The Linda McMahon appointment is an obvious sinecure. Trump wants to do away with the Dept. of Education. She doesn’t need to do anything except sign stuff handed to her; hmmm, sounds familiar…I’m surprised the Dems don’t recognize the play calling here.
Trump tried to play politics in 2016 and got bitch slapped by the establishment, many of whom he hired because they were “qualified”, and “experts”. He’s come back with a new plan -LOYALTY first.
The McMahon connection:
"The McMahon family, particularly Linda and Vince McMahon, have shown significant support for Donald Trump over the years:
Financial Contributions: The McMahons have been major financial supporters of Trump’s political campaigns. They contributed millions to Trump’s campaigns, with reports indicating donations of over $7 million in 2016 and around $10 million for the 2024 election cycle. This makes them among Trump’s largest individual donors.
Political Appointments: Linda McMahon served in Trump’s administration as the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) during his first term. Post her tenure at the SBA, she chaired the pro-Trump super PAC America First Action and was involved in shaping policy through the America First Policy Institute, which she chaired. In 2024, she was nominated by Trump to be the Secretary of Education for his second term, indicating continued trust and political alignment.
Public Appearances and Endorsements: The family has been seen publicly supporting Trump, including attending events at the White House and Trump’s New Year’s Eve parties. Photos of the McMahon family with Trump in the Oval Office have circulated, and their presence at significant political events like the Republican National Convention further underline their support.
Business Ties: Trump and Vince McMahon have a history dating back to the 1980s, with Trump hosting WrestleMania events and participating in WWE storylines, which helped cement personal and business relationships.
Public Sentiment and Social Media: Posts on X indicate that the McMahons’ support for Trump is recognized and sometimes criticized by fans and observers in the wrestling community, with some noting their silence or support during controversial political moments.
Given these points, the McMahons can be described as strong supporters of Donald Trump, both financially and politically, with their involvement spanning from significant monetary contributions to high-profile political roles within his administration."
You do understand the purpose of this was to revisit the interpretation of the 14th amendment, not to just sign a paper and change the constitution, right?
I applaud Judge Chutkan. Appointed by Obama no less. Not everyone is blindingly partisan; there’s hope, so maybe change lol.
I have lived in my current house for over 5 years.
I got the previous owner’s ballots mailed to me for the 2024 election.
I put them through the shredder, but I’m sure you see the potential risks here.
All we want is more transparency. Something this administration has done pretty well so far… the same cannot be said of the last administration.
Strategy, it can be hard to explain to those who only see black and white.
Shockingly, there was no huge outcry from MSM when Biden tried to add his own amendment to the constitution via tweet on his way out the door LOLLL.
I believe in the early days of the United States, there was a topic that was hotly debated about the intelligence of the average person, and whether or not they should be allowed to vote without meeting certain prerequisites.
I think this is an even more relevant topic now, but no one will touch it because the retards will complain too loudly.
I read a statistic somewhere that said something to the tune of 6% of all births in the US are anchor babies.
I think it was a pew research center statistic from maybe 2014? I don’t recall… I posted it a couple weeks ago with respect to the 14th amendment.
Why do think that is? I’ll say that obviously feminism has played a large role and when you throw in identity politics you can see why these people would want to put some kind of brakes on men in order to create their idea of a level playing field otherwise they couldn’t compete. But the question that I think is more important is, why did the establishment, for lack of a better term, give them this power to shape men in their own image? In my opinion, more women working, means more women buying junk. They need cars. They need a place to live. They can also be turned into a very important voting block. Also, the less able young men are when it comes to dealing with competition and trying to move up socioeconomically, the less competition there is for those already at the top. You create a perpetual underclass of men who lack any heart or courage to stand up to the powers that be. Look at how women are attending college at higher rates than men.
People have been talking about this for a lot longer than you may know, because of your age, or maybe you do since you mentioned 60 years. But when I was a kid I remember hearing things like men need to get in touch with their feminine side. Phil Donahue, and even Woody Allen, were put forward as ideal men. In the 70s, and you can Google this, Testosterone Poisoning was a thing. The idea, and some still bring it up, is that men’s higher test levels are not normal and that it is the cause of all the bad things that have happened and are happening on Earth. Now, they weren’t saying men are literally poisoned, it was metaphorical, but the point was that masculinity manifests itself as irrationality, violence and even insanity. And it was first coined by a man. Carl Sagan even mentioned it. So again, my question is, why did everyone, not literally everyone, stand by and allow this emasculation to happen? I’m curious what you think as someone who is younger. Even in the Dirty Harry movies you had Clint having to fight DEI.
That is interesting.
I am far from an authority on the Constitution, but I can consider every word and its meaning. Have any of you tried to interpret what is meant in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment? (first sentence)
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside… “
That HUGE “and” after the first comma just screams at me. “…, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” I am not sure what that entails, but the “and” does not allow it as an option.
It makes no sense if everyone here is subject to the jurisdiction. There must be people within the borders of the United States that are not subject to US jurisdiction or the clause is not necessary.
Is that clause pertinent solely because of American Indians on reservations residing within the borders of the USA?
For now, let’s not consider the intent of the writers of the 14th Amendment. (Personally, that is very simple, especially considering there was no funding for any new citizens. If the states knew they would be required to provide means for new citizens covered under the 14th Amendment, there is no chance that it would be ratified.)
This is specifically the point that I believe needs further interpretation or refinement.
I do not know what specifically defines someone as “subject to jurisdiction”, but I have to imagine citizenship plays a significant role in that.
My (limited) understanding is that if a foreign citizen comes here and breaks our laws, we have the authority to deport them back to home country for their own punishment - as they are citizens of and under jurisdiction of their country’s laws, not ours.
I would like to think it means people legally here. Then they are complying with the jurisdiction of the United States.
It has been posted before.
Foreign Diplomats Children – Children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats are not U.S. citizens because their parents are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the full legal sense (they have diplomatic immunity).
Hostile Occupying Forces – If a foreign power occupied U.S. soil, their children would not be U.S. citizens, as they would not be under American jurisdiction.
Native American Tribes- When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, members of Native American tribes were not considered U.S. citizens because they were under the jurisdiction of their own tribal governments. This changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted citizenship to all Native Americans.
One aspect of becoming a naturalized citizen is that they must be legally here.
If parity means anything the parents of the born person in the United States must also be legally here
The overwhelming majority of people behind queer theory were women. It’s still a thing, it’s still taught though I would assume it’s not a required class, and it’s not going away anytime soon.
This is a very difficult question to answer, but I’ll try my best. Seeing as you’re specifically interested in my opinion as a younger individual, I’ll make note that I have read into this subject at great length - making my understanding more educated than the average male of similar age to me (millennials).
I think humans, whether naturally implanted or socially implanted, have an inherent urge to push for equality - or fairness - in everything.
I believe this ‘compass’ is fairly correct in most of it’s assumptions of fairness, but it falls short when we start looking at Equality of Opportunity vs Equality of Outcome.
I believe feminists (male and female alike, many of whom do not identify as feminist, but still have fundamentally feminist beliefs) lean towards Equality of Outcome more than that of opportunity.
I do not see much of an argument to support otherwise, either… if they did, they would have been lobbying for actual equality, where they have only been lobbying for the benefit of women.
I think these fundamental beliefs of equality are what fucked us in the mid-60’s, where largely traditional conservative men believed that women were worthy of the invisible halos we all see them wearing.
I believe another large factor, which you pointed out pretty well, is that feminism was primarily pushed by large corporations. I’ve asked a number of feminists the question “why were the Rockefellers funding feminist voices in the 60’s?” and never once gotten an answer.
I agree with most of the points you laid out with respect to financial gain for corporations, but I would add one.
By empowering women in the workforce, you double the labor pool.
Supply and demand tells us that when you double the supply, you can cut the cost by about half. In this scenario, the cost is what corporations pay us for our labor.
I believe this is the primary reason why corporations wanted women in the workforce… they will never spend money on something that has no value added for them.
Another belief I have on the subject veers into misogyny territory, but I don’t really care that it does. Take it with a grain of salt.
I think most women will give other women some of the most horrible fucking advice possible, in effort to compete with them in the socioeconomic ladder, and sexual marketplace.
“If I can convince Becky to sleep with a bunch of strange men like I do, then she is no longer more valuable than me”
Moreover, I think that older women tend to repeat this advice to younger women so that they too are more desirable compared to their typically more desirable youth competition.
I see many old men telling stories to young men/boys of their past mistakes.
I see very few old women telling tales of their mistakes to young women/girls.
Perhaps accountability plays a role in this? I’m not sure.
Each and every wave of feminism has reduced the power of men, reduced their ability to earn fair wages, reduced their ability to reproduce, or reduced their ability to act like men. I guess in that order.
We’re currently in a culture of shitty women giving shitty women shitty advice, and blaming men for it.
Masculinity is only celebrated when it is benefiting women; all other times it is toxic.
I don’t know if that answered your question, but I’m hoping it does.
It’s a very complicated subject to refine into a response… this was my concise version, lol.
Why though??
The more I’ve been reading about this and putting everything together, I’m beginning to place a lot of blame on the actual thought process that underpins all Marxist thought. Dialectical materialism.
That’s the commo denominator. That whole embrace of contradiction leading to endless introspection until you talk yourself into being right about everything, i.e. God.
These Marxist scholars who’ve reasoned the people of Lewiston into this are charlatans. They are Orphic mystics and keepers of hidden knowledge behind their vast vocabulary and spirals of reasoning. It’s also looking like our tax dollars might have paid for it in more ways than we realized.
Don’t believe me? Here’s how I found it.
I wanted to learn why my public schools implemented transgenderism. Beginning with the policy as stated, following backwards from there. A vast portal of wild reasoning exists beyond that gate, involving unbelievable assumptions and seemingly nobody around to academically or ethically challenge it to any degree. Whole fields of study await you.
A good friend of mine summed up dialectical materialism as applied to public policy in one sentence that also applies to politics, most of personal relationships, and all but the most technical of professions.
“If a system needs constant over-explanation of ideas it is inherently flawed.”
They are queers so they have their own self interests in play and they have explicitly stated they want to dismantle society as we know it.
Obama Karma. A Chef’s Kiss of symbolic edifice to DEI. I can’t stop laughing.
