McDonaldsReal

Genocide is the act of "real men" who are wronged (and were they really)? Well, then I suppose if Iran had the capacity to kill of British people it ought to have. And Algerian ought to have murdered every French person. Nuked em.

And what should happen to your country? Surely your country didn't murder people or steal money... Right?

You know, I think this sort of grievance based politics is actually ok if it means I can kill people I don't like for slights, small and large. Seems like a really good idea, really.

"no guys you don't understand, it's not nuclear genocide when we colonize them, insert ourselves into Iran twice to kill dissidents, and create wildly lopsided terms so we control their oil economy, and then they decide to nationalize their oil"... "What do you mean we've been nuked back?"

The American revolutionaires would probably have revolted for much less. I imagine that Trump's solution would have been much the same if he lived in Iran - cut oneself from a foreign deal with the British and do what he wants with it regardless of promises made.

If you think that "the destruction of civilization" is just the cost of business then I would recommend you become a tech CEO in the US. Similar vibes.

Of course, if you discount the colonial context it seems like highway thievery. But really, Britain losing 8 billion was frankly generous.

"Why? Because your cite old news. What use is that? And you do not cite the source of that news, but a secondary non-originator of the old news. On those two counts, I doubt the credibility of the news. Is that a crime? Worse, is that even "weird?" I doubt it. What it is is wanting at least credibility. That always makes sense."

You cited nothing. You made a bare assertion. You don't demonstrate that facticity is important to you.

"Who said the US will Nuke Iran? We have that capability, sure, but I don't think Trump is an idiot, and I suspect you disagree. But disagree with sensible criticism, at least, or it's as absurd as you accuse Trump of being, and that is weird. Kind of like pulling out your own rug from beneath you. There's a picture."

Shoresy said that if JFK ran the presidency 50 years ago they would have nuked Iran. I didn't say my comment in relation to Trump. I said it in relation to Shoresy's desire for Iran to be nuked.

Do I think Trump would? I mean ... I don't think *he* thinks he's too good for that. But that's neither here nor there. The chance of any country dropping a nuke is low.

Oh no 8 billion dollars of not even the US's goods was stolen.

The only fucking reason that Britain had control over Iranian oil to begin with had very much to do with it's colonial history from the early 20th century onward, and on terms that were beneficial really only to Britain. If a country is colonized it ought to resist. With bloodshed if necessary. And if the US did nuke Iran, then it should suffer the consequences: mass killings.

"I'm not the one making oil availability an endangered issue due to Iran's stupidity, or brilliance, depending on your side of the issue."

.......

.......

.......

I mean you brought up oil dependence and Europe. If you don't want to cite that's fine. It's just weird you'd care about my cites if you don't even bother.

"And no nukes will be used to eliminate an Iranian civilization. No need. They're already at least one foot into the pool of medieval living, anyway. Iran caused the bullshit in the first place, my friend, nearly 50 years ago. Iran was an ally before the Ayafuckla made his move against us"

The US and Britain launched a coup in the 50s in Iran. Because Mosaddegh's government nationalized the oil industry and sided with the USSR, which as a sovereign nation was their choice. The US and Britain had no claim on their oil reserves. Mosaddegh was democratically elected. The Shah was not. And the Shah was the one who started Iran's nuclear program. The US put the Shah in charge.

I guess we were "friends" in the sense that someone who I launch a coup against is my "friend". Seems like they were right in hindsight given how untrustworthy the US is.

Nah mate no nerve hit. If you got more recent data I'd say show it. I'm not treating my forum posts like academic articles so I don't feel the need to cite the "proper" source in MLA format with all the "fixins". I would remind you that you cited nobody to make your point about Europe being heavily dependent on Strait oil and the US not being dependent at all. The EIA source I got anyway starts in Q1 of 2025, and I don't see any up to date info besides. But by all means, show me if Europe got more dependent on Strait imports. Again, oil is a global commodity so energy independence does not mean that the US is not affected by global oil prices, so this is an unimportant point in the grand scheme of things.

Hey good for you on being able to live off the grid. Id say most people can't. Certainly Mickey D's won't.

I can't imagine that the lesson America's "enemies" will learn is to give up their nuclear capabilities in case of bullshit like this. Seems second strike capabilities are a good idea to develop now that a president intends to kill an entire "civilization" (his words not mine) tonight . I'd say it would be concerning if Iran or, more importantly, it's allies decide it doesn't want Iran to face extinction and should fire back with whatever it has. Hope your off the grid household comes with a bomb shelter. Usually I'd say that bombing back would be draconian, but, well, threatening to kill an entire civilization and it's people is more than draconian.

Maybe we should bomb all civilizations on earth besides ours so we can live without fear of other civilizations bombing back. And then we can bomb the people in this civilization who are threats. And then the people who we trust but justifiably think could kill us if they wanted to.

I don't think in the last year or so, somehow, Europe as a continent decided to get itself more dependent on the Strait to the point that it much eclipses the US. If you think that's the case then what data do you have that I don't on their energy dependence in terms of imports from the Strait?

But the larger point is that the US is not a huge importer of oil, but that does not mean the US is energy independent. If that were true, then why would gas prices be affected domestically? Oil is a global commodity. American firms sell oil in the global market, and will opt to sell to the highest bidder which might be to a firm outside the US. So a higher global price of oil incentivizes them to sell to foreign markets.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-oil-companies-poised-60-213104053.html

In addition, refineries cannot always refine the kind of oil that is produced domestically because of its sulfur content (among other things).

And the transportation costs to get crude from the Midwest to the Eastern and Western states are high.

So what I'm telling you is that the being a "net energy exporter" or having "energy independence" does not hermetically seal the US's oil economy from global shocks. If it did there wouldn't be an increase in gas prices at the pump. Which is just empirically verifiable.

https://www.wtae.com/article/gas-above-four-dollars/70784185

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/live-news/us-israel-iran-war-strait-hormuz-updates-03-27-2026.amp

If Trump isn't intent on having a boots on the ground presence in Iran what the fuck are the troops doing there? I want my God damn fertilizer so I can grow my bioengineered patty meat and tomatoes to sell more fucking burgers. Tell those troops to die by the hundreds and destroy civilian infrastructure so I can sell more Big Arches, thereby disappointing more people than just the CEO and fulfilling my earthly mission to make everyone atheist because no loving god would give us the quarterly profits spreadsheet I just received. Meanwhile these troops are playing tiddlywinks and hackey sack. Jesus fucking Christ what do I pay you people for?

Also if the US is so energy independent why the fuck are my truck drivers who deliver the patties complaining about oil prices? Cause not all oil we produce can be refined in domestic refineries? Because oil is a global commodity and US gas companies' trading in said commodity means that domestic and global oil prices fluctuate together? Because transportation costs are rather high for West and East Coast states and so it's actually cheaper to buy international?

Also does Europe need that oil more?

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-oil-trade-through-the-strait-of-hormuz-by-country/

It don't seem like it. Graph says there's a one percentage point difference between US and Europe dependence on Strait of Hormuz oil. And China, Saudi Arabia, etc., need it more.

Yoooo cummy jorts that's a banging selfie. Remember when you shishkabobbed like 5 dudes with your spear and then to hide the evidence you sat on the spear lengthwise to hide it in your rectum? You had this expression on your face when you did it lol

-FakeMcDonalds

Do you have faith in Burger Jesus?

I would rather slit my wrist than become president.

He actually lost that job when he tried to dip his balls in the hot fry oil cause that's the only way he could cum after Miss Tennessee kicked him in the dick for peeping. All cool though. Here's him and the boys

I'm crashing this forum thread like the economy motherfuckers. I've decided this forum thread is now for me to post pics of more politicians with food.

I mean that's kinda what he did. Except instead of "secluding himself to die" he was "trapped in the Play Place slide at one of the McDonalds locations in NYC" and instead of marrying Eva Braun, he "consummated" his carnal "marriage" with the Grimace costume we lent him. Consummated it really hard. Then he kept it. And that's why he broke up with his last wife.

-RealMcDonalds

too flashy? overstimulation? we stan the autistics in this house its cool

yoooooo what up it's cummy jorts! For those that don't know that's Remy's nickname in real life. How are those jorts holding up? You ever change them? I can smell them from here lol

Hey man it's cool you're upset and all but you don't have to beat yourself up about being trans. I get it, recently transitioned and all, but I'm here for ya homie. Just like I was there for you when you needed your fursuit washed for that gay orgy you attended or when you needed to borrow my dick pills. Anyway you straight 9/11ed that guys asshole lol shame you shot that jizz so quick you knocked fucking killed him and we had to hide the body, remember? Shits crazy. luckily that fucker was a cop so I don't feel to bad about it. McDonalds Fake over and out; straight people are lizards

i mean lindseys been hinting all along

thats a certified throat GOAT right there.

Thanks! Sorry for the thesis lol. I didn't realize how much I've written til the end where I looked and I was like "huh, that's too much right?" I'm glad to talk about this. Not too many people are willing to here out anything Marx related (for understandable and not so understandable reasons)

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the census was constitutional when it was drafted into the constitution, but then sometimes late in the 19th century, it then became unconstitutional because undocumented migrants were subject to enforcement and regulation? Was it always unconstitutional?

What about the Alien Acts of 1798? That was 10 years after the constitution's founding and supported by some of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson. This did not change the questions on the census.

Women weren't allowed to vote or hold property under coverture law and yet they are counted, so it's not "just voters" either.

Also didn't you say that the constitution provided Congress with the authority to repel invasions - and you seemed to think that this included undocumented migrants? Well, if it only became federally regulated by the late 1900s as you say (I disagree given the Alien act), and undocumented European migrants lived in the US as residents, and the founders then seemed to encourage settlement, then surely invasions meaning "undocumented migrants" is also a bureaucratic ad hoc interpretation. The founders had no interest then in repulsing these "invasions" and were talking about something else. Ergo, the powers in that section of the Constitution do not confer the authority to expel migrants. Since federal regulation of migrants started in the late 19th century, the old constitutional powers don't apply, just as the old census clause doesn't after that late 19th century period.

no i figured that but i was writing this during a caffeine crash and wanted to make sure i made sense

This is from the Virginia Plan 1787 drafted by James Madison, which was accepted over that of the New Jersey Plan:

"Resolved that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation; but according to some equitable ratio of representation — namely in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants, of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes in each State. "

It was voted on. Madison took notes during the constitutional convention.

Also, they seemed to have debated it:

"A motion passed, 6–4 (Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia opposed), to have a census of free inhabitants"

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/constitutionalconvention-july11.htm

"You're just guessing at the intent of a bureaucratic official who made a decision without a congressional vote."

Well, this is a job for the SCOTUS (though the originalists on the bench will probably agree). But here's what the first census counted:

"“Free White males of 16 years and upward” (to assess the country’s industrial and military potential); “Free White males under 16 years”; “Free White females”; “all other free persons”; and “Slaves.”"

https://news.virginia.edu/content/words-census

Oversaw by Tommy J himself, best known by his non-rap name Thomas Jefferson.

No question about migrant status at all.

Most unelected people have very selfish motives when it involves power

Most elected people have selfish motives when it involves power, too.

So they use citizen everywhere else in the document but Tommy J slipped? I don't buy it, but I'll leave it to the SCOTUS if it comes to it. But it should be noted that the early American republic conferred voting rights to European non-citizens up until the 20th century (as well as easy naturalization). So the founders could very well have intended it.

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2495&context=facpub (p. 14-15)

https://www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/hayduk_-_chapter_2.pdf

This entire chapter (second link) gives you the history of non citizen voting rights.

Here's a snippet from p. 17

"Congress itself promoted noncitizen voting in the Northwest Ordinance of 1789, which gave “freehold aliens” with two years of residency the vote for territorial legislative representatives. Furthermore, it granted “wealthier” resident aliens with three years of residency the right to serve in territorial legislatures.16 In subsequent acts, Congress granted voting rights for immigrants in the new territories of Washington, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. In addition, Congress explicitly authorized the right of aliens to vote for representatives to statewide constitutional conventions in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois"

This makes me think that maybe the intent was not to exclude migrants from voting - especially because the "right to vote" is not really in the constitution originally.

"Like I told McDonald's, this isn't mere arm-folding going on in those sanctuary cities. Sanctuary from federal law is a crime. Obstruction is a crime. Nullification is a crime. Registering criminals as citizens for the sole purpose of creating congressional seats is a crime."

Arm folding is the sanctuary city status. It's saying "I won't cooperate with you." If ICE comes back with a warrant for arrest, they can arrest them. Detainers are not warrants. They don't carry probable cause. ICE seems to think they do but that's not standing case law.

https://www.justice.gov/ag/us-sanctuary-jurisdiction-list-following-executive-order-14287-protecting-american-communities?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

There's no one definition of a sanctuary city but the above link takes you to where the Trump DOJ defines it. There are nine characteristics they list. None of them prevent an ICE agent, with a warrant, arresting someone they think is an undocumented migrant anywhere in the country. There's nebulous talk of "jailhouse restrictions" - but this falls into 2 categories - you need prior authorization from a sheriff to enter the prison, or you need a criminal warrant. see: https://www.albanylaw.edu/government-law-center/sanctuary-jurisdictions

There might be a case for not sharing certain communications with ICE being in violation of the law - but this is also not a given on the same grounds: the federal government cannot "commandeer" local and state officers to enforce federal law, and collecting and transmitting data to ICE could be enforcement. There could be grounds for conditioning funding for not sharing communications (this seems to be the conclusion of the 2nd circuit), but this is not the same as being "illegal." see: https://tracreports.org/tracker/dynadata/2020_05/LSB10386.pdf

The only other characteristic the DOJ lists that pertains to obstruction is this one:

Laws, Ordinances, Executive Directives: Cities, states, or counties that have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other formalized practices that obstruct or limit local law enforcement cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Seems redundant and nebulous. Also, the DOJ doesn't disaggregate and say which characteristics apply to which jurisdictions. On the other hand, ICE does: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/ddor/ddor2017_02-11to02-17.pdf.

Their main focus seems to be detainers.

"It's even worse than the 3/5 compromise hack for congressional power, since at least that was voted on. Nobody voted to count criminal non-citizens in the census."

3/5 compromise was voted on by the convention. Don't think the people had a say on that one. Same with the census clause which is actually a sentence away from the 3/5 compromise:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons.

Note it says "free persons" and not "US citizens." The word "citizen" is used elsewhere in the document, so one imagines this was deliberate. It would probably require an amendment to change that.

Census law was also passed in 1954 which established the Census bureau so if the people then voted for their Senators and House members - they did vote for it.

But yeah are you reading Black Reconstruction? by DuBois? It's a good book. Super long. Read up to and including the general strike.

Should specify I guess: Scalia drafted the opinion not the 10th amendment. He used the 10th amendment as justification.

I feel like my original answer should suffice. The rest was my convo with Shoresy:

"Read Printz V. US.

Congress passed federal background checks as part of the Brady Act. It was struck down because it "commandeered" state and local police to enforce a federal policy. They could ask state and local police to carry out background checks but they can't mandate it. But the background check provision was severable from the rest of the bill and so the rest of it passed."

They used the 10th amendment. Scalia drafted it.

I guess my one word answer is 10thamendment.