It's worth pointing out that a good portion of the US media is laundering this narrative - straightforward Goebbels shit with zero consequences - only profits, the end of democracy, then a series of genocides if the narrative works.

How dumb do you have to be to confuse a chicken with a cat?

That's exactly what they are trying IMO.

The debate went so bad, and trump just look old and tired now.

That loony crazy conspiracy woman sure fits the same narrative too.

I wonder what's next, I wouldn't be surprised by something like JD vince coming out as gay or something just to buzz.

I'm afraid he won't go away after this election.

And those same people were fine with accepting RFKs endorsement, despite all of his roadkill stories.

When I took anatomy class in high school we dissected euthanized cats. I'm not sure if they do that anymore but it was standard at the time.

No. It's a completely fabricated story. People are now trying to associate it with real but unrelated events in order to sane-wash the Republicans.

This was eloquently stated and I'll need to remember that last line. Thank you!

Can confirm that /c/vegan officially endorses the Trump/Vance ticket.

I can speak to the 2A. My wife is a legal immigrant, not a citizen, so I checked around a good deal before getting her a pistol for Christmas.

She is 100% in the clear to own, carry and defend herself. (This is Florida, YMMV on carry laws.)

It is not a settled matter of law that the protections and rights provided by the Constitution to "the People" extend to non-citizens, even when those non-citizens are legal immgrants with long-standing ties to their community in the United States.

This is wrong. From the article you linked to,

Courts have held “the people” of the First and Fourth Amendments to include noncitizens, even including illegal aliens inside the country

And note that this part of the article cites earlier US Supreme Court decisions, e.g.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990) (holding that aliens receive constitutional protections when they enter the country and have “developed substantial connections”)

What the article makes clear is that gun ownership by noncitizens hasn't been directly ruled on by the Supreme Court yet. Some district courts have ruled on legal permanent residents having this right (1)

Others have said that for temporary visa holders, they don't have the same right (2)

Of course, this is not to say that the SC cannot upend existing settled law. By reversing Roe vs Wade, they proved that they can. But that's different from saying the law hasn't been settled yet.

(1)

The District of Massachusetts, in Fletcher v. Haas, ruled a state law unconstitutional because it categorically excluded noncitizens from firearm ownership. The court found “no justification for refusing to extend the Second Amendment to lawful permanent residents” because they have “developed sufficient connection” with the United States.

(2)

In 2012, the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled that a state statute barring temporary visa holders from purchasing weapons was valid. The court distinguished Fletcher on the grounds that it applied only to permanent legal residents, and an open question existed as to Second Amendment protections for temporary residents. It ruled that those protections did not extend to temporary visa holders.