I guess this is exactly what the judicial branch was created for. We've got an undefined area of legality, somebody's got to sort it out, and until they do we just can't say for sure one way or the other
Has he ever given any indication that he knows what the CHIPS Act is? Because I'm 99% sure he's confusing it with CHIP Children's Health Insurance Program which iirc is part of social security and we know he's aiming to get rid of that.
The Constitution applies to all people within jurisdiction of the United States. Immigration or citizenship status isn't a factor; he absolutely has a first amendment right to say what he said.
The question you're struggling with is regarding people who aren't already within the jurisdiction, or are applying for citizenship.
All of that said, if ICE already deported him then that complicates things. Normally somebody who's been deported will be denied reentry for that reason alone; there's a waiting period (5 years iirc) if they're ever going to be allowed back in at all. But you're correct that they could also deny him reentry for his political views. It's likely that, if he's already out of the country, legally removed or not, a judge will have to order him to be allowed reentry despite both of this things.
Exactly. Putin has leverage on almost the entire GOP. Additionally, I'm pretty sure this is all stuff they want to do anyway. It's easy to blackmail people into doing something they already want to do.
We're in this mess because First Past The Post (FPTP) voting inherently results in a two-party system, which in turn creates polarization and extremism.
To create lasting, meaningful change we need to move away from FPTP to Rank Choice (my preference) or Proportional Representation. Thankfully, the voting process is determined at the local level (state, county, or city depending on your location) which means the goons taking over the federal government will have a much more difficult time resisting this change.
We need people in local governments pushing for this change. Once we're off FPTP a lot of other changes are going to be easier to make.
Could you be more specific? Because the only safeguard I'm aware of is impeachment and removal, which requires both chambers of Congress to act against Trump and I just don't believe that's going to happen while Republicans control both chambers and impeachment certainly isn't going to "kick in" as if it's some automatic process.
So I'm genuinely curious about what's got you so optimistic
There are a lot of good answers already but I want to add that this changes the situation for any Hispanic people swept up by ICE. If officials feel like they can connect a person to the cartels in any way whatsoever, that individual can now be accused of being a terrorist. This changes the legal process they face, and that's not good news for them. It'll be easier to send the person to Gitmo. It'll be harder to fight for that person's freedom. They'll likely be tortured, and anything they say can be used as pretense for further aggression by the Trump administration, both domestically and foreign.
I like to be more nuanced with ideas like this, because I like to acknowledge the widespread voter disenfranchisement that happens in our country.
If a person could have voted and didn't, then I agree; they made an active choice and that counts.
If a person is eligible to vote but can't--maybe their voter registration was wrongfully purged, or they genuinely can't afford to take time off work, or something else valid I dunno--then that's not an active choice to not vote and I don't think "not voting is voting" can be applied.
Wasn't the stated goal to eliminate 2 trillion in spending? So, he's destroyed the government's ability to function and compromised the security of the government's computer systems he's only reached 2.75% of his stated goal? But not actually?
People say that about the rich in America too. "Don't tax them, they'll leave and take all their money with them!"
But I dunno, maybe we shouldn't let people get so rich we're terrified of them leaving with their money? Just a passing thought...
But also I call bullshit. Doing business in America is, for the foreseeable future, profitable. The rich aren't going to leave because they're making less profit as long as "less profit" is more than "how much profit will I have if I leave"
Of course, now that they've completely captured the US government, the conversation is kind of moot.
In comparison, Reyes said, Trump needs only to provide Congress with 30 days’ notice and a written explanation to remove an inspector general.
She cites the legal procedure in her comments declining the motion. If that's not an acknowledgement of the illegality of what happened instead, what is?
So putting a stop, even temporarily, to plainly illegal actions by government official(s) is unreasonable if the illegal actions aren't illegal enough? And "illegal enough" doesn't include "taking one of the biggest ever steps to remove one of the largest barriers to corruption"
Ordinarily you'd need ground for dismissal, yes. But one of the first things Trump did was follow the plan for Project 2025 which included, amongst other things, reclassifying a fuck ton of government jobs as political jobs, enabling Trump to hire and fire people for political reasons.
You might be on to something there