Trump MAGAthread VIII: Make the MAGAthread Great Again

[Salandriagado]

To people in favor of DACA's end, what happens to young people who's country of origin cannot be determined?

Do we just send them all to Mexico or Canada?

Then statelessness rules apply to them.

Statelessness is when nobody claims the individual and so he doesn't belong in any state.

They have certain rights in America. It's just a very tiny portion of people that they're exceptional cases.

Mind, I am not in favor of ending DACA, but this is what's going to happen if a child's nationality cannot be determined, be treated as stateless I mean.

Yeah, you're stateless unless confirmed otherwise (in particular: if a state doesn't know whether or not you have another nationality, they can't revoke your nationality, because that might make you stateless).

[Salandriagado]

Then statelessness rules apply to them.

Statelessness is when nobody claims the individual and so he doesn't belong in any state.

They have certain rights in America. It's just a very tiny portion of people that they're exceptional cases.

Mind, I am not in favor of ending DACA, but this is what's going to happen if a child's nationality cannot be determined, be treated as stateless I mean.

They are exceptional cases. However it wouldn't be easy to fake, as the parents would need to have anticipated this way back when the child was born, and deliberately not register the birth. Otherwise, a positive identification of one parent (particularly the mother) will establish the birth citizenship of the child.

Assuming the foreign government is co-operative of course. Mexico and Canada would be, others perhaps not.

Or have the parents be from a country that allows you to unilaterally resign your citizenship.

[AiliailiA]

Ex-GOP strategist: Republicans 'deserve the reckoning' that will come for backing Trump

A former top Republican strategist says the GOP “deserve[s] the reckoning that will eventually come” if President Trump ends the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Sally Bradshaw, also a former top adviser to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), said Trump is “anti-anything that would bring the country together.

“Donald Trump is anti-woman, anti-Hispanic, anti-black,” Bradshaw said. “The only thing he is for is for himself.”
Bradshaw was a co-author of the so-called “autopsy” commissioned by the Republican Party after their loss in the 2012 election. The GOP’s “Growth and Opportunity Project” recommended the party turn toward courting Hispanic voters and developing policies that would draw Hispanic voters to the GOP.

I remember that. They were right then and they'd be right now if they'd stuck to it.

But there never was a strong commitment, and all they fielded last year were two half-baked Latino candidates who hated each other, and Jeb! Trump trounced them all so soundly ... there's basically zero chance of Republicans coming up with a comprehensive immigration plan in the next six months.

If it was any other Republican in the White House, it's actually possible. The DREAM act (not comprehensive mind, but pretty much 'permanent DACA') failed repeatedly, but not by wide margins, an a President with the power to take DACA away ... giving Congress six months to replace it ... would be enough to push it over the line. Not THIS President, whose views on immigration are so divisive and contradictory.

The Republican caucus need this like a hole in the head. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if they keep it off the legislative agenda for the whole six months, House AND Senate, so the President is completely out on his own.

[Clintonburge]

Ex-GOP strategist: Republicans 'deserve the reckoning' that will come for backing Trump

I remember that. They were right then and they'd be right now if they'd stuck to it.

But there never was a strong commitment, and all they fielded last year were two half-baked Latino candidates who hated each other, and Jeb! Trump trounced them all so soundly ... there's basically zero chance of Republicans coming up with a comprehensive immigration plan in the next six months.

If it was any other Republican in the White House, it's actually possible. The DREAM act (not comprehensive mind, but pretty much 'permanent DACA') failed repeatedly, but not by wide margins, an a President with the power to take DACA away ... giving Congress six months to replace it ... would be enough to push it over the line. Not THIS President, whose views on immigration are so divisive and contradictory.

The Republican caucus need this like a hole in the head. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if they keep it off the legislative agenda for the whole six months, House AND Senate, so the President is completely out on his own.

Yea the idea that Trump would give Congress 6 months to get something done, I mean we all know hoe expedient they are

[Maichuko]

Iv'e been seeing articles that say that Trump got 83 gifts from the Saudi's. If even half the stuff listed there is true, holy shit.

[Clintonburge]

Iv'e been seeing articles that say that Trump got 83 gifts from the Saudi's. If even half the stuff listed there is true, holy shit.

Trump sycophants: Well, Hillary would have gotten more!

[Maichuko]

What stands out to me the most is the Cheetah robe and Golden sword.

[Empire of Cats]

What stands out to me the most is the Cheetah robe and Golden sword.

#ReturnToSender

[Clintonburge]

Report: Obama won't sit idly by if Trump ends DACA

If, as expected, President Trump ends the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, former President Obama will be speaking out. Mr. Trump is expected to announce his decision Tuesday.

Mr. Obama, who implemented DACA in 2012, plans to respond in posts on social media, Politico first reported, citing a source familiar with his plans.

Mr. Obama said as he left office he would comment on Mr. Trump's actions at "certain moments where I think our core values may be at stake."

Among the issues that would cause Mr. Obama to speak out, he strongly implied, was DACA or, as he put it, "efforts to round up kids who have grown up here, and for all practical purposes are American kids, and send them someplace else, when they love this country.

Yay Go Obama!

[AiliailiA]

I remember that. They were right then and they'd be right now if they'd stuck to it.

But there never was a strong commitment, and all they fielded last year were two half-baked Latino candidates who hated each other, and Jeb! Trump trounced them all so soundly ... there's basically zero chance of Republicans coming up with a comprehensive immigration plan in the next six months.

If it was any other Republican in the White House, it's actually possible. The DREAM act (not comprehensive mind, but pretty much 'permanent DACA') failed repeatedly, but not by wide margins, an a President with the power to take DACA away ... giving Congress six months to replace it ... would be enough to push it over the line. Not THIS President, whose views on immigration are so divisive and contradictory.

The Republican caucus need this like a hole in the head. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if they keep it off the legislative agenda for the whole six months, House AND Senate, so the President is completely out on his own.

Yea the idea that Trump would give Congress 6 months to get something done, I mean we all know hoe expedient they are

Well they got their horrible repeal-and-replace plan to a vote in less time. If Trump had set them up to deal with immigration first (by just this method, revoke DACA within 6 months) that might have happened. Brought to a vote, if not passed.

It's now six months closer to the mid-term elections, and the dead loss of political capital which was repeal-and-replace doesn't leave enough in the tank for tax reform (... "reform" lol, you know it will be a bunch of tax cuts, and not happen at all without spending cuts ...) AND immigration reform.

I'll say again that the DREAM act never was comprehensive immigration reform: it dealt only with a class of undocumented immigrants who the American people are particularly sympathetic towards. Even that is too much to ask now, but I think if it had been the first issue and before r&rO it might have passed.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

are y'all ready to go NUCLEAR ??



on a more serious note, what benefit does China get from supporting NK?

I personally don't see any. They could, at most, offer themselves as a stopgap obstacle in case of war: after depleting their stupidly large arsenal of conventional weapons on SK and hoping to deal as much damage as possible, they could like probably maybe survive another few days or weeks by themselves before running out of supplies like oh idk, FOOD, assuming SK retains a sufficient fighting force.

In terms of conventional warfighting potential they're probably dead meat to even just the SK themselves. The only way they might fair better in slowing down an enemy advance would probably be through pretending they're civilians and employing guerrilla tactics.

Even if supported by the Chinese (or more accurately, if they supported the Chinese) in battle, I don't see them as that much more effective, especially in the short term.

So when discussing whether or not China would let themselves be "blackmailed" by the US you have to consider what they have to gain and what they have to lose by supporting NK. If by NOT supporting them you get ~not ruining your relationship to the US~ , assuming it gets to that, and by supporting them you get ~nothing~ , then logically, what's it gonna be?

EDIT: also, from my understanding, NK has relatively recently performed a nuclear weapon test where it literally lobbed a nuke over mainland Japan (I don't know if this happened multiple times and whether that happened in the past) but like wtf who tf gets away with this and not start a war? who is to say to say the nuke couldn't suddenly change its overflying trajectory into a downwards one and target Japan?

[Northern Davincia]

If US-North Korean relations reach their logical conclusion, I call dibs on founding the Brotherhood of Steel.

[AiliailiA]

Report: Obama won't sit idly by if Trump ends DACA

If, as expected, President Trump ends the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, former President Obama will be speaking out. Mr. Trump is expected to announce his decision Tuesday.

Mr. Obama, who implemented DACA in 2012, plans to respond in posts on social media, Politico first reported, citing a source familiar with his plans.

Mr. Obama said as he left office he would comment on Mr. Trump's actions at "certain moments where I think our core values may be at stake."

Among the issues that would cause Mr. Obama to speak out, he strongly implied, was DACA or, as he put it, "efforts to round up kids who have grown up here, and for all practical purposes are American kids, and send them someplace else, when they love this country.

Yay Go Obama!

Really he should go bigger than responding on social media. Get a podium and an audience, broadcast live as if he's a sitting President announcing policy.

[AiliailiA]

are y'all ready to go NUCLEAR ??

(Image)

on a more serious note, what benefit does China get from supporting NK?

If the graphic isn't even serious, don't spam up the forum with it.

EDIT: also, from my understanding, NK has relatively recently performed a nuclear weapon test where it literally lobbed a nuke over mainland Japan (I don't know if this happened multiple times and whether that happened in the past) but like wtf who tf gets away with this and not start a war? who is to say to say the nuke couldn't suddenly change its overflying trajectory into a downwards one and target Japan?

Missiles aren't nukes. Unless they have a warhead they're not even a weapon.

Overstating the offence committed by North Korea does nothing to advance a solution, or to maintain your own credibility.

[Clintonburge]

If US-North Korean relations reach their logical conclusion, I call dibs on founding the Brotherhood of Steel.

I've heard some people are stocking their nuclear bunkers with supplies....just in case.

[Northern Davincia]

If US-North Korean relations reach their logical conclusion, I call dibs on founding the Brotherhood of Steel.

I've heard some people are stocking their nuclear bunkers with supplies....just in case.

I plan on getting my own at some point. Better safe than sorry.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

are y'all ready to go NUCLEAR ??

(Image)

on a more serious note, what benefit does China get from supporting NK?

If the graphic isn't even serious, don't spam up the forum with it.

what if i told u it is??

[Valrifell]

I've heard some people are stocking their nuclear bunkers with supplies....just in case.

I plan on getting my own at some point. Better safe than sorry.

Better dead than stuck in a hole twenty feet underground for twenty or so years (likely longer). Only to emerge to a broken society at best and a nuclear winter with no ozone layer at worst if you jumped the gun on getting out.

[AiliailiA]

If the graphic isn't even serious, don't spam up the forum with it.

what if i told u it is??

I'd call you a liar. Immediately after it you said "on a more serious note" so ...

Also see my edit.

DR, you can have a share of the attention, that's fine. I understand that as long as I am talking about immigration policy in the US Congress and you're talking about nuclear war lol, your posts will get plenty of attention. There's absolutely no need for you to grab attention in such a buffoonish way.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

are y'all ready to go NUCLEAR ??

(Image)

on a more serious note, what benefit does China get from supporting NK?

If the graphic isn't even serious, don't spam up the forum with it.

EDIT: also, from my understanding, NK has relatively recently performed a nuclear weapon test where it literally lobbed a nuke over mainland Japan (I don't know if this happened multiple times and whether that happened in the past) but like wtf who tf gets away with this and not start a war? who is to say to say the nuke couldn't suddenly change its overflying trajectory into a downwards one and target Japan?

Missiles aren't nukes. Unless they have a warhead they're not even a weapon.

Overstating the offence committed by North Korea does nothing to advance a solution, or to maintain your own credibility.

1. How does one determine if a certain missile is carrying a warhead or not, and how does one determine what type of warhead it is?

2. "overstating" you do realize a missile without a warhead can definitely be a weapon by kinetic energy alone and additionally if there is "leftover" fuel onboard right?

e: i won't even reply to your last post, you're absolutely hilarious

[Computer Lab]

Iv'e been seeing articles that say that Trump got 83 gifts from the Saudi's. If even half the stuff listed there is true, holy shit.

Even if it is true, those gifts will be considered the property of the sitting president. They won't go with him when he leaves office.

[Clintonburge]

Iv'e been seeing articles that say that Trump got 83 gifts from the Saudi's. If even half the stuff listed there is true, holy shit.

Even if it is true, those gifts will be considered the property of the sitting president. They won't go with him when he leaves office.

What about perishable gifts? Or are they not accepted?

[Northern Davincia]

Iv'e been seeing articles that say that Trump got 83 gifts from the Saudi's. If even half the stuff listed there is true, holy shit.

Even if it is true, those gifts will be considered the property of the sitting president. They won't go with him when he leaves office.

Do we know what the gifts consisted of?

[Computer Lab]

Even if it is true, those gifts will be considered the property of the sitting president. They won't go with him when he leaves office.

What about perishable gifts? Or are they not accepted?

I would imagine perishable gifts like food are consumed when received or shortly thereafter. I don't know for certain, but I think anything left unconsumed would be kept for the next president (e.g. some gifts of alcohol probably aren't consumed during the person's presidency and carry over).

[AiliailiA]

If the graphic isn't even serious, don't spam up the forum with it.



Missiles aren't nukes. Unless they have a warhead they're not even a weapon.

Overstating the offence committed by North Korea does nothing to advance a solution, or to maintain your own credibility.

1. How does one determine if a certain missile is carrying a warhead or not, and how does one determine what type of warhead it is?

2. "overstating" you do realize a missile without a warhead can definitely be a weapon by kinetic energy alone and additionally if there is "leftover" fuel onboard right?

e: i won't even reply to your last post, you're absolutely hilarious

1. Given that miniaturizing a nuclear weapon is difficult and the DPRK has only 6 small underground tests of any nuclear weapon, it is the reasonable presumption that any missile test does NOT have a nuclear warhead. That will remain the logical presumption right up to the moment the DPRK detonates a miniaturized weapon. Furthermore, it would be foolish of them to put a working warhead on the missile and then NOT detonate it, as that would give away intelligence about the weapon.

"What type of warhead" is goalpost shifting. You said "nuke" to mean "missile" and whether or not there was a chemical explosive (for some bizarre reason put on there but not detonated) the fact remains that missiles are not nukes.

2. If it hits something yes. It didn't.

3. You just did reply. I was right wasn't I? The big pic wasn't serious and you won't back it being a joke, it really was just a childish demand for attention.