America - The Official Thread

[McLaren]

*Don't even respond if you don't have legal backing for your argument.

In that case, you should leave the thread yourself.

Attempting to jail a political opponent and trying to remove him from the ballot.

Prepare to cry more, then because it was Republicans who filed to kick him off the Colorado ballot.

Four Republican and two independent voters sued Colorado’s secretary of state in the District Court of Denver County on Wednesday, angling to stop former President Donald Trump’s name from being printed on the primary ballot.

The voters claim Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election disqualify him from holding office.

“As a longtime Republican who voted for him, I believe Donald Trump disqualified himself from running in 2024 by spreading lies, vilifying election workers, and fomenting an attack on the Capitol,” Republican activist Krista Kafer said in a statement.

Republican voters file suit to keep Trump off Colorado’s primary ballot

Polls put former President Donald Trump as a frontrunner in the 2024 GOP primary, but a group of party members question whether he will be eligible for office after facing criminal charges in several courts.

www.courthousenews.com

 

[eran0004]

That's a lie. Read the amendment.

In which part of the amendment do you read that it’s a lie?

Are you sick?
That's precisely what the left is attempting to do.
Ignoring federal immigration laws.

Laws are enforced by the law enforcement, not by political parties. Political parties may change the laws though.

Attempting to jail a political opponent and trying to remove him from the ballot.

Factually true, but you’re incorrectly implying that it’s for political reasons rather than for the crimes he committed.

 

[Touring Mars]

Factually true, but you’re incorrectly implying that it’s for political reasons rather than for the crimes he committed.

Considering some of those crimes include election fraud and trying to overturn the result of a Presidential election (including his role in a violent and deadly attack on the Capitol itself), 'attempting to jail a political opponent' is entirely justified in the case of Trump.

 

[Joey D]

That's a lie. Read the amendment.

I have. Trump engaged in an insurrection and gave comfort to the enemy (the traitors of January 6th) and should be barred from holding office because of that. He should be in federal prison as well, but the 14th Amendment doesn't concern that.

Are you sick?

Yes, but not in the half-assed way you're implying.

That's precisely what the left is attempting to do.
Ignoring federal immigration laws.

The left isn't doing anything regarding immigration laws. I've been critical of the Biden administration's response at the southern border and I don't believe they are handling the situation well. But how do you stop people from coming in? The US needs to put more pressure on the countries to the south of our border since immigration isn't going to stop until those countries get their crap together. We also need to make it easier for people to immigrate to the US since if you take away barriers, you get fewer people trying to skirt the system.

Never mind that the US economy is dependent on cheap labour from south of the border too. Think how much your fruits and vegetables would cost without plentiful, cheap, seasonal labour.

Attempting to jail a political opponent and trying to remove him from the ballot.

Political opponents aren't immune to prosecution if they commit a crime. Trump, at the minimum, pressured officials in Georgia to illegally overturn the election results since he's on tape doing it. That's a crime and Trump is a traitor that belongs in jail. The US is better than that.

What do you think banana republic means?

A country in Central America with an unstable government that is typically run by a despot and has outside foreign influence. They also, typically, export bananas.

OR

A clothing store brand that focuses on exploration chic style and has been owned by The Gap since the mid-80s.

American isn't either of those and we shouldn't operate like it.

 

[Danoff]

That's a lie. Read the amendment.

There are a bunch of thoughtful members here who are VERY familiar with the wording of this amendment and what Trump has done. You need to take your own advice.

I read the Colorado lower court opinion. My wife (lawyer) is reading the entire Colorado supreme court opinion and we're discussing as she goes. Not headlines, not opinion pieces, the actual ruling. The 14th amendment case is very strong. That doesn't mean that the US Supreme Court can't turn a blind eye (and they likely will), but the merits of this case are quite strong. The Colorado Supreme Court painstakingly goes through 18 points of law regarding the 14th amendment to analyze whether it applies, and they come to the correct conclusion that it does, including quoting Gorsuch's own prior ruling (a nice move if you ask me).

Do not pretend that you're talking to uninformed people who haven't been paying attention. The people you're talking to are paying VERY close attention - it's why you get such a poor response with posts like the above.

 

[sturk0167]

In which part of the amendment do you read that it’s a lie?

Trump engaged in an insurrection and gave comfort to the enemy (the traitors of January 6th) and should be barred from holding office because of that.

There are a bunch of thoughtful members here who are VERY familiar with the wording of this amendment and what Trump has done.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Here, is apparently the disconnect on the 14th amendment issue:
Absolutely nothing in that amendment relates to a president. If Trump were running for the senate, house, or state legislature, then they could use the 14th amendment against him. He would probably need to convicted of crimes first, though.

The first problem with the court's ruling is that they made a unilateral determination that he engaged in insurrection, despite him never being convicted of, or even charged in court with the crime of insurrection. No due process there.

Their second blunder was in after having found no explicit mention of president in the amendment, they decided to say that the POTUS is an officer of the US. The president is not an officer of the US. Officers of the US are appointed by the president. Such as Secretary of Defense or Commissioner of the FCC.

This is something I found while researching the matter:

Supreme Court precedent has addressed a similar issue the 2010 case called Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board. In the main opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’ They instead look to the president to guide the “assistants or deputies subject to his superintendence." By that logic, it would seem as though the court would not classify a president as an officer in the context of the disqualification clause.

There are arguments from both sides, but limited precedent and historical context make it unclear whether or not this section of the Constitution excludes Trump from running.

 

[Danoff]

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Here, is apparently the disconnect on the 14th amendment issue:
Absolutely nothing in that amendment relates to a president. If Trump were running for the senate, house, or state legislature, then they could use the 14th amendment against him. He would probably need to convicted of crimes first, though.

"hold any office, civil or military, under the United States"

There has been much analysis of this clause, and the analysis is quite persuasive that this is intended to include the president. Senator, Representative, elector, these may not be offices under the United States but rather offices under a particular state. The office of the presidency is an office under the United States, and the President is an officer of that office. Also, this particular passage was debated around the civil war, a debate which ended quickly when it was realized at the time that it includes the president.

Much analysis, quite clear. You bring this up as though countless people, myself included, had not thought of it been pouring over it for months.

The first problem with the court's ruling is that they made a unilateral determination that he engaged in insurrection, despite him never being convicted of, or even charged in court with the crime of insurrection. No due process there.

The part you quoted does not indicate any conviction is needed - only that the person engaged in insurrection. Insurrection describes some other act when it is carried out in an effort to subvert the US government. You say "unilateral" as though it is not the court's duty to determine criminal activity. As though we're supposed to vote on whether someone committed a crime.

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind at this point that Trump's actions AT LEAST on Jan 6th were an engagement in insurrection. The attempt to prevent the certification of the election that Trump carried out was an act of insurrection. Both the CO lower court and the supreme court came to this inevitable conclusion.

Their second blunder was in after having found no explicit mention of president in the amendment, they decided to say that the POTUS is an officer of the US. The president is not an officer of the US. Officers of the US are appointed by the president.

This is just factually incorrect. I would point you to the CO supreme court ruling to understand the errors here. I'd also point you to the CO lower court that found that POTUS was NOT an officer under the US simply because you will see how poor the argument is to the contrary.

This is something I found while researching the matter:

Supreme Court precedent has addressed a similar issue the 2010 case called Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board. In the main opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’ They instead look to the president to guide the “assistants or deputies subject to his superintendence." By that logic, it would seem as though the court would not classify a president as an officer in the context of the disqualification clause.

There are arguments from both sides, but limited precedent and historical context make it unclear whether or not this section of the Constitution excludes Trump from running.

No, this it is fairly well settled that the president is an officer of the united states and that this is the intent of the 14th amendment. Much concern was devoted at the time, and during the civil war, to ensure that the president could not subvert the nation. The issue you're trying to bring up above also doesn't jive with the fact that the 14th amendment lists many positions which are elected positions. So there is no problem with it applying to elected people. And it is an intentional misunderstanding to suggest that the president being elected matters for one group in the 14th amendment (officers) but simultaneously does not matter for others groups (Senator, Representative in congress, electors).

 

[TexRex]

No BuT iT cAn'T aPpLy To TrUmP!!¡!

 

[Joey D]

Here, is apparently the disconnect on the 14th amendment issue:
Absolutely nothing in that amendment relates to a president. If Trump were running for the senate, house, or state legislature, then they could use the 14th amendment against him. He would probably need to convicted of crimes first, though.

Since you're not a Constitutional law scholar, I will defer to actual Constitutional law scholars on this and say you're incorrect. Here's one such article regarding it:

Why 14th Amendment bars Trump from office: A constitutional law scholar explains principle behind Colorado Supreme Court ruling

Colorado’s Supreme Court has removed Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot. A scholar of constitutional law explains why.

theconversation.com

The Republicans in the 39th Congress repeatedly said that Section 3 covers all offices established by the Constitution.

If you're so inclined to read more on it, here's an academic paper from the law scholar (Mark Graber) that actually looks at those questions and breaks them down:

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment: Our Questions, Their Answers

The Congressional Globe, case survey, and constitutional commentaries clearly support the following conclusions. First, the constitutional disqualification of g

papers.ssrn.com

In that paper, it looks at what an insurrection was at the time the law was written, which was "two or more persons resisting the implementation of any law by force, violence and intimidation for a public purpose and was not limited to rebellious attempts to overthrow the government." Going by that, Trump is an insurrectionist per the 14th Amendment.

 

[sturk0167]

There has been much analysis of this clause, and the analysis is quite persuasive that this is intended to include the president.

That's opinion

Also, this particular passage was debated around the civil war, a debate which ended quickly when it was realized at the time that it includes the president.

I don't think so

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind at this point that Trump's actions AT LEAST on Jan 6th were an engagement in insurrection. The attempt to prevent the certification of the election that Trump carried out was an act of insurrection.

Trump’s alleged actions after the 2020 election do not meet the constitutional definition of “insurrection.”
Obviously the Colorado justices disagree, but shouldn't the bar be a little higher for something so consequential, than them just feeling like he did such and such? Did they present any evidence, interview witnesses, or hear out his defense?

No, this it is fairly well settled that the president is an officer of the united states and that this is the intent of the 14th amendment.

You're presenting that notion to be factual. This discussion wouldn't be occurring if it was.

Much concern was devoted at the time, and during the civil war, to ensure that the president could not subvert the nation

Actually the spirit of that clause was to prevent members of the confederacy from having any positions of great power.
President at the time, Andrew Johnson, having previously been Abraham Lincoln's VP, would have been extremely unlikely to be a confederate sympathizer.

 

[TexRex]

President at the time, Andrew Johnson, having previously been Abraham Lincoln's VP, would have been extremely unlikely to be a confederate sympathizer.

Tell me you don't know anything about Johnson's criticism of Reconstruction, amnesty proclamations or pardoning of thousands of confederates including Jefferson Davis without actually telling me you don't know anything about Johnson's criticism of Reconstruction, amnesty proclamations or pardoning of thousands of confederates including Jefferson Davis.

STOP ERASING OUR HISTORY!

 

[sturk0167]

Tell me you don't know anything about Johnson's criticism of Reconstruction, amnesty proclamations or pardoning of thousands of confederates including Jefferson Davis without actually telling me you don't know anything about Johnson's criticism of Reconstruction, amnesty proclamations or pardoning of thousands of confederates including Jefferson Davis.

Should he have banned the confederate states from being part of the union again, rather than working to reconstruct a whole nation?

 

[TexRex]

Should he have banned the confederate states from being part of the union again, rather than working to reconstruct a whole nation?

Yes. Treasonous vermin ought to have been beheaded in the streets. Alas Johnson was by definition a confederate sympathizer, counter to your idiotic assertion that actual real history was "extremely unlikely."

Connie Vermin Stop Defending Traitors Challenge

 

[Danoff]

That's opinion

Yes, my opinion is that it is persuasive. But the facts are there to be considered by all.

I don't think so

It is one of the many things cited in the CO supreme court opinion. You should check it out since you're interested in this issue.

Trump’s alleged actions after the 2020 election do not meet the constitutional definition of “insurrection.”

Hmmm.. go ahead and cite the "constitutional definition of insurrection" for me.

Obviously the Colorado justices disagree, but shouldn't the bar be a little higher for something so consequential, than them just feeling like he did such and such? Did they present any evidence, interview witnesses, or hear out his defense?

The supreme court is supped to accept findings of fact from the lower court, and weigh in on matters of law. The finding of fact from the lower court was that the president engaged in insurrection, and yes, they heard a mountain of evidence from a gazillion sources.

Not that it matters, you and I both know that the president tried to stop the transfer of power in 2020-2021 (a number of ways), a fact which he alluded to before doing it.

You're presenting that notion to be factual. This discussion wouldn't be occurring if it was.

I've had many discussions about things which are factual. Even whether the Earth is round. It is an interesting idea, that the fact that one disagrees indicates that one's disagreement is reasonable. It's wrong, but it's an interesting idea.

Actually the spirit of that clause was to prevent members of the confederacy from having any positions of great power.

Like the presidency.

 

[Jezza819]

Should he have banned the confederate states from being part of the union again, rather than working to reconstruct a whole nation?

Should Trump have graciously conceded that he lost the 2020 election and allowed for a smooth transfer of power instead of now trying to DEconstruct a whole nation? I would say the answer is yes.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The two most likely candidates for being elected presented at the end of next year seem likely to push the USA further into the abyss. In the very least, I think secession is plausible outcome.

Joe Biden - Because he's a Democrat and I don't think there's anything in this universe that will calm the conservative hyperventilation about his presidency. I still don't get it - his policy is so neutral and boring. Why all this excitement? Obama represented a profoundly greater amount of change, and I don't remember this amount of hysteria. Of course Biden doesn't have a dedicated following of his own, just people who tolerate him. If he wins again, I expect the performative conservative activism to only increase until somebody does something really stupid leading to some kind of hot domestic flare up/insurrection/secession/civil war.

Donald Trump - Because he has a lot of scores to settle and intends to settle them while fundamentally breaking the country. The judiciary stacking will get even more extreme to the point where congress may honestly become irrelevant. The executive cabinet will be entirely cronies with enriching and protecting Trump as their only objective. Foreign policy will become even more chaotic and strong-man friendly than before. I think Trump will make good on his word to insulate police from punishment and then lean on them to quell protest.

I feel like we're pretty screwed honestly. Nikki Haley* or Chris Christie could normalize things a bit theoretically, but I thought the same about Joe Biden and it didn't happen. The Trump faithful will accept nothing except their boy. We're basically now in a position where they either get what they want or they're gonna go off in some manner.

*The funny thing is that Nikki Haley would historically demolish Joe Biden in a hypothetical GE matchup, but the GOP doesn't want to hear it because she just doesn't give them the same level of satisfaction as Donny.

 

[TexRex]

Obama represented a profoundly greater amount of change, and I don't remember this amount of hysteria.

Of course a significant portion of those all het up over the prospect of their bronzer daddy's disqualification thought Obama should be disqualified based on the false belief that he wasn't US-born. Disqualification for thee but not for me.

 

[Blitz24]

The two most likely candidates for being elected presented at the end of next year seem likely to push the USA further into the abyss. In the very least, I think secession is plausible outcome.

Joe Biden - Because he's a Democrat and I don't think there's anything in this universe that will calm the conservative hyperventilation about his presidency. I still don't get it - his policy is so neutral and boring. Why all this excitement? Obama represented a profoundly greater amount of change, and I don't remember this amount of hysteria. Of course Biden doesn't have a dedicated following of his own, just people who tolerate him. If he wins again, I expect the performative conservative activism to only increase until somebody does something really stupid leading to some kind of hot domestic flare up/insurrection/secession/civil war.

Donald Trump - Because he has a lot of scores to settle and intends to settle them while fundamentally breaking the country. The judiciary stacking will get even more extreme to the point where congress may honestly become irrelevant. The executive cabinet will be entirely cronies with enriching and protecting Trump as their only objective. Foreign policy will become even more chaotic and strong-man friendly than before. I think Trump will make good on his word to insulate police from punishment and then lean on them to quell protest.

I feel like we're pretty screwed honestly. Nikki Haley* or Chris Christie could normalize things a bit theoretically, but I thought the same about Joe Biden and it didn't happen. The Trump faithful will accept nothing except their boy. We're basically now in a position where they either get what they want or they're gonna go off in some manner.

*The funny thing is that Nikki Haley would historically demolish Joe Biden in a hypothetical GE matchup, but the GOP doesn't want to hear it because she just doesn't give them the same level of satisfaction as Donny.

100% agree. Come 2025, it would not shock me if we see states requesting secession. Florida and Texas might lead the way there.

 

[Danoff]

The two most likely candidates for being elected presented at the end of next year seem likely to push the USA further into the abyss. In the very least, I think secession is plausible outcome.

Joe Biden - Because he's a Democrat and I don't think there's anything in this universe that will calm the conservative hyperventilation about his presidency. I still don't get it - his policy is so neutral and boring. Why all this excitement? Obama represented a profoundly greater amount of change, and I don't remember this amount of hysteria. Of course Biden doesn't have a dedicated following of his own, just people who tolerate him. If he wins again, I expect the performative conservative activism to only increase until somebody does something really stupid leading to some kind of hot domestic flare up/insurrection/secession/civil war.

They are already calling for this. A violent conflict occurred after the last time Trump lost, and I think if Biden is re-elected, we may see something similar. But I don't think beyond talk that any states will actually attempt action. The people that think Biden is winning by rigging elections or whatnot just have no leg to stand on, and I have a hard time seeing them getting a state to go with them.

Trump winning, on the otherhand, seems like it very much invites actual armed conflict. Trump is not seen as a legitimate candidate for the presidency by at least one state (and probably many others), and so if he wins, there are quite a few states that would have solid ground to refuse to recognize it.

*The funny thing is that Nikki Haley would historically demolish Joe Biden in a hypothetical GE matchup, but the GOP doesn't want to hear it because she just doesn't give them the same level of satisfaction as Donny.

Eh, there are other polls from this month that say Biden would win in that scenario.

The 2024 election seems super important. But in some ways it also seems less scary than the 2020 election. In 2020 Trump was running as an incumbent, having not lost a presidential election, and having not done a bunch of the stupid stuff he did since then. Already in 2020 it seemed like the country was lost if he won. Between here and the end of 2024 there are quite a few offramps from the doom scenarios. It's worth noting that one of the offramps was having him lose the primary, and drunk driver that is the US seems to have refused to take that offramp.

100% agree. Come 2025, it would not shock me if we see states requesting secession. Florida and Texas might lead the way there.

I would rather we cut Texas loose, so that republicans could not win general elections for example, and preserved the union. Also would be good for the illegal immigration problem.

 

[eran0004]

Here, is apparently the disconnect on the 14th amendment issue:
Absolutely nothing in that amendment relates to a president.

It says “any office”, which includes the presidency.

If Trump were running for the senate, house, or state legislature, then they could use the 14th amendment against him.

Or for President, since that is an office in the executive branch of the government.

The first problem with the court's ruling is that they made a unilateral determination that he engaged in insurrection, despite him never being convicted of, or even charged in court with the crime of insurrection. No due process there.

Read the amendment again. It says that having engaged in insurrection disqualifies you from holding office - there’s no requirement for a criminal conviction. If the court finds that you have engaged in insurrection - regardless of whether you’ve been convicted for the crime - then you are disqualified.

Their second blunder was in after having found no explicit mention of president in the amendment, they decided to say that the POTUS is an officer of the US. The president is not an officer of the US. Officers of the US are appointed by the president. Such as Secretary of Defense or Commissioner of the FCC.

It says “hold any office”. That includes the presidency. An officer is simply someone who holds office.

This is something I found while researching the matter:

Supreme Court precedent has addressed a similar issue the 2010 case called Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board. In the main opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’ They instead look to the president to guide the “assistants or deputies subject to his superintendence." By that logic, it would seem as though the court would not classify a president as an officer in the context of the disqualification clause.

The ruling doesn’t say “no officers are ever elected”. In fact, if you study the debate of the amendment you’ll find that this very point was raised and that the drafters did intend to include the office of the president.

There are arguments from both sides, but limited precedent and historical context make it unclear whether or not this section of the Constitution excludes Trump from running.

There are arguments from both sides, and the court made a ruling after hearing all the arguments.

 

[McLaren]

100% agree. Come 2025, it would not shock me if we see states requesting secession. Florida and Texas might lead the way there.

As long as the rest of the US accepts us who want to leave.

This state can barely hold onto its own power grid in the summers & our representatives will abandon us if it gets cold enough.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Danoff]

As long as the rest of the US accepts us who want to leave.

I imagine everyone who is a US citizen currently would remain so even after their current state of residency departs.

 

[Populuxe]

Its funny that the people bleating loudest for secession are also the ones who claim they are the biggest patriots.

 

[sturk0167]

*The funny thing is that Nikki Haley would historically demolish Joe Biden in a hypothetical GE matchup, but the GOP doesn't want to hear it because she just doesn't give them the same level of satisfaction as Donny.

Actually, I think it would be best if Nikki were the GOP nominee. I like a lot of Trump's policies, but he obviously lacks the polish of a statesman.
I would prefer to see a lot less division than we experiencing now.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Actually, I think it would be best if Nikki were the GOP nominee. I like a lot of Trump's policies, but he obviously lacks the polish of a statesman.
I would prefer to see a lot less division than we experiencing now.

Well, that at least, is heartening.

They are already calling for this. A violent conflict occurred after the last time Trump lost, and I think if Biden is re-elected, we may see something similar. But I don't think beyond talk that any states will actually attempt action. The people that think Biden is winning by rigging elections or whatnot just have no leg to stand on, and I have a hard time seeing them getting a state to go with them.

Trump winning, on the otherhand, seems like it very much invites actual armed conflict. Trump is not seen as a legitimate candidate for the presidency by at least one state (and probably many others), and so if he wins, there are quite a few states that would have solid ground to refuse to recognize it.

Eh, there are other polls from this month that say Biden would win in that scenario.

The 2024 election seems super important. But in some ways it also seems less scary than the 2020 election. In 2020 Trump was running as an incumbent, having not lost a presidential election, and having not done a bunch of the stupid stuff he did since then. Already in 2020 it seemed like the country was lost if he won. Between here and the end of 2024 there are quite a few offramps from the doom scenarios. It's worth noting that one of the offramps was having him lose the primary, and drunk driver that is the US seems to have refused to take that offramp.



I would rather we cut Texas loose, so that republicans could not win general elections for example, and preserved the union. Also would be good for the illegal immigration problem.

A poll finding Israel's net favorability at +29% and Black Lives Matter at -1% seems pretty skewed to the right pretty far or else targeting only older demographics, IMO. I'd question the other results after seeing that.

 

[Danoff]

A poll finding Israel's net favorability at +29% and Black Lives Matter at -1% seems pretty skewed to the right pretty far or else targeting only older demographics, IMO. I'd question the other results after seeing that.

None of these polls will be used to evaluate how good the pollsters are anyway, they're too far out. Question all of it.

 

[TexRex]

Question all of it.

My position on opinion polls generally--especially when they purport to affirm something I believe or would like to believe.

 

[Joey D]

I would rather we cut Texas loose, so that republicans could not win general elections for example, and preserved the union. Also would be good for the illegal immigration problem.

Imagine the illegal immigrants coming in from Texas. I'd hope the US would do a decent thing and build a massive wall around the entire country of Texas, it's what President Abbot would want after all. Also, for good measure, we should probably shoot any illegal Texan and then send the US military in to take care of their crime problem. If President Abbot protests and says that's an act of war, well we can just engage in military action against him too. After all, it's what the Republicans would want.

 

[TexRex]

Imagine the illegal immigrants coming in from Texas. I'd hope the US would do a decent thing and build a massive wall around the entire country of Texas, it's what President Abbot would want after all. Also, for good measure, we should probably shoot any illegal Texan and then send the US military in to take care of their crime problem. If President Abbot protests and says that's an act of war, well we can just engage in military action against him too. After all, it's what the Republicans would want.

If the CIA can't manage to provoke a coup in the country's first decade we need to reconsider whether the agency should even exist.