Illinois resident here. Oh yeah, Gov. P is running. It will be interesting to watch him use our state as his template for the whole country. Corruption + illiteracy + transgender rights + cashless bail + health costs free to “migrants.” The whole country wants that.
BTW, maybe his sis Penny will miss out on the Ukraine re-build, now that we may all be consumed in thermonuclear war. Enjoy!
Forget her name now but she was a dem fundraiser from the last election & - because of all the deviousness & chicanery involved with Que Mala - left the dems. She was in Jesse Watters’ show about a month ago & predicted Que Mala would - once again - be the nominee simply because of identity politics. The dems have painted themselves into one hell of a corner & can’t get out of it or be honest about why they lost in ‘24 without enraging some vital sect of their increasingly fragile coalition. Don’t see how they can nominate a white guy; whites are considered poison to the Dems.
I'm donating to the Mare Pete and AOC ticket. If those two can make it to November 2028 as the president and vice-president Democrat ticket we may finally have a chance. A chance to be rid of the Dems once and for all.
Michael - - Marco Rubio, in spite of his great performance thus far IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE V-PRES !!
The 12th Amendment's last sentence states that to be V-Pres the individual must meet the same qualifications as the President. Rubio IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN !!
A Natural Born Citizen is one whose parents were BOTH citizens when he/she was born. Rubio's parents, lawfully in the country as Cuban refugees did not become US citizens until he was four years old. Thus, he is not a natural born citizen.
The Constitution does not say Native Born citizen. It says Natural Born citizen....
When defining terms in a 236+ old document you must use the meaning of the word/term that the drafters of the Constitution knew when they inserted that word/term into that little studied and often Not-Followed document.
Other prominent US ciitizens are not eligible: Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Niki Haley, KamelHO Harris, Tulsi Gabbard to name a few. WoeBama The Worst was not fathered by the Magic Kenyan, but by Frank Marshall Davis, communist pornographer who took nude photos of 17-18 year old Stanley Ann Dunham published in a Chicago men's magazine.
Rubio was born in Miami and your definition is wrong. Both Bobby Jindal and Rubio were subjected to lawsuits in 2015, none of which went anywhere because we have birthright citizenship regardless of the status of the parents - that might change, but that is the current understanding of the law and the Constitution (which does not define "natural born").
Michael: you confuse birthright citizenship (also known as native born citizenship) with NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP. They are not the same.
You are not alone in thinking what you said is correct, but it is based on lack of accurate knowledge. I know because even after law school, I did not know that my identical beliefs were erroneous. I did not discover my erroneous belief about this term until I had been admitted to practice before two state bars and one federal bar for over 25 years.
Nobody...and I mean nobody, was ever taught the correct meaning because it is an arcane and old term that has never been placed before the Supremes for a full definition to be elucidated. Thus, many feel it is not an important qualification to hold office, so why study it. Actually, it is one of the most important.
I believe you will find much on this subject at this article:
Here is a law journal article from 1904 which raises the same issue:
NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT
By ALEXANDER PORTER MORSE (ALBANY LAW JOURNAL VOL. 66 (1904-1905)
As a wide-spread interest attaches to the discussion of the meaning and scope of the constitutional provision in respect to eligibility for the office of president of the United States, I submit some views in this relation which may be opportune.
The question is often asked: Are children of citizens of the United States born at sea or in foreign territory, other than the offspring of American ambassadors or ministers plenipotentiary, natural-born citizens of the United States, within the purview of the constitutional provision? After some consideration of the history of the times, of the relation of the provision to the subject-matter and of the acts of congress relating to citizenship, it seems clear to the undersigned that such persons are natural-born, that is, citizens by origin; and that, if otherwise qualified, they are eligible to the office of president. In respect to the citizenship of children of American parentage, wherever born, the principle of jus[corrected from ius to jus] sanguinis seems to be the American principle; that is to say, the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance, is recognized, which is modern, as distinguished from the ancient, and at one time, common-law principle of jus soli. If the provision was as sometimes inaccurately cited, namely, that the president must be “a native-born citizen,” there might be no question as to its meaning. But the framers generally used precise language; and the etymology actually employed makes the meaning definite. Its correspondent in English law, “natural-born subject,” appears in constitutional history and parliamentary enactments; and there it includes all children born out of the king’s allegiance whose fathers were natural-born subjects; and the children of such children (i. e., children whose grandfathers by the father’s side were natural-born subjects), though their mothers were aliens, are now deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves to all intents and purposes, unless their said ancestors were attainted or banished beyond sea for high treason,[see Note 5.] or were at the birth of such children in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, immigration was anticipated and provisions for naturalization would immediately follow the establishment of the government. Those resident in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted were made citizens. Thereafter the president must be taken from the natural-born citizens. If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “ native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.{100 years worth of oblivious discussion, non-intelligent, have taken place since 2008. –VGS]
The earliest act of congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization (March 26, 1790) contained the following clause: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born at sea or out of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.” The draft of this act has been credited to Mr. Jefferson, although his authorship has been questioned; and his reputed relationship to it may be ascribed to the fact that he was the author of the original naturalization acts in the Constitution of Virginia, and was an ardent supporter of a wise system of naturalization laws before and after he became President. But whoever drew the act followed closely the various parliamentary statutes of Great Britain; and its language in this relation indicates that the first congress entertained and declared the opinion that children of American parentage, wherever born, were within the constitutional designation, “natural-born citizens.” The act is declaratory; but the reason that such children are natural born remains; that is, their American citizenship is natural—the result of parentage—and is not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative requirements. The second act of naturalization (January 29, 1795), which was reported and probably drawn by Mr. Madison, chairman of a select House committee, enacted “That the children of persons duly naturalized dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” As carried forward in the Revised Statutes, the provision reads: “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”[see Note 7.] This provision, as its terms express, is declaratory; it is not the statute that constitutes children of American parentage citizens; it is the fact of American descent, the jus sanguinis, that makes them citizens at the moment of birth—a fact which, for sufficient and convenient reasons, the legislative power of the State recognizes and announces to the world. ??Drops the Natural Born qualifier?? [See Note 8.]
If there was ambiguity, the rights and privileges of children of American parents dependent upon constitutional guarantee would demand recognition; and constitutional guaranties in favor of such persons might not be restricted or denied by congress.
To return to the constitutional requirement in respect to eligibility for the office of president, let us inquire what was the obvious purpose and intent of the limitation? Plainly, it was inserted in order to exclude “aliens” by birth and blood from that high office, upon considerations which naturally had much weight at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. [and still do have the same weight today, if not more -VGS] It was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory. Where it was said in the old books that an alien is one born out of the king’s or State’s dominions or allegiance [territory AND parentage ?], [See Note 3.] this must be of the limits understood with some restrictions. A forced or restricted construction of the constitutional phrase under consideration would be out of harmony with ‘[what does this single unclosed quote mark indicate?] modern conceptions of political status, and might produce startling results. It remains to be decided whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, is eligible, if otherwise qualified, to the office of president and to all the privileges of the Constitution.[See Note 4.] [Wording of this phrase has combined “citizen” and “natural born citizen” together and equal.] And it would be a strange conclusion [this is the definition of many court judgments, NO?], in another aspect, if the child of American parents, born in China, should be denied correspondent rights and privileges in the United States. [ie., jus sanguinis – YES; jus soli – NO]
A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country. [According to this statement of NBC definition, ONLY the jus sanguinis of BOTH parents is required.]
Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States. [Same as paragraph preceding.]
An article in a law journal does not take precedence over a century and aquarter of jurisprudence that says anyone born within in the boundaries of the United States, regardless of parentage is a "natural born citizen". People who are born on American soil are said to have the right of jus soli, and this right is protected in the 14th Amendment to the United States constitution, which specifically states that “all persons born in the United States ... are citizens of the United States.”
Note that this law journal article states: "It remains to be decided whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, is eligible, if otherwise qualified, to the office of president and to all the privileges of the Constitution."
I find that odd because that was settled by the Supreme Court in 1898. The landmark legal case that established that children born in the United States to Chinese nationals are American citizens is United States v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649, 1898).
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrant parents who were subjects of the Emperor of China, was denied re-entry to the U.S. after a trip to China. The U.S. government argued that he was not a citizen due to his parents' status under the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese immigrants from naturalizing. Wong challenged this, asserting his citizenship by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”) grants birthright citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship or immigration status, as long as the parents are not diplomats or part of an occupying foreign force. Since Wong’s parents were lawful residents engaged in business in the U.S., he was deemed a U.S. citizen by birth.
This decision solidified the principle of jus soli (right of soil) for birthright citizenship and remains a cornerstone of U.S. citizenship law.
And you surely know the difference between de facto and de jure when it comes to the law and for now, birthright citizenship is recognized as "natural born" and was when Rubio was born.
Now that may change with the challenge to birthright citizenship in the courts, we will see.
AOC wins the Dem nod if she makes Bernie her VP. No guy wins, that is for sure. All the big older Dem women are nasty nasty nasty. As far as Rs go is a big field. Let’s list them: JD, Marco, RFKjr, Kristi Noem, Bondi, Tulsi, Ron deS, and a wild card - Sarah Sanders. I have probably missed a few. Who will I choose? Toss up. Ron, JD, or Sarah. But as a betting man, I choose Sarah.
I'm not even going to wade in on the Democrat side, but I agree with you on the GOP candidates, with one problem; I've been very much in favor of seeing a "President DeSantis" for quite some time (a "President Cruz," too, while I'm at it). But the bottom line here, for me, is that if the choice is between Vance and DeSantis, I have no idea how I'd manage to choose.
Instead of an Election in 2028, Pritzker and Christie should sumo wrestle on Election Day 2028. The winner is the next President.
Illinois resident here. Oh yeah, Gov. P is running. It will be interesting to watch him use our state as his template for the whole country. Corruption + illiteracy + transgender rights + cashless bail + health costs free to “migrants.” The whole country wants that.
BTW, maybe his sis Penny will miss out on the Ukraine re-build, now that we may all be consumed in thermonuclear war. Enjoy!
Forget her name now but she was a dem fundraiser from the last election & - because of all the deviousness & chicanery involved with Que Mala - left the dems. She was in Jesse Watters’ show about a month ago & predicted Que Mala would - once again - be the nominee simply because of identity politics. The dems have painted themselves into one hell of a corner & can’t get out of it or be honest about why they lost in ‘24 without enraging some vital sect of their increasingly fragile coalition. Don’t see how they can nominate a white guy; whites are considered poison to the Dems.
Pass the popcorn; this is entertaining.
How could you leave out Tampon Tim, the aging Pillsbury Doughboy? He is my guy to run the Dem table!
The list is a roll call of the Confederacy of Dunces, of the knives in the Democrat drawer, these are butter knives, at best
As for 2028, it'll be deja Vu 2020 and 2024. It'll be Orange Man Bad 80% and LGBTQASDGHH++/Two Spirit and border,, 20%, all day long.
Fun to watch!
I'm donating to the Mare Pete and AOC ticket. If those two can make it to November 2028 as the president and vice-president Democrat ticket we may finally have a chance. A chance to be rid of the Dems once and for all.
Ha!
Shapiro is the smart choice, but how long has it been since the Democrats made the smart choice?
You left out DeSantis. I doubt that he will be the choice, but he may well be a bigger player than most you have mentioned.
Shapiro is Obama-lite, down to the cadence in his speeches. Unclear if he carries Tabasco sauce in his coat pocket.
Michael - - Marco Rubio, in spite of his great performance thus far IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE V-PRES !!
The 12th Amendment's last sentence states that to be V-Pres the individual must meet the same qualifications as the President. Rubio IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN !!
A Natural Born Citizen is one whose parents were BOTH citizens when he/she was born. Rubio's parents, lawfully in the country as Cuban refugees did not become US citizens until he was four years old. Thus, he is not a natural born citizen.
The Constitution does not say Native Born citizen. It says Natural Born citizen....
When defining terms in a 236+ old document you must use the meaning of the word/term that the drafters of the Constitution knew when they inserted that word/term into that little studied and often Not-Followed document.
Other prominent US ciitizens are not eligible: Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Niki Haley, KamelHO Harris, Tulsi Gabbard to name a few. WoeBama The Worst was not fathered by the Magic Kenyan, but by Frank Marshall Davis, communist pornographer who took nude photos of 17-18 year old Stanley Ann Dunham published in a Chicago men's magazine.
Rubio was born in Miami and your definition is wrong. Both Bobby Jindal and Rubio were subjected to lawsuits in 2015, none of which went anywhere because we have birthright citizenship regardless of the status of the parents - that might change, but that is the current understanding of the law and the Constitution (which does not define "natural born").
Michael: you confuse birthright citizenship (also known as native born citizenship) with NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP. They are not the same.
You are not alone in thinking what you said is correct, but it is based on lack of accurate knowledge. I know because even after law school, I did not know that my identical beliefs were erroneous. I did not discover my erroneous belief about this term until I had been admitted to practice before two state bars and one federal bar for over 25 years.
Nobody...and I mean nobody, was ever taught the correct meaning because it is an arcane and old term that has never been placed before the Supremes for a full definition to be elucidated. Thus, many feel it is not an important qualification to hold office, so why study it. Actually, it is one of the most important.
I believe you will find much on this subject at this article:
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/
Here is a law journal article from 1904 which raises the same issue:
NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT
By ALEXANDER PORTER MORSE (ALBANY LAW JOURNAL VOL. 66 (1904-1905)
As a wide-spread interest attaches to the discussion of the meaning and scope of the constitutional provision in respect to eligibility for the office of president of the United States, I submit some views in this relation which may be opportune.
The question is often asked: Are children of citizens of the United States born at sea or in foreign territory, other than the offspring of American ambassadors or ministers plenipotentiary, natural-born citizens of the United States, within the purview of the constitutional provision? After some consideration of the history of the times, of the relation of the provision to the subject-matter and of the acts of congress relating to citizenship, it seems clear to the undersigned that such persons are natural-born, that is, citizens by origin; and that, if otherwise qualified, they are eligible to the office of president. In respect to the citizenship of children of American parentage, wherever born, the principle of jus[corrected from ius to jus] sanguinis seems to be the American principle; that is to say, the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance, is recognized, which is modern, as distinguished from the ancient, and at one time, common-law principle of jus soli. If the provision was as sometimes inaccurately cited, namely, that the president must be “a native-born citizen,” there might be no question as to its meaning. But the framers generally used precise language; and the etymology actually employed makes the meaning definite. Its correspondent in English law, “natural-born subject,” appears in constitutional history and parliamentary enactments; and there it includes all children born out of the king’s allegiance whose fathers were natural-born subjects; and the children of such children (i. e., children whose grandfathers by the father’s side were natural-born subjects), though their mothers were aliens, are now deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves to all intents and purposes, unless their said ancestors were attainted or banished beyond sea for high treason,[see Note 5.] or were at the birth of such children in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, immigration was anticipated and provisions for naturalization would immediately follow the establishment of the government. Those resident in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted were made citizens. Thereafter the president must be taken from the natural-born citizens. If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “ native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.{100 years worth of oblivious discussion, non-intelligent, have taken place since 2008. –VGS]
The earliest act of congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization (March 26, 1790) contained the following clause: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born at sea or out of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.” The draft of this act has been credited to Mr. Jefferson, although his authorship has been questioned; and his reputed relationship to it may be ascribed to the fact that he was the author of the original naturalization acts in the Constitution of Virginia, and was an ardent supporter of a wise system of naturalization laws before and after he became President. But whoever drew the act followed closely the various parliamentary statutes of Great Britain; and its language in this relation indicates that the first congress entertained and declared the opinion that children of American parentage, wherever born, were within the constitutional designation, “natural-born citizens.” The act is declaratory; but the reason that such children are natural born remains; that is, their American citizenship is natural—the result of parentage—and is not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative requirements. The second act of naturalization (January 29, 1795), which was reported and probably drawn by Mr. Madison, chairman of a select House committee, enacted “That the children of persons duly naturalized dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” As carried forward in the Revised Statutes, the provision reads: “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”[see Note 7.] This provision, as its terms express, is declaratory; it is not the statute that constitutes children of American parentage citizens; it is the fact of American descent, the jus sanguinis, that makes them citizens at the moment of birth—a fact which, for sufficient and convenient reasons, the legislative power of the State recognizes and announces to the world. ??Drops the Natural Born qualifier?? [See Note 8.]
If there was ambiguity, the rights and privileges of children of American parents dependent upon constitutional guarantee would demand recognition; and constitutional guaranties in favor of such persons might not be restricted or denied by congress.
To return to the constitutional requirement in respect to eligibility for the office of president, let us inquire what was the obvious purpose and intent of the limitation? Plainly, it was inserted in order to exclude “aliens” by birth and blood from that high office, upon considerations which naturally had much weight at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. [and still do have the same weight today, if not more -VGS] It was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory. Where it was said in the old books that an alien is one born out of the king’s or State’s dominions or allegiance [territory AND parentage ?], [See Note 3.] this must be of the limits understood with some restrictions. A forced or restricted construction of the constitutional phrase under consideration would be out of harmony with ‘[what does this single unclosed quote mark indicate?] modern conceptions of political status, and might produce startling results. It remains to be decided whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, is eligible, if otherwise qualified, to the office of president and to all the privileges of the Constitution.[See Note 4.] [Wording of this phrase has combined “citizen” and “natural born citizen” together and equal.] And it would be a strange conclusion [this is the definition of many court judgments, NO?], in another aspect, if the child of American parents, born in China, should be denied correspondent rights and privileges in the United States. [ie., jus sanguinis – YES; jus soli – NO]
A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country. [According to this statement of NBC definition, ONLY the jus sanguinis of BOTH parents is required.]
Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States. [Same as paragraph preceding.]
An article in a law journal does not take precedence over a century and aquarter of jurisprudence that says anyone born within in the boundaries of the United States, regardless of parentage is a "natural born citizen". People who are born on American soil are said to have the right of jus soli, and this right is protected in the 14th Amendment to the United States constitution, which specifically states that “all persons born in the United States ... are citizens of the United States.”
Note that this law journal article states: "It remains to be decided whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, is eligible, if otherwise qualified, to the office of president and to all the privileges of the Constitution."
I find that odd because that was settled by the Supreme Court in 1898. The landmark legal case that established that children born in the United States to Chinese nationals are American citizens is United States v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649, 1898).
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrant parents who were subjects of the Emperor of China, was denied re-entry to the U.S. after a trip to China. The U.S. government argued that he was not a citizen due to his parents' status under the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese immigrants from naturalizing. Wong challenged this, asserting his citizenship by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”) grants birthright citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship or immigration status, as long as the parents are not diplomats or part of an occupying foreign force. Since Wong’s parents were lawful residents engaged in business in the U.S., he was deemed a U.S. citizen by birth.
This decision solidified the principle of jus soli (right of soil) for birthright citizenship and remains a cornerstone of U.S. citizenship law.
And you surely know the difference between de facto and de jure when it comes to the law and for now, birthright citizenship is recognized as "natural born" and was when Rubio was born.
Now that may change with the challenge to birthright citizenship in the courts, we will see.
AOC wins the Dem nod if she makes Bernie her VP. No guy wins, that is for sure. All the big older Dem women are nasty nasty nasty. As far as Rs go is a big field. Let’s list them: JD, Marco, RFKjr, Kristi Noem, Bondi, Tulsi, Ron deS, and a wild card - Sarah Sanders. I have probably missed a few. Who will I choose? Toss up. Ron, JD, or Sarah. But as a betting man, I choose Sarah.
Is that your prediction?
I hear that Kentucky's Andy Beshear is talking about a run.
My gut tells me that all the Dems you mentioned will try too early and be knocked down. The last great hope they will have standing will be Hillary.
I like DeSantis on the GOP side.
I'm not even going to wade in on the Democrat side, but I agree with you on the GOP candidates, with one problem; I've been very much in favor of seeing a "President DeSantis" for quite some time (a "President Cruz," too, while I'm at it). But the bottom line here, for me, is that if the choice is between Vance and DeSantis, I have no idea how I'd manage to choose.
All freighting for the future of America.