N.O. via West-Cal

I absolutely support the right to carry, but the fact is that you’re much safer today than in the 90’s. Beware of present-ism and nostalgia. They will have you making decisions based on emotion rather than logic.

I looked it up, as well. It’s real and maybe it paid off with all the free publicity they’re getting. Just seems weird and “TMI-ish” to me.

This gives me some hope that a resolution could happen. Ukraine having nukes has never really been on the table—though I bet they wish they still had them—and this could be Russia setting this up as a point on which they can “win.”

I would be Ok with paying Olave at the bottom tier of the current top ten. Such a number would soon be top 25-30 money for WR’s. I’d just as soon get him signed rather than paying big franchise rage $ and then possibly having to pay even more with him not as happy bc of being tagged.

Stuff like this has to drive the remaining centrist Dems crazy. It’s so hard to be the party associated with this sort of nonsense and still reach the 10% or so of Americans who are persuadable.

Regardless of which position you take on birthright citizenship, the status and history of American Indians is a non sequitur because of their unique history.

In the landmark 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins (112 U.S. 94), the Court ruled that Native Americans were not automatically U.S. citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court articulated this distinction by stating that tribal members owed immediate allegiance to their own nations rather than to the United States: "The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States. They were in a dependent condition, a state of pupilage, resembling that of a ward to his guardian." The Court further clarified this separation by noting that becoming a U.S. citizen requires formal action beyond simply being born an American Indian: "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, community), are not citizens of the United States..."

All of this is consistent with the unique status of American Indians as recognized in the Constitution. In specific, the Treaty Clause and the Indian Commerce Clause establish tribes as inherently sovereign, self-governing nations.

It was against this legal backdrop that Congress passed the 1924 (I think) statute granting automatic citizenship to American Indians. None of this supports or refutes birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

(In case anyone is wondering, yes I used AI to craft this answer quickly, but I knew the case and Constitution provisions I was looking for, which made it really easy).

"Many of those nations were completely destroyed by the United States"

L O L

"Muh sauces.... But if true, maybe Trump is starting to wake up and realize he was bamboozled into the Iran bs that is going on."

I don't know if Trump was "bamboozled," but the key error to me was to greenlight the Israeli strike on the meeting of Iranian leaders. I don't challenge it on moral grounds given the regime's behavior or their 47 years of chanting and seeking "death to America," but I was skeptical from the beginning that it would bring about regime change because things like that seldom do. Even in Venezuela we don't really have regime change; we just have an easier person to deal with and that required troops on the ground, albeit briefly and successfully. I think Trump realizes he should have kept this mission to degrading Iranian nuclear capabilities, while Netanyahu still wants to accomplish the dream of completely neutering the Iranian regime.

Gotcha. I didn’t think it could be done without New Orleans being safe blue, but I trust the algorithms over what I think.

“Now just think how many republicans in New Orleans are like me and would LOVE to FINALLY have a choice worth voting for.”

I hear you, but there’s no way to do this without putting at least one, maybe two seats at risk. If you’re trying to be ruthlessly partisan—and both parties are right now—you also have to make sure you don’t overreach. Do you want 5-1 guaranteed or a hopeful 6-0 that could become 4-2 bc you have spread more Democratic voters around instead of concentrating them into the one solidly Democratic district? It’s a reasonable choice either way in my opinion.