in Mexico, so they are not going to be moved by the enforcement.

For that, you need a sound legal system that works, because otherwise, they would have just went underground. That's not going to work.

Which mean, for me, the government needed to do 3 things to solve the illegal immigration issue.

1.) Deterrance - You can't solve the issue without stopping people from coming in illegally, and the border is just too big to protect, you need to zap the will of those immigrant that's going to come, if you have to catch them at the border, you had already lost that war.

2.) Legal Reform - Simplify the deportation procedure, especially for those who had criminal records. and then having an alternative pathway for legitimation of those immigrants, give them a temporary visa if they are already working, take out the Blacklist period, again, if you had deported them, they won't apply for a visa to come back, that's making the exclusion period pointless. And finally, they need to pass a law to outlaw birthright citizenship for illegal.

3.) Cooperation. Both to local employer and Mexico. You need to work with local employer and have something like a co-op apprentice scheme to help them find local worker, so that they don't go and exploit the illegal, at the same time, you need to work with Mexico and have it stabilise them, both politically and economically, spending 100 million and invest in Mexico is a lot better than spending 100 million at the border building a wall, hiring illegal are two ways street, you need a employer that is willing to exploit the system, at the same time, you need a illegal migrant that is willing to be exploited, if Mexico is stable, you won't see that many Mexican trying to live a squalid life in the States.

I agree with many of the points raised, but let me add: our laws against illegal immigration are not only inadequate, they’re rarely enforced consistently. The Trump administration focused heavily on arrests and deportations, seemingly aiming to surpass Obama’s record. But what are the net results? Whether one president deports more than another is irrelevant if we’re stuck in a never-ending cat-and-mouse game. Without a comprehensive, long-term strategy, these efforts amount to little more than political theater.

I agree with your third point and consider it one of the most important aspects of this discussion. In 2014, the Obama administration launched the Alliance for Prosperity to reduce migration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador by investing in jobs, development, and regional integration.

The Biden administration later expanded the regional approach through America’s Partnership for Economic Prosperity, which includes Canada, Mexico, and ten other Latin American nations. The goal is to promote economic growth, reduce dependence on Chinese supply chains, and strengthen regional trade to address the root causes of migration.

As Mexico’s economy has grown and become the United States’ largest trading partner, the origin of undocumented migrants has shifted toward Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela, and Haiti. Mexican nationals made up 58 percent of the undocumented population in 2010. By 2022, that number dropped to 37 percent and is likely even lower today.

Rather than imposing tariffs on Mexico, we should collaborate with them to control illegal immigration from their southern border. A long-term goal should be to designate Mexico as a Safe Country of Asylum, similar to our agreement with Canada. This would require financial support and legal reforms in Mexico, but it is a strategic investment.

The first Trump administration floated this idea but ultimately settled for the Remain in Mexico policy. While controversial, it was directionally correct. Unfortunately, the Biden administration abandoned it without offering a viable alternative. Reviving and improving that framework could be a strong starting point toward a formal Safe Country of Asylum agreement with Mexico. If done right, it could serve as a powerful deterrent and a more humane, sustainable solution to illegal immigration.

 

[RabzonKhan]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That was a solid find. I really enjoyed the debate, it was engaging throughout. While I didn’t agree with most of Cenk Uygur’s points, I do appreciate that both he and Ana Kasparian have shifted closer to the center of the political spectrum. It’s encouraging to see more nuanced takes from them lately.

On a related note, there’s another compelling debate on the same platform featuring Mehdi Hasan going head-to-head with 20 far-right conservatives. It’s well worth watching.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

@j_hungary @Hamartia Antidote @FuturePAF @Developereo @Strigon

 

[RabzonKhan]

To all my fellow non-White, non-Christian American voters, YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS PIECE OF NEWS. Credit to my wife, a constitutional lawyer, who brought this up to me, she was watching the SCOTUS website the other day

Supreme Court is hearing a re-argument of Louisiana v Callais

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-109_l53m.pdf

Voting Rights Act (1965)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: An act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and for other purposes, August 6, 1965; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives View All...

www.archives.gov

MSN

You should read the 3 websites (fromthe Supreme Court of the United States, the National Archive, and the other from Huff Post) to find out what this is about yourself. But to sum up what the case is

The case is about Louisiana redistricting the election map and giving 5 white majority districts (Out of 6) inthe 2020 Census, also known as Racial Gerrymandering (As 1/3 of Louisiana were Black), which is a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 1965, which outlaw State Election Law that discriminate against Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation and Education Level. While Gerrymandering is legal in US, Racial Gerrymandering is not since it violates both 15th Amendment (Equality Act) and the Voting Rights Act.

Now, the SCOTUS is looking to hear a re-argument of Louisiana v Callais, which means if the SCOTUS overturns the case, it will overturn section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which gives specific rights for states to enact policies to hinder voting right for minority. Notice that this does not just apply to Gerrymandering, but ALLOWING ALL POLICIES that is discriminate based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and so all. The longer-term effect will be the legal status of the 15th Amendment, which gives equal rights to Americans regardless of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation since the backbone of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the 15th Amendment.

Now, my wife said most legal scholar agrees that this is not likely to overturn, since overturning it would mean equality does not apply in voting (that's what Voting Rights Act is all about), which would weaken or may even abolish the 15th Amendment, I mean it's quite straight forward that if you can be discriminated based on race and religion and etc on voting issue, you may not have Equality in the US (I don't see how you can say you cannot be discriminate upon, when they can enact race based voting policy). But the fact that SCOTUS is rehearing the case alone means they are interested in looking into it.

@RabzonKhan @Watandar @PakFactor @FuturePAF @Starlord watch out on this and good luck.

Thanks for posting this. I find the case deeply alarming, and I appreciate you raising the flag. The Supreme Court’s decision to rehear Louisiana v. Callais, a case rooted in racial gerrymandering, is not just a procedural move. It’s a signal. And it’s one that every voter who cares about equality and democracy should be paying close attention to.

The morning before you posted this, I happened to watch one of my favorite programs on YouTube, Democracy Watch, hosted by Brian Tyler Cohen and featuring Marc Elias, one of the most respected voting rights attorneys in the country. Elias has been a consistent target of right-wing attacks, including from Trump himself, which speaks volumes about his effectiveness and integrity. In the episode titled “BREAKING: BOMBSHELL update from US Supreme Court,”
Elias was visibly shaken by the implications of this case. He explained that this isn’t just about Louisiana—it’s about whether the Voting Rights Act still has any real power, and whether racial minorities will continue to have meaningful representation in this country. He laid out how the Court’s decision to rehear the case could open the door to dismantling Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

I agree with you and Elias that if racial gerrymandering is allowed to stand, it won’t stop with Louisiana. It will become a green light for other red states to follow suit, effectively making non-white voters politically irrelevant in key districts. This isn’t just a legal debate, it’s a moral one. The consequences could be devastating for our democracy.

Let’s hope our fears don’t come true. But we need to stay vigilant.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Let’s look at this more pragmatically. Here we have problems with out of control rents pushing people into tents. Lifelong renters (many retired on tight budgets) fearful that they may end up on the streets.

So what bright future does some illegal immigrant have taking those low paying jobs “Americans don’t want to do”. Are we setting them up for a “bright future” or really almost guaranteed doom.

This whole “we should be grateful they are doing these jobs” by illegal immigration supporters is a selfish short sighted “pat myself on the back for helping people in the short term” but an appallingly cruel poverty sentence for them in the long term.

Again the US is an expensive place to live and you won’t be sleeping on golden couches by a long shot

I’m a bit confused why you’re still bringing up undocumented workers. We’ve already agreed there should be zero tolerance. And as you acknowledged in response to my earlier post, the real culprits are the employers who knowingly break the law. That’s where enforcement should hit hardest.

So let’s talk solutions.

This isn’t just theory or research, I’ve seen it firsthand. I’ve visited apple farms across Washington State and spoken directly with some of the highest officials in those areas. These farms are located in red districts, represented by Republican members of Congress, and most of the local population leans conservative. Yet even there, farmers consistently tell me they can’t find enough domestic labor, despite offering fair wages and housing. They rely heavily on legal foreign workers through the H-2A program just to survive.

I’ve also seen it in the construction industry. I’ve hired contractors to work on fixer-upper properties I’ve renovated for my rental portfolio. Finding reliable, skilled American labor for these jobs is a constant challenge. Legal foreign workers fill a gap that isn’t theoretical, it’s real, and it’s critical.

So, if we shut down legal immigration for blue-collar jobs, no H-2A, no H-2B, no visas, and deport those who’ve been here for years, what’s your plan for the industries that rely on 30–40% foreign labor? Should we let multi-generational farmers go bankrupt because they can’t find workers? What happens to America’s food security when crops rot in the fields and supply chains break down?

Even Trump, admired by many in the MAGA base, hires foreign workers at his golf courses (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rump-foreign-workers-businesses-b2665107.html ). Why? Because even the most patriotic Americans won’t clean bathrooms or rake bunkers for minimum wage.

So, I’m genuinely curious: if we eliminate legal pathways and still can’t fill these jobs domestically, what’s your alternative? Letting critical industries die doesn’t lower rents, it raises prices, weakens food security, and deepens poverty.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I’m a bit confused why you’re still bringing up undocumented workers. We’ve already agreed there should be zero tolerance. And as you acknowledged in response to my earlier post, the real culprits are the employers who knowingly break the law. That’s where enforcement should hit hardest.

So let’s talk solutions.

This isn’t just theory or research, I’ve seen it firsthand. I’ve visited apple farms across Washington State and spoken directly with some of the highest officials in those areas. These farms are located in red districts, represented by Republican members of Congress, and most of the local population leans conservative. Yet even there, farmers consistently tell me they can’t find enough domestic labor, despite offering fair wages and housing. They rely heavily on legal foreign workers through the H-2A program just to survive.

I’ve also seen it in the construction industry. I’ve hired contractors to work on fixer-upper properties I’ve renovated for my rental portfolio. Finding reliable, skilled American labor for these jobs is a constant challenge. Legal foreign workers fill a gap that isn’t theoretical, it’s real, and it’s critical.

So, if we shut down legal immigration for blue-collar jobs, no H-2A, no H-2B, no visas, and deport those who’ve been here for years, what’s your plan for the industries that rely on 30–40% foreign labor? Should we let multi-generational farmers go bankrupt because they can’t find workers? What happens to America’s food security when crops rot in the fields and supply chains break down?

Even Trump, admired by many in the MAGA base, hires foreign workers at his golf courses (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rump-foreign-workers-businesses-b2665107.html ). Why? Because even the most patriotic Americans won’t clean bathrooms or rake bunkers for minimum wage.

So, I’m genuinely curious: if we eliminate legal pathways and still can’t fill these jobs domestically, what’s your alternative? Letting critical industries die doesn’t lower rents, it raises prices, weakens food security, and deepens poverty.

I’m just saying the people patting themselves on the back with claims of “helping people” by offering them sanctuary and jobs “that Americans don’t want” are only thinking short term. An “out of the frying pan and into the fire” situation is more likely because the cost of living here is so high.

So how do we solve this situation of a shortage of workers. Well supporting something illegal certainly isn’t it.

It seems Middle East countries do something similar with migrant workers…like Saudi Arabia

 

[FuturePAF]

Totally agree that sincerity is fundamental, without it, humor can come off as hollow. But I see it as a both-and, not an either-or. When a leader pairs sincerity with a touch of humor, it deepens connection. Beshear’s sincerity is a strength, but some warmth or levity could make him resonate more broadly.

It reminds me of Bloomberg’s presidential campaign in 2020. I lived in NYC during his mayoralty and admired his law-and-order approach and executive competence. I even backed him early on. But his speeches were painfully dry, and his attempts at humor rarely landed. Voters won’t engage if they can’t connect emotionally. Even the most intelligent, well-reasoned message can fall flat if it’s delivered without energy, warmth, or wit. When speeches lack liveliness, people tune out, no matter how brilliant the ideas may be. He had the intellect and the credentials, but his delivery was so dry and uninspiring. And in politics, if people stop listening, it doesn’t matter how right or sincere you are.

Sincerity with a touch of humor. I’m sure Andy can lean into a youthful JFK image; he could even ham up the whole Toy Story “Andy” meme; “You got a friend in me”, but it’s his credibility in a republic leaning state that gives him the bonafides.

Bloomberg was and is a business. He came into the Masjid right before Eid Namaz, and I got to shake his hand. I respect him for striving to connect with people even if he didn’t do it with the personality trait that connected on a “feeling” level. I remember Dinkin’s mayorship, when I and my family and the respect of the Muslim community prayed in some queens park (possibly near flushing meadows), practically under a highway, with the noise of traffic. That lack of respect was never forgotten.

 

[j_hungary]

I agree with many of the points raised, but let me add: our laws against illegal immigration are not only inadequate, they’re rarely enforced consistently. The Trump administration focused heavily on arrests and deportations, seemingly aiming to surpass Obama’s record. But what are the net results? Whether one president deports more than another is irrelevant if we’re stuck in a never-ending cat-and-mouse game. Without a comprehensive, long-term strategy, these efforts amount to little more than political theater.

I agree with your third point and consider it one of the most important aspects of this discussion. In 2014, the Obama administration launched the Alliance for Prosperity to reduce migration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador by investing in jobs, development, and regional integration.

The Biden administration later expanded the regional approach through America’s Partnership for Economic Prosperity, which includes Canada, Mexico, and ten other Latin American nations. The goal is to promote economic growth, reduce dependence on Chinese supply chains, and strengthen regional trade to address the root causes of migration.

As Mexico’s economy has grown and become the United States’ largest trading partner, the origin of undocumented migrants has shifted toward Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela, and Haiti. Mexican nationals made up 58 percent of the undocumented population in 2010. By 2022, that number dropped to 37 percent and is likely even lower today.

Rather than imposing tariffs on Mexico, we should collaborate with them to control illegal immigration from their southern border. A long-term goal should be to designate Mexico as a Safe Country of Asylum, similar to our agreement with Canada. This would require financial support and legal reforms in Mexico, but it is a strategic investment.

The first Trump administration floated this idea but ultimately settled for the Remain in Mexico policy. While controversial, it was directionally correct. Unfortunately, the Biden administration abandoned it without offering a viable alternative. Reviving and improving that framework could be a strong starting point toward a formal Safe Country of Asylum agreement with Mexico. If done right, it could serve as a powerful deterrent and a more humane, sustainable solution to illegal immigration.

As said before, the number ALREADY in the US is very big, so it really depends on what your goal is for border security. You aren't going to stop people from coming and expelling them at the same time, the government simply doesn't have enough resources to do that anyway. I mean even if you believe the state that over 2 million illegal already self-deported, it means nothing because. A.) There are still 10 millions more illegal in the country B.) Once this current admin is gone, they are going to come back. And that number is flaky anyway, I mean you either know how many people that did that or not, you don't have an estimation, because you can't exit the US Border without a visa, which mean if you self-deport, they WILL have a record on you.

For that, the easier way is to do a law reform, and stay in Mexico wouldn't work without a law reform, Title 42 or Stay in Mexico is something like what the Austrlalian did when we have had our own illegal migrant process, we settle them first in Christmas Island then in Nauru the reason why it won't work is because like us and like the British "Rwanda Scheme" if you don't have law reform, you are still taking in people, and they are still coming, and people who can wait it out WILL wait it out, and people who can't will simply left can try to come to America again, in this case, Australia failed because they still processing claim in Christmas Island, many left and go back to Indonesia and then try again by ship to come to Christmas Island, and the US have an actual land border between US and Mexic, which would make it a lot more easier.

As said, unless these people are willing to leave by themselves, there aren't anything we can do to weed out 10 million people, we just don't have enough manpower to do so, you will need 1 million border agent and it would still take a decade to clear out the current population, and the other side of enforcement is that, those who already had support (And they WILL have support) will continue having support, and those who don't, they are going to go underground or worse, goes into a life of crime.

People have to be really naive to think enforcement alone will solve the issue, that is before solving this issue will not solve anything else like Trump promise, the current CPI and PPI (don't know if you had heard, PPI was increased by 0.9% in a Month to Month basis, which mean you are looking at CPI around 3 to 4% MtM in the next few month) It's more of a detraction on bad economy, which is going to get a lot worse. I would rather they fix the economy first, and then talk about illegal migration.

 

[j_hungary]

Thanks for posting this. I find the case deeply alarming, and I appreciate you raising the flag. The Supreme Court’s decision to rehear Louisiana v. Callais, a case rooted in racial gerrymandering, is not just a procedural move. It’s a signal. And it’s one that every voter who cares about equality and democracy should be paying close attention to.

The morning before you posted this, I happened to watch one of my favorite programs on YouTube, Democracy Watch, hosted by Brian Tyler Cohen and featuring Marc Elias, one of the most respected voting rights attorneys in the country. Elias has been a consistent target of right-wing attacks, including from Trump himself, which speaks volumes about his effectiveness and integrity. In the episode titled “BREAKING: BOMBSHELL update from US Supreme Court,”
Elias was visibly shaken by the implications of this case. He explained that this isn’t just about Louisiana—it’s about whether the Voting Rights Act still has any real power, and whether racial minorities will continue to have meaningful representation in this country. He laid out how the Court’s decision to rehear the case could open the door to dismantling Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

I agree with you and Elias that if racial gerrymandering is allowed to stand, it won’t stop with Louisiana. It will become a green light for other red states to follow suit, effectively making non-white voters politically irrelevant in key districts. This isn’t just a legal debate, it’s a moral one. The consequences could be devastating for our democracy.

Let’s hope our fears don’t come true. But we need to stay vigilant.

This is going to do more harm than just the Voting Rights, unlike Roe v Wade, this is not an one off issue that had not been discussed legally, Voting Rights and 15th amendment is written clearly in our constitution, and to say either race have no bearing in Voting (which is a direct violation of 15A) or 15A did not cover voting (Which is equally bad) then it open the door for literally everything that was not mentioned in our constitution, which I don't think you need to understand law to know there is ALOT.

I am a die hard constitutionalist, I see this as the same as Trump trying to overturn 14A by rolling back Birthright Citizenship, because if either that or this is passed, no amendment is safe, and this does not just applies to Red State or Blue States, it also Applies AFTER this administration, think about it in the future, if either Dem or GOP want to cut off some of our right and they simply have the stacked Supreme Court to do their bidding, and not a single Amendment is safe.

I mean this is a full blown constitutional crisis I reckon.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Enriching himself and other Republican politicians in office
Defending pedophiles
Cracking down on free speech
Increasing taxes on the middle class
Billions in handouts to the wealthy and corporations
Demolishing social services for the middle class
Cheating in elections by re-districting

And now, more cheating in elections:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[j_hungary]

Enriching himself and other Republican politicians in office
Defending pedophiles
Cracking down on free speech
Increasing taxes on the middle class
Billions in handouts to the wealthy and corporations
Demolishing social services for the middle class
Cheating in elections by re-districting

And now, more cheating in elections:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Don't forget the use of unmarked Federal Agent to carry out operation..

This looks like something we had seen 6 years ago in a little place called "Hong Kong"

Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[FuturePAF]

With unskilled or more accurately undertrained labor being taken by many of the newly arrived illegal immigrants or immigrants on visas at the expense of American workers, the public perception of the face of illegal (or undesired) immigration is also shifting. Illegal immigration is now not only as done by Latinos, but after a series of high profile of uncouth if not egregious behaviors, South Asians, especially Indians, are starting to lose their model minority image. At the same time, East Asians are more likely to be perceived as better assimilated and law abiding, even if some are illegal immigrants, they are probably less likely to be targeted.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The body language analysis of the truck driver (remorseless) is what is shifting the attitudes:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I comeback to Italian Americans on this issue. The flood gates were opened, and the hustlers got it. It will take a while to see how things shake out:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[j_hungary]

With unskilled or more accurately undertrained labor being taken by many of the newly arrived illegal immigrants or immigrants on visas at the expense of American workers, the public perception of the face of illegal (or undesired) immigration is also shifting. Illegal immigration is now not only as done by Latinos, but after a series of high profile of uncouth if not egregious behaviors, South Asians, especially Indians, are starting to lose their model minority image. At the same time, East Asians are more likely to be perceived as better assimilated and law abiding, even if some are illegal immigrants, they are probably less likely to be targeted.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The body language analysis of the truck driver (remorseless) is what is shifting the attitudes:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I comeback to Italian Americans on this issue. The flood gates were opened, and the hustlers got it. It will take a while to see how things shake out:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

No one is "better" assimilated unless you are white in Trump's eyes.

It's not hard to see at all Trump deportation policy only focus on Hispanic and Minority people, there are tons, like tons (well, thousands) of criminal illegal that were from Europe and Canada. None of them, as far as I know, were targeted.

As I said on the other thread, start talking to me about deportation when he finally deported this woman.

Anna Delvey - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In case you are wondering, she can be found here

MSN