“Tomorrow: joebiden and @kamalaharris will receive a briefing from public health experts on COVID-19 and deliver remarks afterwards.”
Here for an actual adult to begin receiving briefings.
Let's face it, if they together name ONE actual thing they could do that would actually help us with this crisis, that is already an improvement over what we have right now federally.
I ordered a yard sign. I've NEVER put up a yard sign in my life and probably never will again.
This isn't the ticket I've been most excited about in my life (that award would go to 2008 Obama), but this is the highest the stakes have ever seemed.
I just put up a sign a few weeks ago and I'm considering taking a marker to it to update
Post by somersault72 on Aug 13, 2020 12:09:47 GMT -5
@@@@@@
I'm completely dumbfounded that being a mom (step/biological/whatever) is a requirement for being VP in 2020,ESPECIALLY by people who call themselves progressive. WTF
I'm completely dumbfounded that being a mom (step/biological/whatever) is a requirement for being VP in 2020,ESPECIALLY by people who call themselves progressive. WTF
@@@ Seriously. When was the last time a man in power was criticized for not being a biological father? Grrrr.
"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
I'm completely dumbfounded that being a mom (step/biological/whatever) is a requirement for being VP in 2020,ESPECIALLY by people who call themselves progressive. WTF
Seriously. When was the last time a man in power was criticized for not being a biological father? Grrrr.
@@ I did read, months and months ago, that people worried about Cory Booker's viability as a candidate since he's not only not a father, but he isn't even married!!111!!!!11!!
We have so much farther to go! One thing that I would like to see updated is the whole notion of first lady/first gentleman. Someday there will (hopefully!) be someone in that roll to whom neither apply, and I'd like to see a less binary title for that role.
Seriously. When was the last time a man in power was criticized for not being a biological father? Grrrr.
@@ I did read, months and months ago, that people worried about Cory Booker's viability as a candidate since he's not only not a father, but he isn't even married!!111!!!!11!!
We have so much farther to go! One thing that I would like to see updated is the whole notion of first lady/first gentleman. Someday there will (hopefully!) be someone in that roll to whom neither apply, and I'd like to see a less binary title for that role.
People are already going to lose their everloving minds when DR! Biden continues to work.
As someone who doesn't have children (infertile) I'd cut someone who stated that I don't understand women. Fuck those people.
@@@
Equating womanhood and motherhood is so myopic and reductive. The female experience encompasses so much more in addition to, or besides being a mother.
This is crazy. It does literally say anyone born in the US is a citizen of the US. How can you spin this?
”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.”
How can one spin this?!?
I can’t wrap my head around it. By that kind of eisegesis, one could argue that Ted Cruz is not a citizen and was therefore not eligible to run for president (but they didn’t, because he identifies as white).
Also, per this article from Cornell Law School, “The requirement that a person be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.” So basing the argument on the meaning of that phrase is completely ridiculous.
His argument is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" only applies to children born to foreign citizens with a permanent legal status in the US. Otherwise the child is subject to a foreign power.
If that sounds convoluted, wait until you hear that the same author defended Ted Cruz as eligible bc of the SCOTUS rolling he ignores to make Kamala ineligible. *eyeroll*
I can’t wrap my head around it. By that kind of eisegesis, one could argue that Ted Cruz is not a citizen and was therefore not eligible to run for president (but they didn’t, because he identifies as white).
Also, per this article from Cornell Law School, “The requirement that a person be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.” So basing the argument on the meaning of that phrase is completely ridiculous.
His argument is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" only applies to children born to foreign citizens with a permanent legal status in the US. Otherwise the child is subject to a foreign power.
If that sounds convoluted, wait until you hear that the same author defended Ted Cruz as eligible bc of the SCOTUS rolling he ignores to make Kamala ineligible. *eyeroll*
Sounds like this guy has never heard of dual citizenship. Lots of Americans are born dual citizens, even if they don't officially claim it. Plus I'm sure that anyone on a student visa knows that they are very much "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.
I know this is a bad faith argument and I should let it go, but I get angry when people are just so wrong, haha.
This little gem was hidden at the end of the author's bio:
Eastman ran in the 2010 Republican primary as a candidate for attorney general; he lost to Steve Cooley, who lost to Kamala Harris in the general election.
And makes me so happy to see bc I’m SO deeply offended by the comments I’ve seen from so many progressive women (Warren supporters mostly) that she “isn’t a real mom” and doesn’t understand women because she doesn’t have bio children. And aside from how absolutely shitty that is as a concept, it completely invalidates the very sweet familial relationships she does have, which include children.
@@@
Today I learned that apparently I don’t understand women, despite having been one for 34 years.
@@@@@@@
Conversely, many of the women in my Respectfully Childfree group are ecstatic about the nomination of a woman who's not a "traditional" (nuclear?) parent.
I feel like I need to add some caveats, just in case. I'm trying to phrase this as carefully as possible! I am CF by choice, but I respect anyone's choice to be a parent or not. I don't believe any woman's worth is tied up in her ability to reproduce. But it's rare to see an American woman in such a high-profile position who doesn't have children. For many of us who have felt marginalized by a society that says women are useless unless they reproduce, this is refreshing!
I'm completely dumbfounded that being a mom (step/biological/whatever) is a requirement for being VP in 2020,ESPECIALLY by people who call themselves progressive. WTF
It is some next fucking level BS.
@@@@@@
This was actually a driver in the 2014 Oklahoma Governor’s race. Both the R and D candidates were women, and the R had children (and had scandal when she was Lt. Gov in the 90s for cheating on her husband with a state employee) and the D candidate was unmarried and had no children. The R candidate literally campaigned on being a mother and how that made her better qualified. She won, of course.
I remember there being a mailer I got which in REALLY thinly veiled language implied that Askins was a *gasp!!!* lesbian because she was childfree and unmarried.
I think it’s awesome she’s in her 50s without biological children! But I’m childfree by choice and also - why the fuck does it matter?
@@@ I am also child free by choice and honestly I was kind of excited by the fact that she doesn’t have bio kids. There is such a taboo around a woman not having/wanting kids that I’m hoping having a Kickass woman in the public eye will help normalize it.
I'm completely dumbfounded that being a mom (step/biological/whatever) is a requirement for being VP in 2020,ESPECIALLY by people who call themselves progressive. WTF
@@@ Seriously. When was the last time a man in power was criticized for not being a biological father? Grrrr. Anything related to his parenting? Shit dad? Abandon some kids? That's fine. Raise some kids as a step parent? You are a hero!
I can’t wrap my head around it. By that kind of eisegesis, one could argue that Ted Cruz is not a citizen and was therefore not eligible to run for president (but they didn’t, because he identifies as white).
Also, per this article from Cornell Law School, “The requirement that a person be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.” So basing the argument on the meaning of that phrase is completely ridiculous.
His argument is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" only applies to children born to foreign citizens with a permanent legal status in the US. Otherwise the child is subject to a foreign power.
If that sounds convoluted, wait until you hear that the same author defended Ted Cruz as eligible bc of the SCOTUS rolling he ignores to make Kamala ineligible. *eyeroll*
Yes I know what the argument is, but I'm amazed by the mental gymnastics to get there.
I see that Newsweek has now added a note at the top of the page that they're "horrified that this op-ed gave rise to a wave of vile Birtherism directed at Senator Harris" and "entirely failed to anticipate the ways in which the essay would be interpreted, distorted and weaponized." Didn't anticipate that? AYFKM?
Kamala Harris can’t be the only candidate born to two immigrant parents. I feel like this is a distraction to just point out that she’s not white. I was young when Michael Dukakis ran, did he face this immigrant birther nonsense?
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 15, 2020 12:00:50 GMT -5
Oh, go piss up a rope downwind, Newsweek.
Real question, does anyone actually read it? Is it considered anything more than a rag? I don't think I've ever read it, and I've not seen it regularly referenced as a serious source. Not foxnews bad. I don't get the impression it's wrong or bad just the bubblegum pop of news.
Kamala Harris can’t be the only candidate born to two immigrant parents. I feel like this is a distraction to just point out that she’s not white. I was young when Michael Dukakis ran, did he face this immigrant birther nonsense?
Was he white? /s
Also he wasn't the first prominent Greek-American politician. And we're a very different world than 1988.
But, though not at all in the same category, there was a ton of distrust about JFK's loyalty due to his Catholicism. It's a cousin to the distrust of immigrants. Who are they truly loyal to? Are they Real Americans (tm)?
I feel like this is a distraction to just point out that she’s not white.
It is. Which is why I won't put any energy into it. You can't get more racist than saying the 14th Amendment doesn't reeeaaaallllllyyyyyy apply to a black woman.
Some days, the right doesn't like jus solis, some days they don't like jus sanginuis, all days they love a racist dog whistle.