Trump and Mike Johnson both wake up every single morning twitching with a white hot seething rage knowing they can't directly target blue states like this without completely dismantling the constitution first.
? With the exception of that scuffed FIFA pricing, tickets on NJT are the same going both ways. Same with PATH. If only Metro North could follow their example :/
It all makes sense why trump loved him so much - heās the only one with balls to stand up to Bibi. Setting Trump free from Bibi like the genie in Epsteins lamp
idk about 100%. people on the "left" and center (i use quotations here only because america doesn't really have a left YET) are SOMEWHAT waking up and realizing that sitting things out over some policy disagreements while death cultists are voted into power may not exactly be the right move going forward.
Kinda like āa president only serves a maximum of two termsā?
Just wanna point out that people talking about amendments for Mamdami support need to think about how Trump views amendments for his own purposes. Canāt just change or override them when itās convenient for your desires.
To me though, that feels like, "They go low, we go high."
it's clear the right has coalesced around far right ideals. They have already decided that the rules don't matter. The left can't just twiddle their thumbs and point to the rules anymore, whining about them being broken.
I feel like the US needs to be frank that they are not in some temporary fugue state as the country is being actively dismantled. It is going to get worse.
This isn't about abortion laws or bathrooms anymore this is about if democracy will literally be upheld.
I'm not saying that, I just think general american populace has this idea that everything will turn out fine, because it always has, as long as we return to some baseline. But things are far more fragile than people like to think. Countries do collapse, laws get rewritten and constitutions get trashed.
Congress is basically doing nothing. Our country is incredibly corrupt yet we're intrinsically taught as if it's not. We dragged ourselves into and through a 40 billion dollar war in the past 6 months on the whim of another state lining political pockets.
Trump, tomorrow, could announce he'd run a third term tomorrow, and his entire base would follow. Many right-wing Americans practically scoff at this idea, but it is very possible if not likely, and they will follow like dogs.
The rule of law is exceedingly malleable and is already being altered. If that left is able to take back control in 2028, if they do not pass sweeping changes to the law, and make executive orders to prevent Trump 2.0, they have failed. If there isn't upheaval we are screwed.
Sorry for the wall lol. In summary, I think that the law against a president having to be born a US citizen is against the American ideals and is small rule to break, but it's not the main thing. The main thing is we can "go high" until the people who have systematically worked to destroy it, collapse everything.
That's more or less how history goes. A singular thing becomes popular enough to inspire change, and an amendment is passed. I don't think this will ever be changed, but that's literally how amendments get passed. It's just popular opinion
That's why I intentionally used the word 'changed' for Mamdani, I thought the implication of an amendment was obvious when it was juxtaposed against 'break' with Trump, but I guess I need to spell it out.
If Trump can be president despite being a felon, I'm willing to entertain the idea we can make an amendment that allows citizens that weren't born in the US to become president, the specifics of it would be important, but I'm not against the idea.
For any sovereign nation, I like the idea of eligibility through birthright, the top of the executive branch is the face of its citizen. It seems strange if it was different.
Maybe the thing about Mamdani is, throughout his legacy of improving the lifeās of millions of Americans, the US in a federal level could grant him a special title based over his entire legacy, to grant him eligibility. Maybe not born, but worked so hard and fought so much to change millions of life.
The foundation of only having natural born citizens possible on becoming leader of the executive is good, but if a citizen demonstrate a huge commitment and legacy over that people, maybe a special grant authorized by the other branches of government could be issue, starting from the legislative, to the judicial and signed off within the executive, granting an honorary title of sorts.
6.4% of US citizens were born overseas, if you wanted your presidents to 'reflect the face of your citizens' you're currently behind by almost three foreign born presidents.
No, Mamdani can continue to do excellent work where he legally can within the framework of the constitution. He can serve as an example and an inspiration for people everywhere, of all backgrounds, to get involved and speak out for those in their local communities. We need outstanding people in every part of the government to bring change.
If a pedophile/rapist with 34 felonies who ran an insurrection on the U.S. capital can be President, then why not an immigrant? Oh right, racists love one of these and not the other.
Can he be a vice? Or at least maybe appointed as vice president right after the term begins? (My memory says the VP has the eligibility requirements as the president but being appointed VP is different than being elected VP)
Iām glad he wonāt be. Weāre going to need a lot more people like him if weāre going to dig ourselves out of the wider political climate that allowed trump. Heās the first domino not the last and weāre lucky to have it spelled out so clearly
The problem is that whoever Americans choose to be president affects the entire world. If an American president chooses to commit war crimes overseas, thousands if not millions of innocent civillians will die in another country.
I know you likely don't mean it this way, but statements like these can be incredibly frustrating for non-Americans to hear. If Americans vote for musk, Americans will 100% get what they deserve... sure. So will innocent people overseas that didn't ask for any of this. Elon Musk was behind race riots in Belfast just last month, he's scary af.
I totally agree with you actually. As an American, I don't mean what I said in a trivial way. I was as distraught as anyone to see great international programs like USAID and PEPFAR pointlessly demolished. Musk shares a great deal of blame for that, and if hell is real, he's more than earned a place there just for that.
I just don't know what the alternative is. The system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative in the US seems deeply broken, and the courts are only barely keeping this administration in check. Musk is a terrifying monster, but I'm not sure what you can do about that.
We have more than enough home-grown terrifying monsters, whom a shocking number of Americans are totally willing to elect. The problem isn't with the leaders, it's fundamentally with us. The innocent people overseas suffering are collateral damage for America's appetite for self-destruction.
If it's any consolation, I don't think this is a sustainable trajectory. Elect enough Trumps or Musks, and the once great power will permanently lose its ability to harm other countries as we permanently weaken our economy, military and cultural power. So things will self-correct, but a lot of people will suffer in the process.
(For the record, I'm very much against that, and hope our next administration restores sanity to our government.)
Why? Let the American people decide who's fit for office. We can't really fuck things up more than we already have. (ETA: But anything's possible, and I'm sure we'll try.)
Why should the accident of your birth keep you from top office?
Why is the asshole response necessary? There is no justifiable reason why the place where your mom bore you is a reasonable exclusion. The founders were not all-seeing gods.
I need to explain to you how easy that would make it for a foreign government to bring in an agent, hell, dozens of them, and have them climb our political ladder through populists ideals and then have a foreign actor as leader of another country that is still loyal to their own nation of birth?
Again with the personal attacks? I've got news for you buddy, we've got plenty of traitors right here on American soil some of whom climbed actual ladders on J6. Stop looking for bogeymen.
And stop calling names too. Are you five years old?
With that logic term limits shouldnāt be a thing which to be fair werenāt until FDRās death and with that being said a perpetual American born president would almost always be better than a 8 year foreign born president
I'm not really in favor of term limits either, lol. Also, why would a foreign born president be better than an American president-for-life? That isn't obvious to me.
You'd rather have a dictator over you who was born in this country through no choice of his own ... than a Constitutionally-limited foreign born president (who also had nothing to do with where he was born)?
A foreigner cannot be trusted to look after the best interests of the American people this could easily lead to foreign countries interfering at a much higher level to the point of molding from childhood to be political infiltrators
Why can a foreigner be trusted to look after the interests of the American people in the Senate or House, or on the Supreme Court ... but not in the White House?
Also, why is a foreigner who grew up in the US more susceptible to interference than an American who grew up overseas?
It doesn't logically follow to me that someone who actually immigrated to this country to serve this country is less likely to be loyal to its interests, than someone who was born here but could have been raised anywhere, by anyone. Or who has themselves nefarious interests. The only thing that separates them realistically is that one happened to win the birth citizenship lottery, and the other didn't.
The monkeys paw might curl with this one, while I agree that Mamdani would make a great president. What's to stop, literally anyone, from being propped up by the right interests. It seems like we have that now, but I think it could get worse. Like imagine if Israel, actually had a dood from Israel, funded by Israel, but just talked shit about Israel up and down, then got in office did what Trump did, but in a much smarter way? It's bad now, it could be worse.
Couldn't that happen already, though? That's basically what we got with the current president. We have enough home grown nuts pumped up by foreign interests already, that I'm not too not sure how someone not born here could be much worse.
If they could fool the American electorate that persuasively, I don't think their natural born citizenship is going to be much of a barrier.
And who realize that he's not just a "bad apple" and it is in fact the goal of an ethnostate to genocide other populations out of existence, no matter who's at the head.
This is how good Mamdani's marketing/rep are ... other dems say this shit, and they're feckless because they're just talking and not doing. Mamdani talks about it and says he can't do anything, and folks in here are dropping cringey big balls memes.
I'm all for it, but I hope Mamdani will do the best thing for liberalism in American and spread some of that shine to Dems that matter federally. How close are Mamdani and Newsom on Israel/Palestine/genocide? Very. But the two are seen as on different sides of that issue by the progressive left ... I'd love to see Mamdani help bridge that gap, because it's all about perception which should be flexible.
Newsom and Mamdani are not close on this issue. And if you think they are, the perception problem is yours. Newsom has been called out multiple times by advocacy groups on this issue specifically for his refusal to do exactly what Mamdani did in this video: Publicly and without equivocation call the genocide what it is.
In fact, as recently as January, Newsom hosted Ben Shapiro on his podcast and was crystal clear that he "wasn't calling it a genocide." He continually reiterated his "reverence for Israel," and contended that the joint strikes between Israel and the US on Iran were the "right thing to do." In that conversation, Ben Shapiro even brought up a Mamdani quote about the IDF funding authoritarian politics in America and Newsom said he didn't "associate with those comments at all." Far from your contention that these two men see eye to eye, Newsom purposely and specifically distanced himself from Mamdani and Mandani's view of Israel.
So, any contention that these men are equal on this issue is a lie and pretending like the differences are only a matter of perception is a cop-out. Newsom has had years in office to speak out against the genocide with the same moral conviction that Mamdani is doing here. Instead, he chose to break bread with far-right pro-Israel hardliners, giving them huge audiences to whom they can spread their genocidal views with only the weakest pushback, including the complete refusal to call Israel's action a genocide, something he has still never done.
That's simply word games / politics. The key points here are:
Both believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself. The gap here is that Mamdani says they basically don't have the right to exist as a Jewish state.
Both criticize how Israel is handling Gaza
Both have spoken out repeatedly against the genocide in Gaza whether willing to use that word or not. Did Newsom condemn Bibi in that interview? Did he characterize their use of force as disproportionate? Did he not explicitly criticize Bibi for how he prosecuted the 'war?'
The difference in position here is NOT substantive. Whether people use the word you (and I) use is NOT relevant to our national posture toward Israel. What you're doing is the flip side of Trump supporters claiming he isn't guilty of rape because of the definitions involved in the E Jean Carroll case. It doesn't matter what word you use for what he did, we all know how fucked up it was and our actual position on whether it was right/wrong and what the consequences should be are NOT impacted by whether it was rape or forced digital penetration. Similarly, it doesn't matter what you call what Israel is doing, we all see it as disgusting and unacceptable and both Mamdani and Newsom agree on that, the core point. They also agree that Israel as a state has a right to exist. When Newsom hedges on the word "genocide" it's just like Mamdani hedging on the right to exist. Do you think Mamdani legit believes Israel has a right to exist, or is he playing word games? If you take him at his word, then the difference between him and Newsom on the actual issues is miniscule.
No, refusing to call it a genocide is not "word games" and your desire to pretend Gavin Newsom is something he isn't is deeply embarrassing, especially your attempts to say other people are playing "word games" as you do exactly that in an attempt to twist Newsom's words to mean something they don't.
Over here in reality, we take words at face value. I know that may be tough to understand for someone who supports an empty suit like Gavin Newsom, and who thinks politics are a game of "marketing and PR," (really shone a light on how you view the world with that one) but not everyone is as full of shit as he is. Maybe he can speak more on this the next time he goes out to personally destroy the tents and possessions of homeless people. Or maybe he can further explain it to the next fascist he decides to platform to the entire state of California on his podcast.
So hilarious and desperate to hope Mamdani's charisma and progressive popularity could rub off on your favorite neoliberal, instead of just, you know, supporting an actual progressive.
I know you see it that way. That's part of the point I was making. Good marketing from Mamdani, and good marketing from Bibi to create and drive this wedge issue to help his boy Trump ... and you all eat it right up.
No, what he's doing is refusing to use that word. He's NOT denying what Israel are actually doing, and he criticizes Bibi directly for it. What he's doing is called ... say it with me slowly ... p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s. Newsom knows there are a shitload of people that like Israel but hate the current government, so he's trying to walk a tight line where he "reveres" Israel but hates what they're currently doing (what he calls "disproportionate" use of force). Same thing happens with us in America all of the time. People love America (the idea) but hate this current administration and how they're perverting it. Can you see how those sorts of people exist for Israel, too?
Would you argue that Trump is NOT guilty of rape because by the NY definition, what he did wasn't rape? Will you spend your time whining that someone calls it sexual assault rather than rape? IS that really relevant? That's the game being played here.
Neo-Nazis like him have been doing this for decades lol? Did we forget what happened in Charlottesville a decade ago? "Jews will not replace us" -Zohran
I love the vague idea that he doesn't have real power over this issue. Sure, on paper he doesn't have authority. But power grows from leadership. Everyone is so happy to remind you that he can't do much, and is softening his statements because he knows he has no power, blah blah.
Then he's just like "alright, bet" DROPS this video. Might not have power, but he has a platform, and he just used it PROPERLY
Sweetie, it's not deflection when YOU are using it to protect your fav ped0. You sound like reverse-MAGA, lmao.
Actually having some balls is pretty easy. "F all the war criminals and F all ped0s". That includes Benny and those defending him, Trump and MAGA defending him, and Mamdani's prophet and anyone defending him.
5.0k
u/xxAkirhaxx 17h ago
Jesus christ Mamdani, share some of those balls with the rest of humanity.