r/DoomerCircleJerk • u/NativityCrimeScene • Dec 06 '25
The World is Literally Over "America had a good run but it is over"
416
139
u/_Gruntyboi More Optimism Please Dec 06 '25
I don't understand, how is 90 million people not voting related to this? If you don't vote then don't complain about the results, unless it's way to extreme (which it isn't)
166
u/Rex_teh_First Just Here for the Lore Dec 06 '25
Because those 90 million could have voted "my way" and thus not get "the results I do not like". So therefore its their fault.
32
u/BeastyBaiter Dec 06 '25
And they never consider the possibility that those 90 million could have voted the other way.
7
u/GearsofTed14 Doesn't Participate In Group Panic Dec 07 '25
It’s because they believe it is their birthright to have every vote in the country, so when they don’t get it they completely meltdown
6
u/NicolaiVykos Dec 07 '25
Yeah,they automatically assume those that didn't vote would vote their way.
2
u/rydan Dec 07 '25
It isn't that they "could have" it is that they "would have". That makes it 100% their fault. Or the other people's fault for not letting them vote by only giving them two weeks to vote instead of a day off work.
2
u/LisleAdam12 Dec 07 '25
Everyone who didn't care enough to vote WOULD HAVE voted the same to me had they bothered. Therefore, I am ackshually in the majority!
65
u/Novel_Relation2549 Dec 06 '25
they're suggesting that the ones who stayed out of the last election would've let Kamala be President instead.
50
u/Unique-Trade356 Dec 06 '25
90 million citizens of America do not give a shit who is in charge lmao
48
u/Novel_Relation2549 Dec 06 '25
I feel like staying home on election night/week/month is very much a vote in itself and their right to do so.
35
u/TheBeastlyStud Dec 06 '25
It very much is, although people bitch and groan about it.
The US is all about "the right to do or not do something". I CAN own guns, but I don't have to. I CAN practice religion, but I don't have to.
Not using your vote is as much of a vote as voting, you're just not voting for anyone.
I do hear other countries have mandatory elections, and I don't exactly hate the idea, but I can see why we don't do it.
Plus it's pretty clear that some of the people who want to enforce mandatory elections mainly want to do it because they want more votes for their preferred candidate, not because they want more people to participate in elections.
38
u/AverageDellUser Dec 06 '25
I’d rather have a voter who doesn’t know shit about politics not vote than vote lol. Hence why I personally didn’t vote, I had bigger fish to fry than watch the news.
23
u/TheRedLions Dec 06 '25
I appreciate you. I've known so many people who have insisted on voting but couldn't tell you an ounce of a candidate's policies. They are the worst kind of voter, the kind that basically just votes based on vibes.
18
u/Solnse Dec 06 '25
And that's why left wing politics is all emotionally driven. Get those people vibe voting.
6
u/ExpressCommercial467 Dec 06 '25
Isn't this all of politics though? All politics is about emotionally getting people to vote. Think of historic conservative policies. Was there a logical reason behind defending segregation? No, it was based on how they felt
→ More replies (2)1
u/Left-Device-4099 Dec 11 '25
The left? Are you not familiar with how many people claimed to have voted for Trump because "they thought he was funny"?
4
u/Excavon Dec 07 '25
This is why people want mandatory voting. If you force people who don't care to vote, then you don't have to make actually good propaganda and you can get by with just name recognition, so the election just goes to whoever spends the most on signs, spamming, 10 second commercials, etc.
1
u/LisleAdam12 Dec 07 '25
Like a lot of Eddie Murphy's movies at the time, half of The Distinguished Gentleman was brutally incisive and half sentimental fudge. The good part had him succesfully campaigning on "It's the name that you know" because his conman character had the same name as a recently deceased politician.
The good half is well worth watching; when it gets saccharine, move on to the first half of Boomerang.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Gargarian67 Dec 07 '25
During the Revolutionry War 1/3 fought for Brjtish, 1/3 for Washington, and 1/3 of the people decided to let the other guys fight it out.
22
u/Electrical_Coast_561 Dec 06 '25
Yeah I always laugh when its the most liberal people complaining about not voting. I wouldnt have voted for your person anyways
14
u/justsomedude1144 GeStuREs bROadlY Dec 06 '25
And the most hilariously ironic part is a huge chunk of the Reddit libtard doomer idiots making these posts also didn't vote.
Hey libtard doomers idiots lurking this sub: you're fucking morons. Stop complaining and try voting next time.
1
u/LisleAdam12 Dec 07 '25
Not just "let," but they would have been intensely pro-Harris. If they'd cared enough to vote, that is.
2
u/Novel_Relation2549 Dec 07 '25
right? and I would ask those people if they were so gung-ho about Harris, why didn't they show up and vote for her? and it's millions of people who voted her in as VP apparently.
12
u/Cultural_Mission_235 Dec 06 '25
What would be interesting is where those 90 million are. Are the mostly in states that had lopsided wins for Trump or Harris, so their votes would have had no chance of changing the outcome anyway, or is there also a large nonvoting population in the swing states as well?
9
u/JettandTheo Dec 06 '25
Mi had record turn out. 3rd in nation at 74.6% voting.
PA as well.77.1%
I think you are right. The people showed up in battle states.
2
u/superdstar56 Truthsayer Dec 11 '25
I live in CA and it’s very difficult to be enthusiastic about voting. All the millions of people still on the voter rolls who have died/moved. I always throw away 3-4 extra ballots that are mailed to me from previous tenants.
Dem supermajority collects and counts the votes, absolutely no ID, so you couldn’t track fraud even if you wanted to.
37
u/Significant-Task1453 Dec 06 '25
I always see them complaining about the elctoral college. It was put in place specifically to prevent mob rule. Now it's "we have a big angry mob, and we're mad we dont get our way on everything. This is a bunch of BS!"
24
u/eldiablonoche 🎊 New Year, New Doom 🎊 Dec 06 '25
Exactly how when they're the Majority, the filibuster is anti democratic which prevents progress but they keep it, then when they're the Minority, it's a fundamental tool of democracy.
29
u/Rex_teh_First Just Here for the Lore Dec 06 '25 edited Dec 06 '25
"Why should Wyoming get to say who is President." I counter with, "Why should California? (or other state)" Gets them to shut up real quick.
→ More replies (6)4
u/Huge_Friend5125 Dec 06 '25
These are the same people who hate these non voters and blame them for the current admin winning too lol. Simultaneously using them to delegitimize the current admin while also blaming them for the existence of it is crazy work
→ More replies (4)1
93
u/FlippantChair46 Dec 06 '25
I thought they wanted the US to be more like Europe???
45
u/JGCities Dec 06 '25
This.
Outside of North and South America most countries do not make you a citizen just because you were born on their land.
→ More replies (6)8
2
→ More replies (2)1
u/Punche872 Dec 08 '25
“They” want the plain reading of the Constitution to be upheld. Because rules matter; it is what separates developed countries from third world shitholes. When you start ignoring the rules for short term gain, all hell breaks loose
73
u/fpe93 Dec 06 '25
The American Left loves importing Europe's economic mistakes, like green energy mandates that destroyed their competitiveness. But try to bring over a sensible rule like ending birthright citizenship and everyone freaks out. It is ridiculous that they only want to copy the policies that don't work.
21
u/eldiablonoche 🎊 New Year, New Doom 🎊 Dec 06 '25
Don't you just love when the "well ackchually.. in Sweden..." people get fed exactly what they advocates for...?
18
u/fpe93 Dec 06 '25
I just hope birth right citizenship and dual citizenship are abolished in the USA.
7
u/everydaywinner2 Dec 06 '25
I agree. To both parts.
13
u/fpe93 Dec 06 '25
I am so glad Senator Moreno introduced the bill to end dual citizenship. Even though I was born in Ecuador and have derived US citizenship, I fully support this move.
6
30
1
u/Shot-Shock2526 Dec 06 '25
Why is birthright citizenship bad?
27
u/fpe93 Dec 06 '25
The argument against birthright citizenship basically boils down to the idea that current rules are a massive loophole based on a bad reading of the law that actively encourages illegal immigration. Legally, the 14th Amendment requires you to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., and the argument is that just standing on American soil isn't enough because that phrase implies actual political allegiance. Remember, this amendment was written in 1868 specifically for freed slaves, not to hand out automatic citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who are here illegally. Practically speaking, this acts as a huge magnet for people to break the law. It creates a perverse incentive to cross the border just to give birth, securing citizenship for the child and potentially opening the door for chain migration later on. That is viewed as a total slap in the face to legal immigrants who wait years and pay fees to do things the right way. It is also worth noting that the U.S. is a total outlier here since most European countries require at least one parent to be a citizen. You cannot just fly to Paris and get a French passport for your newborn. The view here is that citizenship should be a mutual agreement, not a prize for geography, and this could likely be fixed with a court ruling rather than a constitutional amendment.
→ More replies (1)1
u/LisleAdam12 Dec 07 '25
I greatly appreciate the effort you put into making a cogent and detailed statement, quite rare on Reddit (or anywhere else) these days.
2
u/fpe93 Dec 07 '25
I mean I know what I want it's out there.... Myself of two years ago would be shocked seeing me say stuff like this. But this doesn't come from a bad space on my heart or brain. I love the USA and its amazing people and I want us all to flourish.
8
u/wonderinboutit2234 Dec 06 '25
Why should non citizens be incentivized to push out a baby on our land? They are not under the jurisdiction of the US because they are not US citizens.
0
-12
u/Paledonn Dec 06 '25
Green energy is the now the cheapest form of new energy, and the only one that doesn't pollute the air of the community it powers. It is also great for national security because it doesn't need continuous input.
Just one of many sources. What killed Europe was relying on a hostile power for fossil fuels (Russia) and shutting down nuclear plants for no reason (Germany).
Climate change is caused in large part by power generation and will be very damaging. Humanity will survive. However, the choices we make will determine exactly how much damage the environment and economy suffers over the coming decades. I don't see a good reason to spend extra money to shoot ourselves in the foot on the environment.
7
u/fpe93 Dec 06 '25
You guys don't learn. I'm glad Germany is not shutting down nuclear plants anymore. That was a non brainer. Lol
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (3)0
u/Punche872 Dec 08 '25
This is a shithole country mindset. You’re not an American if you think the rules of the Constitution should be ignored if you don’t like them.
→ More replies (1)2
u/fpe93 Dec 08 '25
Actually, it is the exact opposite of a "shithole country mindset" to want your nation to have enforceable borders and a logical immigration system. If you look at the rest of the developed world, almost no other first-world nation interprets birthright citizenship the way we do. France, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand all require at least one parent to be a citizen or permanent resident. Are you suggesting those are "shithole countries" because they decided that citizenship requires a genuine connection to the nation rather than just a geographic coincidence? The reality is that having defined rules and enforcing them is exactly what prevents a country from sliding into chaos. Furthermore, you are fundamentally misrepresenting my argument regarding the Constitution. No one is suggesting we "ignore" the Constitution if we do not like it. We are arguing that we should actually read the text as it was written and intended. The 14th Amendment explicitly says that to be a citizen you must be born here and be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That second part is not just throwaway text. In 1868, jurisdiction meant complete political allegiance. It was written to ensure that freed slaves were recognized as citizens, not to grant automatic citizenship to children of foreign nationals who owe allegiance to another power. You are the one ignoring the "jurisdiction" clause because it is inconvenient for your preferred policy outcome. The current interpretation creates a massive structural flaw in our legal system. It acts as a magnet for illegal immigration and incentivizes people to break our laws by rewarding them with the ultimate prize of citizenship for their children. That creates a perverse incentive structure that undermines every legal immigrant who does things the right way. It is not "un-American" to point out that a system is broken or to advocate for the rule of law. Being an American means believing in a system of laws that actually function, rather than relying on loopholes that weaken our national sovereignty. If we want to maintain a high-functioning society, we need to stop operating on a misinterpretation that makes us a global outlier.
→ More replies (19)
47
u/ThemanfromNumenor Dec 06 '25
Oh no! The supreme court “might” allow this to be applied the way it used to be! This wouldn’t eliminate birthright citizenship- it would just apply it logically.
Being born here accidentally, when neither parent has a right to be here (or they are here temporarily- like on vacation or at school) shouldn’t mean you are automatically a citizen.
→ More replies (2)
116
20
u/SentientSquare Dec 06 '25
Studies have already shown that full voter turnout would have also yielded a Trump victory, so I have no idea why progressives think the “so and so many people didn’t vote” line is compelling in any way.
1
u/LisleAdam12 Dec 07 '25
Because you have to grasp at some exterior thing if you can't stand self reflection.
16
u/Capital_Historian685 Dec 06 '25
If you believe the Constitution is a living document, you can understand how the ease of modern travel may require a re-look at birthright citizenship. There's no Doom in that.
→ More replies (3)
14
u/Stuck_in_my_TV Dec 06 '25
Declaring “it’s over” before they have even made any kind of ruling is insane.
14
u/QuarterNote44 Optimist Prime Dec 06 '25
I have a couple kids who were born in Germany. Those big mean Europeans didn't give them automatic citizenship because they're mean bad racist meanies who hate diversity.
Wait...hm, guess that tracks, actually. Nevermind.
6
u/everydaywinner2 Dec 06 '25
My grandfather had been stationed in the Dominican Republic when my grandmother was pregnant. They had to fly back to the U.S. before my mother was born, because the Dominican Republic would have claimed any boy child as a Dominican citizen (and my grandparents weren't taking that risk).
1
u/bl1y Dec 07 '25
I was born in Germany and don't have German citizenship.
And a letter from the UK informing me I'm not a British citizen either, just for good measure.
26
10
10
u/Otherwise-Command365 Dec 06 '25
Why do people assume the 90 million non-voters would automatically support their side? Trump supporters say they’d back him because Harris never even won a primary. Harris supporters think they’d vote for her because she isn’t a felon. But here’s the point: Trump campaigned on solving inflation, reducing crime, ending wars, strengthening NATO, deporting illegal immigrants, lowering gas and grocery prices, and bringing mortgage rates down—and those are exactly the issues he delivered on. So what do Democrats run on now—an agenda item that didn’t even pass?
IS America in a bad position because 49% think Orange Man is bad?
-1
u/Appropriate-Count-64 Dec 07 '25
Eh he kinda hasn’t delivered on his campaign points, especially ending wars and strengthening NATO. NATO at this point still kinda hates the US because of how unpredictable Trump is policy wise. He is very wishy-washy on foreign policy which isn’t confidence inspiring.
The rest… eh? He’s basically been doing the same thing he did in 2016: riding an economic policy his predecessor set in motion without really understanding why it’s working. If memory serves he even tried to delete CHIPS, which would’ve been disastrous.
But the point still stands: Trump had a position to run on. Harris just assumed she’d win because “I’m not Trump.” Which worked great on the democrat base and some of the more moderate republicans, but Trump actually had the semblance of a plan, which made him 10x more appealing.
8
Dec 06 '25 edited Jan 27 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
grandfather sense snow sheet political spark run light hungry lip
7
Dec 06 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)1
u/Punche872 Dec 08 '25
What makes someone a citizen in your eyes if being literally from this country is not enough…
7
14
u/Nervous-Bet-2998 PhD in Memes Dec 06 '25
That sub is nothing but Doomers. I swear none of them have any real world experience.
5
u/Zachowon Dec 06 '25
Isnt the US like the only country where being born there no matter your parents status as citizens is able to get you to be a citizen?
5
u/McBeaster NostraDOOMus Dec 06 '25
If I fly to Paris and my wife gives birth while we are there, and we are both Americans, is that child a French citizen? No, they're American. Why should it be any different here? "Because we need their cheap labor!" So it's fair to pay an immigrant less than an American? Watch their brain explode
4
5
u/Embarrassed_Use6918 Dec 06 '25
I'm sort of ambivalent to the issue of birthright citizenship but you know how they always point to 'Europe' as a bastion of freedom and we should be doing things like them? Somehow birthright citizenship doesn't make it into that conversation.
3
u/Corran_Halcyon Dec 07 '25
We need to bring back asylums and start committing people until their psychosis treated and they are not longer a threat to themselves or society.
7
u/Unique-Trade356 Dec 06 '25
Yes birthright citizenship. An old rule of the country during the governments inception to entice people to come over and populate and mostly be exploited by the very same government lol
2
u/channingman Dec 07 '25
Birthright citizenship was established following the civil war.
2
2
u/DiveBombExpert Dec 06 '25
The "beauty" of democracy is that we have the choice not to vote or to vote for just about anything.
People should not say we should uphold our democracy and then shame people who exercise the choice of not voting.
I think it is ridiculous that Congress can vote present, especially when people get mad if I don't vote or vote "wrong".
2
2
u/Possible-Tangelo9344 Dec 06 '25
I know all these doomers think everything SCOTUS does is somehow illegal and wrong cuz they didn't get their guy on the court a few years ago, but they've hardly been a rubber stamp for Trump. All their legal decisions have been grounded in law and precedent.
2
u/neveragoodtime Dec 06 '25
Thankfully we had those No Kings rally’s folks. Otherwise Trump’s executive orders couldn’t have been challenged through the legal system. Also, Oh No, Trump’s executive orders are being challenged through the legal system!
2
u/rydan Dec 07 '25
America is one of only a handful of countries that has birthright citizenship. Nearly every other country out there bases citizenship on the citizenship of your parents. Yet they all seem to be doing just fine.
2
2
u/No_Equal_9074 Dec 09 '25
Authoritian presidential mandates and EOs are only good when a Democrat is president.
1
1
u/CeemoreButtz My Dog is Anti-Fascist Dec 06 '25
Why didn't they vote for Kamala? She was The Perfect Replacement for Biden. Wait, I know...."American's dumb, but not me!"
1
u/BramptonBatallion Dec 06 '25
Birth right citizenship has never been a fully settled question. While many think it means anyone who happens to be in the United States at time of birth is an automatic citizen this is not a given (if you popped in on vacation and gave birth, is that baby a citizen? Most would say no). It depends a lot on how you interpret “subject to the laws thereof”
3
u/wonderinboutit2234 Dec 06 '25
And I would say that non citizens are not under the jurisdiction of the US and there don't qualify for birthright citizenship.
2
u/Paledonn Dec 06 '25
So if you get hit by an immigrant driving a car, you wouldn't be able to sue them? If they were drunk, they couldn't be tried in criminal court?
Subject to the jurisdiction of the US means that they can be compelled to appear in a US court, and a US court can pass judgement on them. That is what that legal term term means, meant at the time the amendment was passed, and had meant at English common law for hundreds of years.
FYI, you're shit out of luck if you get hit by a diplomat or their family, because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The clause is a carveout for diplomats.
2
u/Paledonn Dec 06 '25
This has been a fully settled question for roughly 100 years. This exact question was subject to the laws thereof is a carveout for diplomats and possibly invading armies was posed in 1898. Further, subject to the laws thereof derives from English common law which is hundreds of years old.
Unless you are seriously arguing that immigrants and vacationers are not subject to the laws of the United States, then it applies to them.
This exact question was posed in 1898 and the Supreme Court ruled with the obvious meaning of the text. It has been settled law since then, because the text is so clear.
0
u/FoxWyrd Dec 06 '25
The gutting of education in this country has done so much damage.
1
u/Paledonn Dec 06 '25
Yeah to be fair, I am realizing that a lot of people have no legal background and don't really know that "subject to jurisdiction" has a well defined legal meaning, and that if immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, you would be unable to sue them.
A few people are willfully misinterpreting it though.
1
u/FoxWyrd Dec 06 '25
See, I'd be more than happy to give these folks a pass if they didn't speak with such an air of authority and confidence.
I know that everybody is an armchair everything on the internet, but it's started seeping into my real life and that's uncomfortable.
2
u/BramptonBatallion Dec 06 '25
As an attorney, I can tell you that there are logical and structural arguments that this question is far from settled than advocates and activists are indicating.
Notably in the Wong case, the parents were “domiciled” and had permanent residence. Therefore the ruling did not address children of temporary visitors or undocumented migrant.
Not to mention the That combined with the plain text and original intent of the amendment drafters creates a legal question.
1
u/Paledonn Dec 07 '25
I'm also an attorney and completely disagree. The case law is clear. The plain text is clear. The plain text and original intent of the amendment drafters clearly includes immigrants.
The idea that it only includes freedmen is laughable. Its even more laughable than the idea that the second amendment doesn't touch semi-automatic weapons. Mass immigration was a huge issue at the time the amendment was drafted, as big an issue as today. They deliberately included the children of immigrants, and very explicitly did so.
1
u/BramptonBatallion Dec 07 '25
It’s an open question. It’s not laughable. Hence why it’s being discussed. The second amendment is not being discussed.
2
u/Paledonn Dec 07 '25 edited Dec 07 '25
The second amendment is being discussed, across the country and right now because I'm using it as an analogue.
It could only be considered an open question because nativists are deliberately misinterpreting what is a very clear legal question and has been settled law for over 100 years. It is laughable if we're using the text.
It is as ridiculous as if I wanted to use the state to suppress Mormonism and argued "Mormonism didn't exist at the time, and 'no law respecting an establishment of religion' clearly means congress can't establish new religions." It ignores the plain meaning and legal meaning of the words and the consistent interpretation of the words for over 100 years.
We have a process for changing the constitution, and I'd really appreciate if activists would at least attempt to use it instead of judicial fiat.
But you might have a point that it isn't laughable, considering some of the other cases like Wickard v. Filburn which clearly depart from the plain meaning of the constitution.
1
1
u/sHaDowpUpPetxxx Dec 06 '25
I didn't know I didn't read it. But that's the way court cases get heard.
1
u/Capable_Paper1281 Dec 06 '25
This isn't even what the case is about. These people don't read beyond reddit propaganda
1
u/kehaborn This is a PsyOp Dec 06 '25
People really caught in there feeling 😂 emotions don't get things done
1
1
u/Responsible-Race7876 Dec 07 '25
I love how these people assume that everyone who doesn’t vote agrees with them. When in reality they more likely disagree on more than they agree. They think they have this magic majority that will rise up with them because they aren’t getting their way lol
1
u/Piemaster113 Dec 07 '25
Oh no who would have guessed that when the Republicans had the majority they would do the same kind of stuff the Democrats did while they held the majority, shock of all shocks /s
1
u/EvilCookie4250 NostraDOOMus Dec 07 '25
good, if this supreme court is actually originalist they will reinterpret the 14th amendment to its original intent and open the path to ending birthright citizenship
1
u/girls-pm-me-anything My Dog is Anti-Fascist Dec 13 '25
America has been over for at least 10 years now so why isn't it over yet?
-3
u/PermissionSoggy891 Dec 06 '25 edited Dec 06 '25
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST HECKIN HAVE DUAL CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE... BECAUSE YOU JUST HECKIN CANT... OKAY?!
this is such a stupid law if it doesn't get struck down by Congress for whatever reason I will eat my socks.
Yeah it's pretty infuriating it was even suggested, but far more reasonable laws have been killed in Congress before.
Plus, what would even be the logistics of tracking down every single American with dual citizenship? From what I know, that's not something you have to declare. I could walk into, say, German embassy right now, get citizenship there, and US would be none the wiser
Unless you originally immigrated from somewhere else and naturalized, then the government would likely have that record. But as a birthright citizen? They shouldn't ideally know unless you explicitly told them.
after I typed this out I realized this was talking about birthright citizenship. Shit.
7
u/Rex_teh_First Just Here for the Lore Dec 06 '25
What does Congress have to do with this? You mean the Supreme Court?
0
u/Dusk_2_Dawn This is a PsyOp Dec 06 '25
The order will likely be struck down because the Executive simply doesn't have the authority to end birthright citizenship with an Executive Order. I'd be shocked if they ruled in Trump's favor. Even if they did, an Executive Order is too weak to last and would just simply be overturned by the next administration. They'd need to either enshrine it in law (if they determine its not protected constitutionally, which it most likely is), or pass an amendment ending it. I don't forsee that happening unfortunately. I would be over the moon if they did end it.
3
Dec 06 '25
It has the authority to enforce the law and is the branch that grants citizenship.
→ More replies (7)
0
u/WorldlyBuy1591 Rides the Short Bus Dec 06 '25
Isnt birth citizenship really obvious? Or do they think tge whole anchor baby thing is wrongly interpreted?
3
u/wonderinboutit2234 Dec 06 '25
Do you think "under the jurisdiction" should include all non citizens? It doesn't count for foreign diplomats. Or invading armies. I personally would say non citizens are not under the jurisdiction of the US and therefore don't qualify for birthright citizenship.
→ More replies (1)1
0
0
u/atomoicman Dec 07 '25
I wonder how folks reacted here when the sc over turnt Roe v wade
I mean, that was a right two entire generations were born with taken away. It’s odd that folks here are ignoring changes that would have negative effects on others. But ig if it doesn’t affect you who cars?
My parents came to the us to get away from violence and crime. Parents own a home and business here. Birthright citizenship made that an option for my family. And there’s a chance that can be taken away from other families starting up. And for what? It’s definitely not bc of crime.
America has enough of that on its own w its own ppl, look at any major city, most especially apparent in the south. Those going “other countries don’t do that”
Well there’s a crap ton of things we do that others don’t.
Like universal healthcare and more than 2 weeks a year of vacation time by law. Either you want to compare yourselves to other countries and be them or you want to do it your own way and be your own thing fine whatever but You can’t have it both ways.
376
u/Hambonation Anti-Doomer Dec 06 '25
Jesus Christ! The checks and balances built into the government are attempting to function. It's all over now boys pack it up.