|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Had a good chuckle looking at the letter of demands that the government sent to Harvard. In the same letter where they demand the abolishment of DEI practices on the pretext that everything needs to be merit-based they then demand.. the establishment of DEI practices for their shitty political movement:
Every department or field found to
lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within
that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to
lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will
provide viewpoint diversity.
https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf
|
On April 15 2025 04:18 Dan HH wrote:Had a good chuckle looking at the letter of demands that the government sent to Harvard. In the same letter where they demand the abolishment of DEI practices on the pretext that everything needs to be merit-based they then demand.. the establishment of DEI practices for their shitty political movement: Show nested quote +Every department or field found to
lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within
that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to
lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will
provide viewpoint diversity. https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf
I nearly spit out my drink when I read this:
"Merit-Based Hiring Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement
merit-based hiring policies, and cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related practices among
faculty, staff, and leadership."
Welcome to DEI! Now, if only the Trump administration would do the same...
|
It seems El Salvador is not going to return the detainees. People really should stay away from USA now. Unfortunately, no stock price or bonds will fall because of this, so Trump will not back down on this.
|
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection.
|
Northern Ireland25186 Posts
I’m not an academic, although I know some, and indeed I consume rather a lot of content from academics, many of whom fervently disagree with their peers.
The only reason I can see for a demand for ‘viewpoint diversity’ is if one is completely unaware of what such institutions are actually like, or they want to inject some specific political views into said institutions.
Hell even as a student, who did engage in some student politics I found things pretty diverse, heated, impassioned and yeah a bit hostile on occasion but nothing like this strange conception people seem to have about colleges today.
Also do we really need multiple, specific mentions of anti-Semitism here? Is it such a hotbed really? Could that not be covered by a more generic imploration to not tolerate discrimination in various forms?
|
On April 15 2025 04:41 Legan wrote:
It seems El Salvador is not going to return the detainees. People really should stay away from USA now. Unfortunately, no stock price or bonds will fall because of this, so Trump will not back down on this.
The only thing surprising me about the USA at its current state is that they didn‘t find a way to design a prison labour ETF at this point.
I hope the guy specifically that GH mentioned gets out but they‘re arguing over who‘s going to finance the plane back to the US.
After several Ukrainians, maybe the next wave of refugees in Europe will be from NA.
|
On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection.
It's hard to predict how people are going to respond to something they view as an existential threat. For example, some people wanted to round up and ship US citizens off to camps for the crime of refusing the COVID vaccine.
|
On April 15 2025 05:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. It's hard to predict how people are going to respond to something they view as an existential threat. For example, some people wanted to round up and ship US citizens off to camps for the crime of refusing the COVID vaccine.
I personally view that as more reasonable than shipping off peaceful illegal immigrants. The person not taking the vaccine is breaking the social contract in a way that is likely damaging to other people and costs a lot of money in hospital costs (on average).
I am not certain it is a good policy to ship them to camps but is much easier to argue for.
|
On April 15 2025 04:41 Legan wrote:
It seems El Salvador is not going to return the detainees. People really should stay away from USA now. Unfortunately, no stock price or bonds will fall because of this, so Trump will not back down on this.
Can't say I'm surprised, they can't have those people get out and tell their stories. Anyone sent there is probably memory holed. Which makes it all the more egregious that they are sent there with no process and no proof of wrongdoing.
|
On April 15 2025 05:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. It's hard to predict how people are going to respond to something they view as an existential threat. For example, some people wanted to round up and ship US citizens off to camps for the crime of refusing the COVID vaccine.
lol, fair enough. It all gets down to how we define the social contract and what measures should be taken when someone is unwilling to abide by a social contract.
If someone is unwilling to abide by designated borders, undoing their crossing is a reasonable response. I understand you mostly meant this post as sticking your tongue out, but I do think its a worthwhile distinction to make. Anyone who has a work phone or computer knows there are a lot of limitations to prevent security breaches. People can lose their job if they are exposing their company to information security risks. At my daughter's gymnastics class, kids can be removed if their parents bring them while they are sick, since its a dick move to knowingly infect a bunch of other kids.
In a zombie movie, its entirely rational when they shoot someone after getting bit by a zombie because they need to prevent other people from being infected. At my daughter's gymnastics class, they don't shoot the kids when they are sick because the risks associated with kids being sick are assumed to be less than a zombie. The relative risk of a situation largely determines how the person violating the social contract is punished.
But just to be clear, I honestly don't have a huge problem with deporting illegal immigrants. I think its the right call in some cases and the wrong call in other cases. But the practice itself is not inherently abhorrent to me and I feel like I give conservatives a bit of a pass on immigration when they legitimately believe in certain harm created by illegal immigration.
The reason I am focusing on this specific situation as a means of elucidating details in general conservative worldviews is it shows the verdict is the same regardless of harm done to the person deported. It shows the immigrant in question does not need to be viewed as dangerous and it does not matter if the immigrant is put in a deeply harmful and deadly situation when they are deported. These distinctions are helpful because they help to zero in on the specific moral mechanisms at play.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 15 2025 05:07 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. It's hard to predict how people are going to respond to something they view as an existential threat. For example, some people wanted to round up and ship US citizens off to camps for the crime of refusing the COVID vaccine. I personally view that as more reasonable than shipping off peaceful illegal immigrants. The person not taking the vaccine is breaking the social contract in a way that is likely damaging to other people and costs a lot of money in hospital costs (on average). I am not certain it is a good policy to ship them to camps but is much easier to argue for. The covid vaccine was a new frontier because it wasn‘t a conventional vaccine design. I heavily opposed being coerced into it and I suffered and still do from what are likely side effects, mostly in form of pain, neuropathy in the shoulder region. I still got covid twice after getting it, so it‘s debatable if it even worked. Compensation for side effects: Zero. But it fluctuates so the pain isn‘t constant at least. There‘s on and off days. Meanwhile I voluntarily took a flu vaccine offered by my workplace and have been flu free ever since, while others haven‘t. And I‘ll keep taking those vaccines because they are extensively tested and proven to work. When there is a social contract to fulfill, you also have to expect the degree of competence required from those enforcing it in order to be expected to comply. The same can be said for Trump requiring emergency powers when the only tangible emergency is the conflict with Russia, but his justification seems to be another. Or for him extending the definition of terrorism to people who dislike the billionaire car manufacturer and as a consequence damaged the symbols of his business, the manufacturer he decided to let interfere with how the government is run and given a mandate and access to sensitive data of a multitude of citizens. Edit: I don‘t want the competence of my local government to be influenced by another government who might be less competent in its decision making and keeps offering reasons to allow that assumption. Smoking is another example. Should smokers pay a premium to their insurance when their government profits from their addiction by taxing them ? It‘s all quite complex.
In the case of immigration, it‘s simple around here.
If you get a visum revoked you go back to where you came from, the only place you should be detained in is your country‘s embassy or a transit centre. Not a foreign prison, like what the hell man.
If you immigrated illegally, you get moved to an immigration center and explain the reason you had to flee your country.
If it‘s believable, you can stay. People from warzones or people prosecuted in their country for their sexual orientation, religion etc. They get a permit and are assigned to job centers.
This from a guy living in a country that could never fit 300 millions of people, so my take might be slightly skewed.
One of the cultural differences that really hits me on this forum is how cynical it feels to discuss things happening in the US.
Jail this, punish that, deport those, tariff the parasites, protesting can be punished harshly.
It‘s an observation, not a competition. I don‘t want to come across as condescending.
|
On April 15 2025 05:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. It's hard to predict how people are going to respond to something they view as an existential threat. For example, some people wanted to round up and ship US citizens off to camps for the crime of refusing the COVID vaccine.
Lol nobody was trying to round up and intern people for refusing the COVID vaccine, people just didn't want unvaccinated people in establishments where they would spread disease, much like how kids are need to be vaccinated for school (before we hired a lunatic to run the HHS) so they don't spread measles everywhere. In no way is that comparable to stomping all over constitutional protections while rounding up immigrants to be sent off to a concentration camp in a foreign country.
On another note, the old GOP would have gone scorched earth on El Salvador if they refused to return someone we incorrectly deported there. I never thought i'd yearn for the days of GW Bush
|
Canada11349 Posts
Well and furthermore asylum seekers are getting lumped in with illegal immigrants (in regards to 'it sucks they ended up in death camps but they broke the law.') And granted who knows how many of them legit, because the system was so backed up, it incentivized more to come, make your application and the live in the US for long periods of time until they finally get around to processing you.
But that's not an illegal immigrant. Not if they have applied officially and are waiting for their court date. That's a broken system that needs quicker processing times to disincentivize long shot applications. If you knew your application would be seen within the week or at most a month and they would send you packing it would dry up at least some of the applications.
Of course you can just scare the heck out of people by gulaging random non-citizens to decrease the queue. East Germany also didn't have a long queue to get in, but that doesn't say much for the country. But Trump didn't want faster processing time and spiked a bill that might have helped. He wanted a border crisis to run on and he got it. He has the heart of a petty tyrant, so herding people onto planes and dumping people off at El Salvadorian prisons without a trial is a feature, not a bug.
And MAGA supporters are now arguing basic freedoms are not human rights but rights conferred by the State to citizens only (where did the libertarian wing of the Republican party go, I wonder). But if a non-citizen does not have the right to due process, then neither does the citizen. For all a government need claim is that you are a non-citizen. And without due process, this minor niggling discrepancy cannot be amended. And apparently El Salvador operates on a no return policy, so there's that.
|
On April 15 2025 07:27 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. It's hard to predict how people are going to respond to something they view as an existential threat. For example, some people wanted to round up and ship US citizens off to camps for the crime of refusing the COVID vaccine. Lol nobody was trying to round up and intern people for refusing the COVID vaccine, people just didn't want unvaccinated people in establishments where they would spread disease, much like how kids are need to be vaccinated for school (before we hired a lunatic to run the HHS) so they don't spread measles everywhere. In no way is that comparable to stomping all over constitutional protections while rounding up immigrants to be sent off to a concentration camp in a foreign country. On another note, the old GOP would have gone scorched earth on El Salvador if they refused to return someone we incorrectly deported there. I never thought i'd yearn for the days of GW Bush
It's an inside joke as the person I was replying too actually advocated for rounding up the unvaccinated and banishing them from society to either camps, an island, or maybe a floating barge in the ocean. I'm glad he has a newfound repulsion to rounding people up but he's a few years late to the party.
|
Canada11349 Posts
Also, talk about state over-reach. I was thoroughly against the use of the Emergency Act to break up our own protests (the will to confront and disperse was lacking, not the power). And here Trump is using emergency power after emergency power including the wartime 1798 Alien Enemy Act to deport people. How are the Alex Jones FEMA death camps types not losing their minds over this? (Except if it's your side, everything's gravy.)
|
On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection.
Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have).
As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person.
And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over?
And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again.
|
On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection.
But that isn't even what happened. Kilmar Abrego Garcia was a legal resident in the US. The whole breaking into your house analogy falls flat regardless, but it definitely doesn't apply here. Rather than finding someone who broke into your house sitting on your sofa and throwing him out, this is more akin to finding someone who you did indeed find on your sofa, but then invited to stay for dinner. Then when he's sitting at the dinner table you club him over the head, and tell your neighbours to lock him up in their basement.
E: didn't fully understand his situation, and changed the bits I got wrong.
|
On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person.
Deport someone back to their home country sounds very nice. Paid his despotic home country to effectively end his life is what happened. Let's call a spade a spade instead of being cute.
You can't pass the responsibility to El Salvador when you're paying them to do it. And there's a reason we treat handing someone a life sentence or capital punishment with more care than handing them a parking ticket. Defending evil extra-judicial acts of this administration because "the border was left open" would be embarrassing for someone with values.
|
|
|
On April 15 2025 04:16 Falling wrote:
I'm not sure if that last line is sarcastic, but if not: a plot to overthrow the will of the American voters because a paranoid moron refuses to recognize to this day that he lost because he gets all his information from his own feelings and not facts and also from dishonestly edited social media clips, well that's a touch more than 'silly mild tomfoolery." But also not terrorism. Not unless there was some organized violent resistance that manifested from the failed seizure of power.
And it is precisely the post-9/11 over-broadening of what constitutes terrorism that makes me more than a little cautious labelling violent protests as acts of terrorism.
edit.
Ok, good it was sarcasm.
When the defences run out on the electoral plot have been so absurd and using the most inconsistent standards to downplay what happened it's hard to spot sarcasm anymore.
If you believe Bill Maher and others, he does admit it in private fairly often. But he is also pretty famous for just telling people what they want to hear.
On April 15 2025 07:31 Falling wrote:
Well and furthermore asylum seekers are getting lumped in with illegal immigrants (in regards to 'it sucks they ended up in death camps but they broke the law.') And granted who knows how many of them legit, because the system was so backed up, it incentivized more to come, make your application and the live in the US for long periods of time until they finally get around to processing you.
But that's not an illegal immigrant. Not if they have applied officially and are waiting for their court date. That's a broken system that needs quicker processing times to disincentivize long shot applications. If you knew your application would be seen within the week or at most a month and they would send you packing it would dry up at least some of the applications.
Of course you can just scare the heck out of people by gulaging random non-citizens to decrease the queue. East Germany also didn't have a long queue to get in, but that doesn't say much for the country. But Trump didn't want faster processing time and spiked a bill that might have helped. He wanted a border crisis to run on and he got it. He has the heart of a petty tyrant, so herding people onto planes and dumping people off at El Salvadorian prisons without a trial is a feature, not a bug.
And MAGA supporters are now arguing basic freedoms are not human rights but rights conferred by the State to citizens only (where did the libertarian wing of the Republican party go, I wonder). But if a non-citizen does not have the right to due process, then neither does the citizen. For all a government need claim is that you are a non-citizen. And without due process, this minor niggling discrepancy cannot be amended. And apparently El Salvador operates on a no return policy, so there's that.
The guy actually thinks Asylum seekers are insane and can't wrap his head around the very clear difference. So it is very unsurprising when he mixes up basically anything around this topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
