|
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 16 2025 14:26 BlackJack wrote:
If due process is where you have no chance to defend yourself before getting tossed into an El Salvadoran prison “by error” and then no effort is made to undo the error despite court orders, then I would hate to see what no due process looks like
I am very much afraid the current minds in charge have got you covered there as well.
and fear the inevitable spillover, if not legitimation... over the Atlantic of such glorious ideas.
//edit: mind you we don't have a lack of "great ideas" over here. it's just that when the leader of the free world and/or the administration of this leader does it, it gives it an extra oomph. our crazy authoritarians feel emboldened as well.
|
|
|
The last page was an interesting read.
On what basis is a court in the US able to decide that you are a gang member and treat you accordingly? That is, using emergency powers.
Do I wear a bandana? Tattoos? Snort drugs ? Praise glocks ?
|
On April 16 2025 20:14 Vivax wrote:
The last page was an interesting read.
On what basis is a court in the US able to decide that you are a gang member and treat you accordingly? That is, using emergency powers.
Do I wear a bandana? Tattoos? Snort drugs ? Praise glocks ? important to note, no court ever decided Abrego Garcia is a gang member.
ICE alleged he was a gang member based on a confidential informer and the judge found this enough basis to deny him bail back in 2019, in the case where the judge eventually withheld his removal.
You can read more about it here
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13--what-do-we-know
At this point a vague suspicion from 6 years ago is enough to deport you to an El Salvador hell hole and never come back, despite the Supreme Court saying the US government should facilitate your release.
|
I agree, I also think the falling introvert conversation was interesting on like the meta level. You have two intelligent thoughtful guys who if given the same facts would likely come to the same conclusion. But here you can tell from all the media they take in they are making their conclusions off very different information.
Politics (and a bunch of other things) used to be where everyone would have the same facts, but you would disagree on the solutions. Or have different assumptions about the parts that were not known or whatever. But now we can't even agree on is going on in the first place. And I don't see a solution because if Falling sourced his points and Intro sourced his, likely neither would be moved because they don't trust the others sources. Both end up thinking the other is either misguided or worse actively lying and worst of all I see no solution or anyway this gets better.
|
On April 16 2025 20:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2025 20:14 Vivax wrote:
The last page was an interesting read.
On what basis is a court in the US able to decide that you are a gang member and treat you accordingly? That is, using emergency powers.
Do I wear a bandana? Tattoos? Snort drugs ? Praise glocks ? important to note, no court ever decided Abrego Garcia is a gang member. ICE alleged he was a gang member based on a confidential informer and the judge found this enough basis to deny him bail back in 2019, in the case where the judge eventually withheld his removal. You can read more about it here https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13--what-do-we-knowAt this point a vague suspicion from 6 years ago is enough to deport you to an El Salvador hell hole and never come back, despite the Supreme Court saying the US government should facilitate your release.
According to your source, he was being harassed by gangs in his homeland too. Adding insult to injury.
Seems like another case of US police violence.
Courts are often money hungry. His biggest crime was not having enough money to fight the procedure by being able to take it to court, probably.
Maybe a million dollar candlelight dinner with DJT could have saved him.
|
I think the conversation reveals how insanely well the de-humanization efforts from the Trump regime are working, I don't know the Introvert poster from before, but he doesn't seem like an insane troll/superfan oBlade is, but is still willing to basically have US government in congruence with El Salvador's president basically ship a guy off to one of the worse places on earth who wore Bulls hat and hoodie and didn't enter legally and sentence him to life in prison or more likely death (since he fled El Salvador to get away from the gangs that are populating the prison).
I'm a firm believer in punishment should fit the crime, and it seems to me that people defending the government's handling of this case think that being kidnapped and shipped over to a gulag is an appropriate response to coming to the US illegally.
These same people might, very soon explain to us how Greenlanders, Canadians or people of Panama or Mexico are OK to be killed for resisting Trump's agenda.
|
On April 16 2025 20:50 Billyboy wrote:
I agree, I also think the falling introvert conversation was interesting on like the meta level. You have two intelligent thoughtful guys who if given the same facts would likely come to the same conclusion. But here you can tell from all the media they take in they are making their conclusions off very different information.
Politics (and a bunch of other things) used to be where everyone would have the same facts, but you would disagree on the solutions. Or have different assumptions about the parts that were not known or whatever. But now we can't even agree on is going on in the first place. And I don't see a solution because if Falling sourced his points and Intro sourced his, likely neither would be moved because they don't trust the others sources. Both end up thinking the other is either misguided or worse actively lying and worst of all I see no solution or anyway this gets better.
No Billy, you're being naive here. The people trying to argue the merits of sending people to an off-shore gulag where no one gets out, with the same expedience and care as they would issue them a traffic violation fine, are just trying to muddy the waters. There is no debate, we figured this shit out hundreds of years ago and wrote it down. Please don't fall for the same trick for the hundredth time.
|
At least 1 senator (can't find any info on anyone else going) is going to check on Kilmar Garcia
I'm not sure what should be done but I have to appreciate someone trying to do something. Could easily just be a publicity stunt, he could end up going into the prison and not coming out, or anything in between. Hard to know for sure in these times.
|
On April 16 2025 20:50 Billyboy wrote:
I agree, I also think the falling introvert conversation was interesting on like the meta level. You have two intelligent thoughtful guys who if given the same facts would likely come to the same conclusion. But here you can tell from all the media they take in they are making their conclusions off very different information.
Politics (and a bunch of other things) used to be where everyone would have the same facts, but you would disagree on the solutions. Or have different assumptions about the parts that were not known or whatever. But now we can't even agree on is going on in the first place. And I don't see a solution because if Falling sourced his points and Intro sourced his, likely neither would be moved because they don't trust the others sources. Both end up thinking the other is either misguided or worse actively lying and worst of all I see no solution or anyway this gets better.
Falling is describing how the legal process is supposed to work while introvert sounds like a reasonable centrist because his position is more measured/thoughtful than the current administration's narrative when in reality it's insane to debate the ability to violate constitutional protections in the first place.
A normal thing would be to discuss immigration policy reform, not how many crimes against humanity can we get away with to minimize the amount of non citizens in America.
|
On April 16 2025 20:50 Billyboy wrote:
I agree, I also think the falling introvert conversation was interesting on like the meta level. You have two intelligent thoughtful guys who if given the same facts would likely come to the same conclusion. But here you can tell from all the media they take in they are making their conclusions off very different information.
Politics (and a bunch of other things) used to be where everyone would have the same facts, but you would disagree on the solutions. Or have different assumptions about the parts that were not known or whatever. But now we can't even agree on is going on in the first place. And I don't see a solution because if Falling sourced his points and Intro sourced his, likely neither would be moved because they don't trust the others sources. Both end up thinking the other is either misguided or worse actively lying and worst of all I see no solution or anyway this gets better.
a better forum. not TL of course. but social media is wholly inadequate as it is built around the profit motive/engagement/thestupidest/loudestvoices prevail. and what's more, the algorithms are a black box.
even if the good people at Meta or Twitter/X or Alphapet or wherever put their thumb on the scale you would not even be able to tell. at best when it is already too late.
just check what is the most popular on ANY platform on a new computer with a new browser and preferrably IP address. it makes you question if we are not already trapped in hell... and kept docile.
what I mean by better forum is literally a platform that is heavily regulated - but fairly so. so you need voices for all major parties that are doing the regulating. in the US I would even include Greens/Other Left and on the right Libertarians/Christians.
have it run by a private company, which gets paid by the state for facilitating the servers. I heard a lot of good talent has been let go for no other reason than giving signals to the shareholders that "line should go up".
social media failed us spectacularly. while hitting the motherload. Alphabet or Meta profits are... ridiculous.
these companies make more money than god. the higher price they are willing - for us - to pay is democracy.
trust erodes as we are siloed in and mis- and disinformed on a scale not seen ever. and kept apart information wise -everyone got their Feed or Reel.
maybe not even intentionally in the beginning. but definitely now as politics caught up.
biggest hurdle however is getting people to care, and a lot of them. and onto the streets. and then combine that to a movement for change. Trump did that with anger and resentment. Obama with hope and change.
time is rife for something new and better. and quickly.
"A republic if you can keep it" one of the founding fathers used to say.
Trump and his worst instincts and impulses is what he meant, for people to be vigilant and be on the lookout when participating in the process of governing democratically.
|
On April 16 2025 21:41 GreenHorizons wrote:At least 1 senator (can't find any info on anyone else going) is going to check on Kilmar Garcia https://twitter.com/ChrisVanHollen/status/1912447452117942763I'm not sure what should be done but I have to appreciate someone trying to do something. Could easily just be a publicity stunt, he could end up going into the prison and not coming out, or anything in between. Hard to know for sure in these times.
unfortunately an officer of ICE, known paragons of integrity (it’s what the I stands for by the way,) has said Senator Van Hollen is a known member of MS-13 so this is the last we’ll be seeing of him. **sorry it looks like it might be local PD with the accusation but fuck ICE so
OAN will let me know my opinions about it later today.
on a serious note, Van Hollen had disappointed me several times when I was a Marylander, but good on him. Fairly brave thing to do. Wish he had this bravery throughout his tenure, but it’s better than never.
|
On April 16 2025 21:41 GreenHorizons wrote:At least 1 senator (can't find any info on anyone else going) is going to check on Kilmar Garcia https://twitter.com/ChrisVanHollen/status/1912447452117942763I'm not sure what should be done but I have to appreciate someone trying to do something. Could easily just be a publicity stunt, he could end up going into the prison and not coming out, or anything in between. Hard to know for sure in these times.
The most likely outcome is that they simply won't give him access, but it's good that he's trying.
I think it's a little dangerous to focus all energy on a single case though, having a media war over whether one particular person is a good person may not end well. Knowing the level of incompetence of this administration (see tariff printout) I expect a whole lot of the people that were sent to CECOT have no business being in a place like that and I would much prefer the focus to be more spread out on the rotten process (or lack of it) than on a single person.
|
On April 16 2025 21:47 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2025 20:50 Billyboy wrote:
I agree, I also think the falling introvert conversation was interesting on like the meta level. You have two intelligent thoughtful guys who if given the same facts would likely come to the same conclusion. But here you can tell from all the media they take in they are making their conclusions off very different information.
Politics (and a bunch of other things) used to be where everyone would have the same facts, but you would disagree on the solutions. Or have different assumptions about the parts that were not known or whatever. But now we can't even agree on is going on in the first place. And I don't see a solution because if Falling sourced his points and Intro sourced his, likely neither would be moved because they don't trust the others sources. Both end up thinking the other is either misguided or worse actively lying and worst of all I see no solution or anyway this gets better. a better forum. not TL of course. but social media is wholly inadequate as it is built around the profit motive/engagement/thestupidest/loudestvoices prevail. and what's more, the algorithms are a black box. even if the good people at Meta or Twitter/X or Alphapet or wherever put their thumb on the scale you would not even be able to tell. at best when it is already too late. just check what is the most popular on ANY platform on a new computer with a new browser and preferrably IP address. it makes you question if we are not already trapped in hell... and kept docile. what I mean by better forum is literally a platform that is heavily regulated - but fairly so. so you need voices for all major parties that are doing the regulating. in the US I would even include Greens/Other Left and on the right Libertarians/Christians. have it run by a private company, which gets paid by the state for facilitating the servers. I heard a lot of good talent has been let go for no other reason than giving signals to the shareholders that "line should go up". social media failed us spectacularly. while hitting the motherload. Alphabet or Meta profits are... ridiculous. these companies make more money than god. the higher price they are willing - for us - to pay is democracy. trust erodes as we are siloed in and mis- and disinformed on a scale not seen ever. and kept apart information wise -everyone got their Feed or Reel. maybe not even intentionally in the beginning. but definitely now as politics caught up. biggest hurdle however is getting people to care, and a lot of them. and onto the streets. and then combine that to a movement for change. Trump did that with anger and resentment. Obama with hope and change. time is rife for something new and better. and quickly. "A republic if you can keep it" one of the founding fathers used to say. Trump and his worst instincts and impulses is what he meant, for people to be vigilant and be on the lookout when participating in the process of governing democratically.
Forumites are superior to social media users, there is no reward mechanic or way of monetizing their writing. What you write on a forum belongs to a forum. And you can assume the opinion isn‘t based in material motivations.
The issue is that the owners of social media are quickly becoming tools to politicians, sometimes the other way around, and their moderation is at the discretion of the owners who sometimes have more money than some governments.
Both Meta and X formerly twitter seek to make their own rules, now at the behest of the current president who didn‘t hesitate to get them to adjust the algorithms.
It takes a few flicks on a bunch of switches to turn an entertainment machine into a propaganda machine directing the emotions of masses of people to a government agenda.
It can happen very quickly.
|
On April 16 2025 10:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2025 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 10:58 Introvert 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. And I totally understand the whole asylum system is totally bogus at this point and abused to the point people are right to roll their eyes and be cynical. With that being said, I want to just directly ask you: Are you familiar with the details of these prisons in El Salvador? And if so, are you ok with sending people, whether from El Salvador or not, to rot there?The asylum process is commonly abused but I feel like I need to shake you into remembering asylum is a valid thing and it should be a point of pride for our country to offer asylum to genuine cases where asylum is appropriate. 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. But this guy sent to the El Salvador prison is either already dead or will die while performing slave labor. That's straight up holocaust stuff. That's why I am wanting to make sure we agree on the details as to what exactly this El Salvador prison *is*. If you think its just kinda a prison, I can understand not minding him going back. If you share my impression of what this prison is, I would be surprised if you were comfortable deporting him. I've heard some bad things but I'm not as sympathetic to gang members. I am, however, against sending people who aren't violent criminals to prisons for violent criminals. Now, this guy disputes that he is in MS-13, and I find his statement for the need of asylum to be equally shaky, considering that's what everyone crossing the border was instructed to say. Asylum is valid, and part of the tragedy of letting it be abused for four years is that now most asylum claims, at least from our southern neighbors, are suspect. As you say, poverty is not a valid status for an asylum claim. Part of what I'm saying though, is this is all very selective. The porous border we had enabled the worst kind of human traffickers and abusers make money and enable their abuse by transporting people to be dumped along the border for an overwhelmed border patrol to pick up and care for the best we can. Meanwhile, the criminal activity and criminals let in also had a terrible effect on American citizens. Where was the outrage over the greater human suffering the debacle at the border enabled? Call it whataboutism if you want, but I'm telling you why sympathy over ONE person is not going to help, at best it seems opportunistic. So no, they should bring him back and probably deport him somewhere else (in El Salvador, if possible) when possible. And most of the people who support sending him to the prison probably do believe he was part of MS-13 (again, I am agnostic on that question). Thank you for the good reply. If you don't mind me continuing to pester you, I see value in us continuing to drill deeper and find the root of our disagreement. 1: You mentioned you've heard bad things about the prison. What bad things? As a token of good faith, I'll just describe my understanding and you can either indicate you accept my assessment or offer your own. But if you disagree, please be clear about your impression: It is a work camp where people will serve life sentences, performing labor or just being killed. 2: Whether or not this guy was in MS-13 appears to be a point of contention. Can you specify which information you are using to conclude he is from MS-13? My understanding is his immigration case from 2019 is currently in the process of being FISA'd. I am taking a "wait and see" until those court documents are available. But I do think its worth noting we need to have a reason to assume he is MS-13. It isn't enough for Trump to say he was MS-13. We need to have more than zero evidence. If there is something you are aware of, please help me understand. I think these 2 topics ultimately lead to any disagreements we have. You may describe if you wish but my understanding is that very few people actually *know* what goes on there. I could accept that it is unpleasant and probably would be illegal if run in the US. Again, I am against sending non-violent people there. I am always suspicious that what I'm reading is hyperbole, espeically since we have people who describe our own prisons as slave camps (most of the incarcerated people who fight fires in CA like doing it, just fyi). Now, I doubt it meets our standards, and so I would send only the worst of the worst there. I don't know if you need more than that. If they are MS-13 gang members (actually) I will do less weeping. If they aren't, then they should not be sent. I don't know what will happen to him there and I don't know why you think he isn't long for this world. Is that based on his supposed fear of retribution? This paragraph ties into my last paragraph as well. The MS-13 determination was made at some point in his process. Garcia came to the US illegally in 2012 and never tried to claim asylum until he was caught in 2019. That claim was denied and he was detained for a time based on information potentially tying him to gang activity (I don't recall if that was 2019 or earlier). When he was picked up more recently, he had an order regarding his potential deportation. Crucially, this order did not say he could not be deported, it said that he couldn't be deported to El Salvador. And this determination could of course he changed if his claim is found lacking. We have as much reason to believe he is in danger in El Salvador as we do that he is in MS-13. Supposedly the claim of his membership was made by a reliable but confidential source. That doesn't mean it's correct. So the short version is, Garcia is an El Salvadorian illegal immigrant with no right to be in the US, who tried to claim asylum but was denied, and may legally be deported, just not, apparently, to El Salvador. So the controversy to me really is just the last point, that they sent him somewhere where technically the immigration system said he could not be sent (yet). The framing about a "Maryland dad" is just the latest example of way the media frames things to purposefully miss the point. All that I said, I think the actual dispute here is what I mentioned before. People on the left are very concerned for this one guy and trying to make him into a hero and martyr. He isn't. And moreover this concern for humanity was strangely lacking when the border crisis was causing much more human suffering elsewhere. Instead, people were denying it was even happening until they had no choice (the same thing they did wrt Biden's mental state). For the upteenth time, it seems to be that he shouldn't have been sent to CECOT as a *legal* matter. Both sides are very good at altering their picture of reality, but I'm going to have to go with the side that is against an uncontrolled border and the side that thinks murdering healthcare CEOs in cold blood is wrong.
The fire camps is a voluntary position, they can't force prisoners to do it, and comes with benefits like being kept in nicer facilities with other perks, time cut off their sentence, and better pay for their work(although the pay is still garbage). Also, within the past few years, the restriction on the fire service against hiring former inmates were removed so after spending that time learning firefighting they can actually apply for public sector firefighting jobs instead of private fire brigades.
It isn't really comparable more compulsory work.
|
On April 16 2025 21:42 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2025 20:50 Billyboy wrote:
I agree, I also think the falling introvert conversation was interesting on like the meta level. You have two intelligent thoughtful guys who if given the same facts would likely come to the same conclusion. But here you can tell from all the media they take in they are making their conclusions off very different information.
Politics (and a bunch of other things) used to be where everyone would have the same facts, but you would disagree on the solutions. Or have different assumptions about the parts that were not known or whatever. But now we can't even agree on is going on in the first place. And I don't see a solution because if Falling sourced his points and Intro sourced his, likely neither would be moved because they don't trust the others sources. Both end up thinking the other is either misguided or worse actively lying and worst of all I see no solution or anyway this gets better. Falling is describing how the legal process is supposed to work while introvert sounds like a reasonable centrist because his position is more measured/thoughtful than the current administration's narrative when in reality it's insane to debate the ability to violate constitutional protections in the first place. A normal thing would be to discuss immigration policy reform, not how many crimes against humanity can we get away with to minimize the amount of non citizens in America.
I perhaps am naïve as mentioned, but I also live and interact with the most conservative people in Canada all day every day and most of them are not "bad" people. In a one on one conversation I can almost always find common beliefs. The big problem is that people like Introvert are giving the benefit of the doubt (probably underselling) to the Republican's and their mega phones. The rest are doing the same for the Democrats. I don't think this means aim for the middle because that is not working and it is clear to me as an outsider that one side is far more honest (but far from perfect) than the other side.
I also don't think that if everyone agreed on the facts that everyone would agree on the cause of the problems or the solutions. But I do think you could have actual good faith debates about it.
I think with the immigration issues there are some common ground from most of the people that have posted. That people who come in illegally, or over stay there visa should be forced to leave. That legal immigration is extremely important to western countries as we have a aging population and lots more work than we have people willing and able to do and many of these people bring huge value.
How to get rid of those people that are unwanted is the big challenge. And I think the philosophical part of how many are you OK with getting wrong to get most right. Like lets say the Dems are right on this guy, but the Reps are right on 99 others. Is that OK or not? What about 999-1 or 95-1? Where is the line?
One thing that I do think is absolutely atrocious and should be unarguable is when a mistake is made, you fucking correct it. You shouldn't need the supreme court, and you sure as hell should not go against the supreme court especially when it is stacked in your favour and goes 9-0 against you.
It is these types of reasons I can't give the Reps any benefit of the doubt and assume the worst, which I think is true for a lot of people. But they also have their own reasons for not trusting MSM or the Dems or whatever. The big societal question is how do we get over it and work together? Because the critical mass has been reached, there is no way one side "wins" at best it is a 60/40 split, probably closer. We can't keep cutting off our nose to spite our faces.
|
Uhm, the Republican point atm is "when in doubt - deport faster than any court can react".
There is no middle ground, they are authoritarians and have no issues with blatantly ignoring laws, the constitution, human rights, morals or anything that makes a society good, free and fair as long as its not hurting themselves.
They are therefor clearly not good people. At the very best they are uninformed morons that shouldn't vote because they obviously don't have a clue what they are voting for or about and no interest in changing that.
People that seem to have a clue, like some posting in here, that are still voting for this are therefore clearly plain authoritarians (read: evil).
|
The ways in which voters get their information have become important. Especially when they are from the uneducated segment. They like flashy explosions, aggressive rhetoric.
It‘s obvious that some forces in the US, which have risen to power, are not interested into maintaining legal and journalistic standards.
The streams of information are being sold to the highest bidder, packaged as entertainment, in conformity with what the current US president demands of them. They are run by a wealthy elite that wants to make you believe they are working against another wealthy elite. I assume they mean the likes of Bloomberg and Murdoch by that.
What can one do ? You can isolate yourself from these influences that are openly working to dismantle old frameworks designed to protect individuals from overreach of all kinds.
The presidents favourite pet even has the nerve to sue companies for refusing to advertise on his platform.
If that isn‘t the erosion of democracy in realtime I don‘t know what is.
|
On April 16 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:
It is these types of reasons I can't give the Reps any benefit of the doubt and assume the worst, which I think is true for a lot of people. But they also have their own reasons for not trusting MSM or the Dems or whatever. The big societal question is how do we get over it and work together? Because the critical mass has been reached, there is no way one side "wins" at best it is a 60/40 split, probably closer. We can't keep cutting off our nose to spite our faces.
So much "but the other side". So much false equivalence. So much "we need to work together"...
Work together with people who are perfectly OK with kidnapping and sending people to gulags with no due process. Work together with people who are trampling over free speech rights of students and punishing institutions by taking away their money over not censoring them hard enough. Working together with people who are gleefully cheering the complete mismanaging of the economy and alienating of almost every ally. With people who are on board with threatening neighbors with annexation and erasing the identities of trans people.
Jesus fucking christ.
|
On April 16 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2025 21:42 decafchicken wrote:On April 16 2025 20:50 Billyboy wrote:
I agree, I also think the falling introvert conversation was interesting on like the meta level. You have two intelligent thoughtful guys who if given the same facts would likely come to the same conclusion. But here you can tell from all the media they take in they are making their conclusions off very different information.
Politics (and a bunch of other things) used to be where everyone would have the same facts, but you would disagree on the solutions. Or have different assumptions about the parts that were not known or whatever. But now we can't even agree on is going on in the first place. And I don't see a solution because if Falling sourced his points and Intro sourced his, likely neither would be moved because they don't trust the others sources. Both end up thinking the other is either misguided or worse actively lying and worst of all I see no solution or anyway this gets better. Falling is describing how the legal process is supposed to work while introvert sounds like a reasonable centrist because his position is more measured/thoughtful than the current administration's narrative when in reality it's insane to debate the ability to violate constitutional protections in the first place. A normal thing would be to discuss immigration policy reform, not how many crimes against humanity can we get away with to minimize the amount of non citizens in America. I perhaps am naïve as mentioned, but I also live and interact with the most conservative people in Canada all day every day and most of them are not "bad" people. In a one on one conversation I can almost always find common beliefs. The big problem is that people like Introvert are giving the benefit of the doubt (probably underselling) to the Republican's and their mega phones. The rest are doing the same for the Democrats. I don't think this means aim for the middle because that is not working and it is clear to me as an outsider that one side is far more honest (but far from perfect) than the other side. I also don't think that if everyone agreed on the facts that everyone would agree on the cause of the problems or the solutions. But I do think you could have actual good faith debates about it. I think with the immigration issues there are some common ground from most of the people that have posted. That people who come in illegally, or over stay there visa should be forced to leave. That legal immigration is extremely important to western countries as we have a aging population and lots more work than we have people willing and able to do and many of these people bring huge value. How to get rid of those people that are unwanted is the big challenge. And I think the philosophical part of how many are you OK with getting wrong to get most right. Like lets say the Dems are right on this guy, but the Reps are right on 99 others. Is that OK or not? What about 999-1 or 95-1? Where is the line?
There is no philosophical ambiguity to navigate here. In America, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty via due process. Full stop. And even then, you can appeal your guilty verdict.
And if you do want to follow that line of reasoning, immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens and as you mentioned provide a ton of cheap labor for shitty jobs that other people don't want to do and also paid $100B in taxes for shit they'll mostly never benefit from. Getting rid of them en masse like this is wrong and bad for our economy
One thing that I do think is absolutely atrocious and should be unarguable is when a mistake is made, you fucking correct it. You shouldn't need the supreme court, and you sure as hell should not go against the supreme court especially when it is stacked in your favour and goes 9-0 against you.
It is these types of reasons I can't give the Reps any benefit of the doubt and assume the worst, which I think is true for a lot of people. But they also have their own reasons for not trusting MSM or the Dems or whatever. The big societal question is how do we get over it and work together? Because the critical mass has been reached, there is no way one side "wins" at best it is a 60/40 split, probably closer. We can't keep cutting off our nose to spite our faces.
The difference is most liberals and centrists do not give benefit of the doubt to the Democrats. The Dems did so poorly in the election because their base doesn't even like them and most of the voters are just voting against Trump. This is why Republicans do so well with the uneducated, evangelicals, etc. because those are the people less likely to think critically and just appeal to a glorified leader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
