|
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 |
On April 15 2025 14:46 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 13:50 BlackJack wrote:
Hopefully we can come up with a less misleading term than “illegal immigrant” to use for people that have immigrated illegally This is very droll, but a little common sense tells you that using the phrase illegal immigrant is a way of describing a human being as illegal, which descriptively in terms of how they got to the country makes sense but is also not a great usage of language because of the extra connotations. I could argue that someone who vaped under the age of 21 should be called an illegal child. After all, they broke the law by doing something a child is not legally allowed to do.
Wouldnt that rather be illegal vaper?
|
On April 15 2025 19:46 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 14:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 15 2025 13:50 BlackJack wrote:
Hopefully we can come up with a less misleading term than “illegal immigrant” to use for people that have immigrated illegally This is very droll, but a little common sense tells you that using the phrase illegal immigrant is a way of describing a human being as illegal, which descriptively in terms of how they got to the country makes sense but is also not a great usage of language because of the extra connotations. I could argue that someone who vaped under the age of 21 should be called an illegal child. After all, they broke the law by doing something a child is not legally allowed to do. Wouldnt that rather be illegal vaper?
Why would you care about making that distinction?
|
On April 15 2025 19:45 Jockmcplop wrote:
So Trump has officially said he will be seeking a third term, and that he's not joking.
I wonder whether all the people who said that would never happen will now start telling us its actually a good thing now. Are we really still wondering whether a group of sycophants will continue acting like sycophants? They've moved the goalposts so many times it's astonishing that anyone still gives them the benefit of the doubt. And yet, here we are
pretending that one day, these crypto-fascists will suddenly decide to be honest for the sake of “debate”.
|
On April 15 2025 19:53 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 19:45 Jockmcplop wrote:
So Trump has officially said he will be seeking a third term, and that he's not joking.
I wonder whether all the people who said that would never happen will now start telling us its actually a good thing now. Are we really still wondering whether a group of sycophants will continue acting like sycophants? They've moved the goalposts so many times it's astonishing that anyone still gives them the benefit of the doubt. And yet, here we are pretending that one day, these crypto-fascists will suddenly decide to be honest for the sake of “debate”.
The tone of my post should let you know that I am not pretending anything.
Of course they will move the goalposts again having been proven wrong for the billionth time.
|
On April 15 2025 19:45 Jockmcplop wrote:
So Trump has officially said he will be seeking a third term, and that he's not joking.
I wonder whether all the people who said that would never happen will now start telling us its actually a good thing now.
Of course they will. They'll redefine what it means to Make America Great Again, then they'll insist Trump is doing precisely that, and then they'll claim that they want more of that - and that only Trump could continue to deliver such greatness.
|
I think the point jock is trying to make is that the action can be illegal, not the person doing it.
Most people break laws to varying degrees at some point, that can require a demand to change their behaviour when it’s not a capital crime, not to declare them deprived of all rights to be perceived as a person.
|
On April 15 2025 20:03 Vivax wrote:
I think the point jock is trying to make is that the action can be illegal, not the person doing it.
Most people break laws to varying degrees at some point, that can require a demand to change their behaviour when it’s not a capital crime, not to declare them deprived of all rights to be perceived as a person.
Yeah, you've put it much better than I did tbh.
|
On April 15 2025 19:50 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 19:46 Razyda wrote:On April 15 2025 14:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 15 2025 13:50 BlackJack wrote:
Hopefully we can come up with a less misleading term than “illegal immigrant” to use for people that have immigrated illegally This is very droll, but a little common sense tells you that using the phrase illegal immigrant is a way of describing a human being as illegal, which descriptively in terms of how they got to the country makes sense but is also not a great usage of language because of the extra connotations. I could argue that someone who vaped under the age of 21 should be called an illegal child. After all, they broke the law by doing something a child is not legally allowed to do. Wouldnt that rather be illegal vaper? Why would you care about making that distinction?
Seemed valid correction.
On April 15 2025 14:46 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 13:50 BlackJack wrote:
Hopefully we can come up with a less misleading term than “illegal immigrant” to use for people that have immigrated illegally This is very droll, but a little common sense tells you that using the phrase illegal immigrant is a way of describing a human being as illegal, which descriptively in terms of how they got to the country makes sense but is also not a great usage of language because of the extra connotations. I could argue that someone who vaped under the age of 21 should be called an illegal child. After all, they broke the law by doing something a child is not legally allowed to do.
bolded italic - regarding language use and its connotations, I think "no human being is illegal" backfired rather spectacularly. Phrase often used now is I believe "illegal alien" which I find way more dehumanising (personal opinion) than "illegal immigrant". I mean "illegal immigrant" is by default a person, "illegal alien" is something you smuggled out of Nostromo. Like wtf?
|
Northern Ireland25215 Posts
On April 15 2025 10:26 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 01:45 WombaT wrote:
What is it that particularly piques your interest as regards to Tesla cars being vandalised, but not an organisation like the Proud Boys by your own admission? The latter didnt made as much noise I think and seem rather irrelevant overall. They are sort of "some proud boys were there" kind of thing. When it comes to Tesla protests you couldnt open chrome on your phone without getting bunch of news about tesla protests. Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 03:37 Vivax wrote:
Terrorist used to be a word applied more sparingly before 9/11. Bush really did a terrific job at projecting the threat from it to a wider spectrum when applied to commercial flights. At the height of the fear wave, just wearing a turban would have made a lot of people around you uncomfortable.
One of the most prominent cases until then was McVaugh for example. In Austria we had Franz Fuchs who sent bombs per mail (lol typo). Norway had Breivik who literally caused a massacre on his own. They were mostly of the right wing extremist spectrum.
Germany had the RAF from the left spectrum which mostly targeted people from the financial sector and politicians.
What they had in common were clear targets, an agenda or a manifest, political motivation and premeditation.
If a a government fucks up colossally and people go out and protest it and start vandalizing things that are associated with said governments, it isn‘t as clear cut whether they were belonging to a terrorist organization when they did it.
Unless the fuck-up was just Trump losing the election, but breaking into the capitol was just a bit of silly mild tomfoolery, clearly. /s
Yes, this is sarcasm.
Weren‘t government officials injured though ?
I think Falling has a more accurate view of events here. So, insurrectionism it is. And the chief leader of the movement is currently in power. Bolded - I think Breivik was way past 9/11, as I was already living in UK when this happened. I think most prominent before then (as I even now remember them from the news) was Beirut, Tokyo sarin and some flight with bomb exploding somewhere in UK. italic - dude you making my point here: clear targets - Musk and Tesla an agenda or a manifest, political motivation - get Musk out of politics/WH premeditation - you dont draw swastika on someone's car by accident, similarly like you just dont wake up with molotov cocktail in the sea of teslas, or shooting at tesla dealership. Bolded 2 - I specifically said that Tesla protesters arent terrorist organisation? Would you prefer Trump to do what democratic non authoritarian government does and freeze all protesters bank accounts, rather than charge the ones who commit violence/destruction with terrorism? Show nested quote +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. Bolded - pre 9/11 definition suggested by Vivax also fits. (see above) Edit: Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 09:58 decafchicken wrote:On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert 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. 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. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Being here in violation of immigration law is a civil offense and not grounds for deportation on its own.
Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great
Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great
People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no.
Then you are against the founding principles of America. You should read the declaration of independence sometime. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. Glad you read it. I also find your attachment to "founding principles of America" admirable. What exactly you have against Native Americans? " inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
Your phone perhaps. It was hardly some national epidemic, although equally the actual prevalence and influence of a group like the Proud Boys, also overstated by others. Not a particular criticism of you, it’s just the modern internet
Terror is rather an important facet of terrorism, hence the name.
Coming from a country known for plenty of it, vandalism can be terroristic, or not.
There’s plenty of ‘Brits out’, ‘No Surrender’, less savoury again stuff like KAT or KAH (kill all taigs/huns, Catholics/Protestants). All over the shop, but for the most part it’s really a form of nationalistic venting, or just teenage hijinks than serious sentiment. We almost roll our eyes at most of it these days.
Now, thankfully less prevalent but sadly still not unheard of, a Protestant/Catholic (or sometimes a mixed couple) living in the ‘wrong area’ gets that daubed on their house, quite a different story indeed. And many who have chosen to stay anyway have been forcibly removed by various paramilitary groups over the years.
Are you directly intimidating people and do they have realistic reason to be afraid, indeed terrified if you will?
I’m not sure such a threshold has been crossed here, if it does shift to a world where Tesla drivers are dragged out of their vehicles and attacked, or burned out of their homes then yeah.
‘Oh fiddlesticks, some scamp has daubed a swastika on my Tesla’, yeah it’s annoying, but terrifying?
I think the whole thing is asinine and counter-productive, equally trying to bring it under the terrorism umbrella I think is a giant stretch.
|
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid.
|
It's also just an absolutely pointless discussion, we had the same in german.
Yeah illegal immigrant/alien might technically be dehumanizing but thats the least of the worries undocumented immigrants/sans papiers face.
But I guess it's nice for interest groups and advocats to bring it up every so often because it has 0 effect on actual policy or anything that really matters so they can justify their own existence whiteout having to do something that could actually help.
|
We need elder councils to decide if actions made by elected officials violate moral norms for society.
|
On April 15 2025 20:54 Uldridge wrote:
We need elder councils to decide if actions made by elected officials violate moral norms for society.
Thanks for the laugh.
Bring back the druids.
I believe the word you‘re looking for is senate in its original conception.
Doing a reverse quote here to save space:
On April 15 2025 21:04 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 21:02 Vivax wrote:On April 15 2025 20:54 Uldridge wrote:
We need elder councils to decide if actions made by elected officials violate moral norms for society. Thanks for the laugh. Bring back the druids. I believe the word you‘re looking for is senate in its original conception. Isn’t a council of geriatrics basically the Senate now too?
Senex = Old person from latin
They‘re the instance that‘s supposed to prevent dictatorships, power abuse and the like.
I don‘t know about the US but in Rome they were not allowed any other income source or occupation other than from that lifelong commitment.
|
Northern Ireland25215 Posts
On April 15 2025 21:02 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 20:54 Uldridge wrote:
We need elder councils to decide if actions made by elected officials violate moral norms for society. Thanks for the laugh. Bring back the druids. I believe the word you‘re looking for is senate in its original conception.
Isn’t a council of geriatrics basically the Senate now too?
|
If they overstep, they have to drink ayahuasca to connect with the spirits to maintain their empathic equilibrium. I'm not joking about this (kinda but not really).
|
On April 15 2025 20:50 Gahlo wrote:
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid.
Everything against the law is illegal. Whether a criminal offense or not depends what "it" is. Sneaking across the border is explicitly a criminal offense.
|
On April 15 2025 21:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 20:50 Gahlo wrote:
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid. Everything against the law is illegal. Whether a criminal offense or not depends what "it" is. Sneaking across the border is explicitly a criminal offense.
What‘s the procedure then, assuming they have no papers?
Detention center, questioning, identification, tracking the country of origin and deportation back to that. I assume.
Alternatively you could give them an identity, a place to sleep and a job if the country is spacious enough and in good economic shape.
Provided they aren‘t smugglers or cartel members and the like. It‘s true not everything is nice and fluffy out there.
Or one develops the country they came from enough that they needn‘t run away from it.
In the case of Venezuela, I fathom most of its state of deterioration comes from US sanctions and Russian protection.
In Germany/Austria the greatest difficulty an immigrant would find is undoubtedly the language. It‘s also the main barrier for someone who gets to stay.
|
On April 15 2025 21:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 20:50 Gahlo wrote:
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid. Everything against the law is illegal. Whether a criminal offense or not depends what "it" is. Sneaking across the border is explicitly a criminal offense.
What percentage of illegals snuck across the boarder? Why with control of the house, senate and presidency is Trump not building the wall? Is it not a effective way of securing the boarder?
|
oBlade is cosplaying a "Maga's wittness nazi" with a loser mentality.
There is no "gotcha" for exposing his bullshit. He likes to waste your time. He needs you to argue, because that validates his bullshit by being held up against sane arguments, lifted up by sanity.
But it's not about winning or losing the argument, once you are discussing his bullshit, his job is done.
He, like nazis, wants people of color gone from the US. Nazis will de-humanize people to get you on board - but it's only hate and racism underneath.
ICE victims can't be people, they need to be called "criminals" - because nazis don't want to be hated for going against normal people, they want to be idolized for saving the world from "criminals".
They know that they would be hated for saying out loud what they think, so they make up stuff.
He has infinite time to waste for you, he will find reasons why it's okay to deport somebody without due process, and be criminal by not caring for what the court orders telling you to do.
Remember:
"Rules for thee but not for me!"
Nazis like the one oBlade is cosplaying don't agree to logic and reality. Their own mythological reality is ranking above the objective reality.
Their brains are illogical. Even if you have them admitting objective truths, they won't shift their stance, because the objective truth is wronger than their mythological truth.
The convicted criminal president that is in direct violation of court orders is Good. The Guy who came to the US the legal way, and now is probably dead in an El Salvador Concentration camp .. is "not even human".
|
On April 15 2025 20:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 10:26 Razyda wrote:On April 15 2025 01:45 WombaT wrote:
What is it that particularly piques your interest as regards to Tesla cars being vandalised, but not an organisation like the Proud Boys by your own admission? The latter didnt made as much noise I think and seem rather irrelevant overall. They are sort of "some proud boys were there" kind of thing. When it comes to Tesla protests you couldnt open chrome on your phone without getting bunch of news about tesla protests. On April 15 2025 03:37 Vivax wrote:
Terrorist used to be a word applied more sparingly before 9/11. Bush really did a terrific job at projecting the threat from it to a wider spectrum when applied to commercial flights. At the height of the fear wave, just wearing a turban would have made a lot of people around you uncomfortable.
One of the most prominent cases until then was McVaugh for example. In Austria we had Franz Fuchs who sent bombs per mail (lol typo). Norway had Breivik who literally caused a massacre on his own. They were mostly of the right wing extremist spectrum.
Germany had the RAF from the left spectrum which mostly targeted people from the financial sector and politicians.
What they had in common were clear targets, an agenda or a manifest, political motivation and premeditation.
If a a government fucks up colossally and people go out and protest it and start vandalizing things that are associated with said governments, it isn‘t as clear cut whether they were belonging to a terrorist organization when they did it.
Unless the fuck-up was just Trump losing the election, but breaking into the capitol was just a bit of silly mild tomfoolery, clearly. /s
Yes, this is sarcasm.
Weren‘t government officials injured though ?
I think Falling has a more accurate view of events here. So, insurrectionism it is. And the chief leader of the movement is currently in power. Bolded - I think Breivik was way past 9/11, as I was already living in UK when this happened. I think most prominent before then (as I even now remember them from the news) was Beirut, Tokyo sarin and some flight with bomb exploding somewhere in UK. italic - dude you making my point here: clear targets - Musk and Tesla an agenda or a manifest, political motivation - get Musk out of politics/WH premeditation - you dont draw swastika on someone's car by accident, similarly like you just dont wake up with molotov cocktail in the sea of teslas, or shooting at tesla dealership. Bolded 2 - I specifically said that Tesla protesters arent terrorist organisation? Would you prefer Trump to do what democratic non authoritarian government does and freeze all protesters bank accounts, rather than charge the ones who commit violence/destruction with terrorism? 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. Bolded - pre 9/11 definition suggested by Vivax also fits. (see above) Edit: On April 15 2025 09:58 decafchicken wrote:On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert 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. 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. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Being here in violation of immigration law is a civil offense and not grounds for deportation on its own.
Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great
Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great
People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no.
Then you are against the founding principles of America. You should read the declaration of independence sometime. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. Glad you read it. I also find your attachment to "founding principles of America" admirable. What exactly you have against Native Americans? " inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." Your phone perhaps. It was hardly some national epidemic, although equally the actual prevalence and influence of a group like the Proud Boys, also overstated by others. Not a particular criticism of you, it’s just the modern internet Terror is rather an important facet of terrorism, hence the name. Coming from a country known for plenty of it, vandalism can be terroristic, or not. There’s plenty of ‘Brits out’, ‘No Surrender’, less savoury again stuff like KAT or KAH (kill all taigs/huns, Catholics/Protestants). All over the shop, but for the most part it’s really a form of nationalistic venting, or just teenage hijinks than serious sentiment. We almost roll our eyes at most of it these days. Now, thankfully less prevalent but sadly still not unheard of, a Protestant/Catholic (or sometimes a mixed couple) living in the ‘wrong area’ gets that daubed on their house, quite a different story indeed. And many who have chosen to stay anyway have been forcibly removed by various paramilitary groups over the years. Are you directly intimidating people and do they have realistic reason to be afraid, indeed terrified if you will?
I’m not sure such a threshold has been crossed here, if it does shift to a world where Tesla drivers are dragged out of their vehicles and attacked, or burned out of their homes then yeah.
‘Oh fiddlesticks, some scamp has daubed a swastika on my Tesla’, yeah it’s annoying, but terrifying? I think the whole thing is asinine and counter-productive, equally trying to bring it under the terrorism umbrella I think is a giant stretch.
Bolded - I think you somewhat downplaying it in last part of bolded section? Some teslas were burned, Molotov cocktails were thrown and I believe dealership/s was/were shoot at? I would say that arson, Molotov cocktails and guns being shot are in general things people are afraid of. If it was only keying teslas I dont think we would have this discussion. I still would want perpetrators to get jail time and pay for damages, but I wouldnt call them terrorists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
