By Flutter Go To PostUrgh.
Imagine British refugees, bringing their shit food and attitude all across the world. Horrible.
LOL
By Wahabipapangus Go To PostWhy is England so third world?
We a banana republic now bb.
By Laboured Go To PostThe arch-Gammon.Gammons fucking the country over
By HasphatsAnts Go To Postthey'll be coming for people like me eventually:
Let's deport white people whose ancestors came over here and drove Native Americans off the land and/or owned slaves. "Get your pale ass back to goddamn Europe."
(Pardon me as I find a boat.)
In reading the article, it's not a huge number of people (yet), but it is an increase, and it just goes along with the current regime's hellbent drive to fuck over as many non-Anglo people as possible. Fortunately, if I recall correctly, it seems the courts aren't taking too kindly to efforts to revoke citizenship, though I'm not sure if the Supreme Court has ultimately ruled.
Edit: Actually, here's a 9-0 ruling against the government just last summer. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-citizenship/supreme-court-sets-higher-bar-for-stripping-citizenship-idUSKBN19D1RJ
Couple of things
1.) In Maslenjak vs. US, the supreme court ruled that the falsehood in application has to be material in order for the government to revoke citizenship. But what constitutes "material" is yet to be defined by the lower courts and will be up to the jurisprudence of individual immigration judges. Many of them Trump appointees.
2.) The existing application basically requires applicants to self incriminate as if the fifth amendment doesn't exist. Can't fathom why there isn't a bigger outcry to change the rules.
1.) In Maslenjak vs. US, the supreme court ruled that the falsehood in application has to be material in order for the government to revoke citizenship. But what constitutes "material" is yet to be defined by the lower courts and will be up to the jurisprudence of individual immigration judges. Many of them Trump appointees.
2.) The existing application basically requires applicants to self incriminate as if the fifth amendment doesn't exist. Can't fathom why there isn't a bigger outcry to change the rules.
By n8 dogg Go To PostAnything that keeps him away from the fucking NHSHe'll still find a way 😓
By Laboured Go To PostAnd you morans said libertarians are bad.he's more committed than most
i respect it
I'm guessing that's voice-over work? No reaction from the plebes around him.
Though if legit, then he's doing the lord's work.
Though if legit, then he's doing the lord's work.
By FortuneFaded Go To Postoh that's a cute spin...
By FortuneFaded Go To Postbecause we all know how people in poverty can afford baby formula.
By Flutter Go To Postbecause we all know how people in poverty can afford baby formula.Expensive to create that breast milk yo
Sometimes people ask those questions like "if you could have any superpower what would it be"
the answer should always be white skin.
the answer should always be white skin.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/trump-pardon-hammond-oregon.amp.html
Wypipo getting away with everything now.
Wypipo getting away with everything now.
By FermentedFungi Go To Posthttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/trump-pardon-hammond-oregon.amp.htmlnow?
Wypipo getting away with everything now.
This is what I find perplexing. If you want to campaign as a New Deal Democrat, that's fine. I'm all for it in fact, but please stop calling yourself socialist?
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostWhat's wrong with calling oneself a socialist? Or more so a democratic-socialist. It's a pretty clear indicator of a candidate who believes the state should be doing more for citizens. It's also a way to differentiate oneself from the established dems who keep going on about how "socialism" will ruin the party when they've fucking lost everything.
This is what I find perplexing. If you want to campaign as a New Deal Democrat, that's fine. I'm all for it in fact, but please stop calling yourself socialist?
By FermentedFungi Go To PostWhat's wrong with calling oneself a socialist? Or more so a democratic-socialist. It's a pretty clear indicator of a candidate who believes the state should be doing more for citizens. It's also a way to differentiate oneself from the established dems who keep going on about how "socialism" will ruin the party when they've fucking lost everything.Do enough reading you'll find that a bunch of democrats managed to get ahead in life by vilifying any sort of leftists as "commies" and ratting them out to the feds. As a result a lot of the left in the U.S. is very much dead at least when it comes to political capital. Many people were black listed, kicked out of their Uni jobs, and all sorts of shit. A lot of democrats will paint it as just a GOP/McCarthy thing but a bunch of established Dems basically made their careers on throwing leftists under the bus too. As a result you get a country that's quite rightist and can't imagine not being a capitalist shilling hell hole.
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostThis is what I find perplexing. If you want to campaign as a New Deal Democrat, that's fine. I'm all for it in fact, but please stop calling yourself socialist?
No.
I mean, nah.
The new New Deal is that we are socialists now.
Don't worry though, we'll do you a solid and abolish ICE in the process.
By HasphatsAnts Go To Post
This is what I find perplexing. If you want to campaign as a New Deal Democrat, that's fine. I'm all for it in fact, but please stop calling yourself socialist?
Would you prefer she ran on the means of production becoming centralized?
Because why stop at stacking the courts with just the scotus
It doesn't affect current judges and is also the result of some case that was resolved somewhat recently.
It's nearly impossible for the next democratic president to not win based off of strong "socialist" policy.