|
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 June 10 2025 06:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2025 02:19 Simberto wrote:On June 10 2025 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:The president suggesting one of his czars arrest Democrat politicians isn't a sign of a healthy democracy, is it? WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday suggested that he would support an arrest of California Governor Gavin Newsom amid pro-immigration protests in the state, which prompted the president to deploy the National Guard.
On Saturday, Tom Homan, the administration's border czar, threatened to arrest anyone who obstructs immigration enforcement efforts in the state, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.
Newsom responded during an NBC News interview by challenging Homan to "just get it over with" and move ahead with the arrest.
Asked on Monday about Newsom daring Homan to arrest him, Trump said, "I would." www.yahoo.com No, totally a normal thing. Oh, okay, nothing to worry about then. It's normal in democracies for police to take aim and shoot (less lethal projectiles) at reporters too right? Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
Only a good guy with a camera can stop a bad guy with a gun...or something.
|
Northern Ireland24814 Posts
On June 10 2025 06:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 02:15 oBlade wrote:On June 10 2025 01:34 LightSpectra wrote:
Guy that resorts to whataboutisms, strawmen, Schrödinger reasoning every single post in lieu of reading sources people show him thinks a few fragments of out-of-context legal code is a killer reply to the Trump administration literally telling Congress and judges that they're not beholden to any law when it comes to anything even remotely related to foreign policy.
Nearest I can tell from the reference is you're talking about the administration's position that a court couldn't order the return of Garcia because courts can't order the executive branch to do certain foreign policy actions. That claim is largely true. The same reason a court can't order the president to declare war on a country, a court can't really order a prisoner exchange, a trade deal, or getting a prisoner back. The thing about Garcia is that because he was in El Salvador's custody at the request and agreement with the US, there's an argument that he was in constructive custody of the US no matter where he was physically. But the claim was not that the president doesn't have to follow any laws. It was that courts can't run foreign policy. If there wasn't any responsibility to the law he wouldn't have bothered fucking specifically going through the invocation of this and that law and title authority and naming them as using them. Since LA hasn't seceded yet, ICE raids there aren't foreign policy. So the Garcia case isn't directly relevant. Add any context you like. There's only one US Code. If you don't know how law works, which I would never suspect, basically whenever a law gets passed it gets squeezed into the code. So "US law" isn't the entire list of every bill that ever passed, it's the encyclopediafication of every part of every law that gets passed by subject and subsection. Basically the same information, but reorganized. Title 8 is the one about immigration. Another subsection of it is where it says people going through immigration proceedings can have a lawyer - but not at the expensive of the government. Really interesting. Does that mean the law broke its own due process? Miranda rights right? I thought everyone gets a free lawyer if they can't afford one? Well, that applies to crimes. Illegal immigration isn't one. Do you want to make it one? Then there'd be public defenders abound. Or if the Supreme Court ruled something like the 6th amendment right to counsel also applies to people in civil administrative immigration proceedings. If you look closer, you can find the sections that authorize when you can deport people without any trial or any hearing with an immigration judge. Legally. It's really cool. Want me to help you find them? On June 10 2025 01:42 LightSpectra wrote:On June 10 2025 01:33 Sadist wrote:
Im not trying to find a reasonable middle im just pointing out that we should be specific in what our issues are with ICE and what they are doing. Enforcing immigration law is not inherently evil. What can be evil is how you go about doing it etc Laws can be evil, and enforcing evil laws is evil. Nowadays we view the protesters who civilly disobeyed laws enforcing slavery and racial segregation as heroes, and the people who wrote and enforced those laws as being villains. Deporting an 11-year-old girl with brain cancer to a place she'll surely die is evil, even if it's lawful. This country was founded upon a rebellion against taxes, quartering, etc. that were completely lawful to impose on a British colony. It's wildly hypocritical to live in a civilization with all sorts of benefits that were procured by heroic people breaking unjust laws in the past while simultaneously saying "it's the law, there's nothing we can do" in the present. Paradoxically, laws can even be illegal, most easily backed up when the top court rules so. Less easily backed up by "That's UNLAWFUL!" immediately scrubbed by "Well, okay it's legal but out of context." The problem with the foreign policy defence of Garcia is that it allows the government to deport US citizens to a jail in a foreign country and then claim they don't have to return them because foreign policy. But you know this, you just don't give a shit because you rest easy in the knowledge that no Democratic president is going to kidnap you to a salvadory golag. Maybe that is the problem here...
I think the main problem is that the level of scrutiny vacillates to a crazy degree depending on who is doing what.
It would be like my partner getting out a microscope and detecting some stain invisible to the human eye after I had a friend over, and banning them from ever coming into the house again. But then her friend came over, squatted and took a shit right in her living room in front of both of us and that would be A-OK, for some reason.
Hey I’m more a morally motivated, spirit of the law kinda guy in how I judge things, but I think the letter of the law approach can be perfectly valid too. But if you’re going with that lens, you’ve even less room for inconsistency.
|
On June 10 2025 06:22 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 04:07 BlackJack wrote:On June 10 2025 03:02 WombaT wrote:On June 10 2025 02:20 BlackJack wrote:On June 10 2025 01:11 Sadist wrote:On June 10 2025 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2025 19:05 baal wrote:On June 04 2025 08:59 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah, its another example of republicans being experts in culture war at this point. They are the Sparta of culture war. They essentially normalize each other while also making each other look more reasonable in comparison. They each get to use each other as a "fall guy" to shed their baggage for some % of people.
This situation has made me realize why so many people thought TV wrestling was real. I always find it funny when people assume hyper competence from obviously very flawed politicians. Republicans think left wing ideologues infiltrated academia 40 years ago to infect young minds into the rise of socialist, and democrats think right wingers are brain washing young men with Joe Rogans and Andrew Tates but these things just happen organically. They are not playing 4D Chess, they are playing checkers and badly, but out biased belief systems make us too invested and thus too blind to see how badly they are actually playing. Yeah I don't think it's 4d chess, it's just checkers ( thought this sounded familiar) Wrestling is real. It's not a video game. Owen Hart actually died and getting hit actually hurts. They are however performers playing roles. Politicians are similar in that this is all a performance to them but real people are really getting hurt and dying as a consequence. Musk, Rogan, and Trump/his successor are going to dominate the Overton Window and libs will try to find policy that lands somewhere between those three with Rogan (generally) being the "advocate" for human rights. I don't even think they are doing this consciously, I think to them it really does feel like conflict. But more like friends trying to beat each other in a frivolous game than some sort of major clash. I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. + Show Spoiler + The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result. It's subtle, but it's there. On June 10 2025 00:33 Sadist wrote:On June 10 2025 00:02 Magic Powers wrote:On June 09 2025 23:45 Sadist wrote:On June 09 2025 23:26 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
They're not being brought to court for alleged crimes. They're brought to court for being immigrants, then the courts dismiss the claims, then they get arrested in spite of their case being dismissed. If they are legal immigrants obviously they should be left alone but if they are illegal immigrants IMO they should be detained even if the charges are dropped from an unrelated case. It should be done with some common decency like not roughing up people, talking to them like human beings, wearing uniforms without face coverings, etc. I would fully expect if I as an American was an illegal immigrant in another country I would get the boot if I was caught or charged with something unrelated. I disagree very strongly. There's a reason why cases get dismissed on the basis of police misconduct. This is meant to prevent abuse of authority. If protocol isn't being followed, the suspect can often simply go free, regardless of any proof of guilt. Same situation here. If ICE gets the desired result of deporting illegal immigrants by unlawfully snatching suspects of the streets, then not only is that in and of itself an illegal activity committed by ICE, but it also creates a situation where suspects are at a severe disadvantage due to not having sufficient legal representation (as mentioned in an earlier post of mine). If you allow one criminal activity, you allow two, and so forth. It results in perfectly legal immigrants being arrested and some of them even deported. On top of that it also creates an extremely hostile climate which leads to more violent protests, which leads to more violent enforcement, which is an escalation that helps absolutely no one. You cannot ever reward illegal behavior by the executive branch. If you do that, you create a police state, regardless of how many illegal migrants get deported at the end of it. This is completely unlawful, immoral and extremely damaging to the communities. By the way, it is estimated that illegal immigrants make up roughly 3% of the American population. Anyone arguing that these people are a problem is the real problem. I feel like we are talking past each other. I dont condone what it looks like ICE is doing. Im just pointing out that to an average american citizen, its going to be confusing why ICE apprehending someone at a court house is a big deal. IMO The big deal is no due process or the way they behave. Not the actual act of arresting someone who is illegal and deporting them after they get due process. Thinking ICE should exist is a right-wing position. Using phrases like "arresting someone who is illegal" is right wing. Im not right wing. Im not using words like undocumented immigrants or pretending like enforcing immigration law is right wing. Nice try, bud. You're not convincing us. You don't believe in open borders and you think enforcing immigration law is okay. You have failed the purity test. You are undeniably right-wing which by the way is also now synonymous with fascist, racist, misogynist and transphobic so enjoy those labels as well. It’s remarkable your capacity to interject in such a manner in a thread where people are largely saying the opposite. You think people are saying the opposite? LightSpectra says illegal immigrants should be deported if they've committed a felony. That's what? Maybe 2% of illegal immigrants? A felony is a serious crime which maybe calls for a more serious punishment than "alright mister, you're going to have to leave now." You think GH is on board with deporting people that are living here illegally? Seriously? Sadist has been in on TL longer than anyone in this thread and he's also been a left/center-left guy the entire time. Insisting he's pushing right-wing trash for his position that, paraphrasing, "Trump/ICE are going about this all wrong but if you're living in a country illegally you shouldn't expect to be allowed to stay" is absurd. This comes after someone accused GH of pushing right-wing propaganda that Kamala Harris is a "DEI-Hire" for his opinion that she's not a good politician/candidate. In Gavin Newsom's latest podcast he talks about having close friends that now won't speak to him because of the crime of calling biological males in women's sports "an issue of fairness" and believing it's unfair to allow biological males compete against women. This is a guy that basically paved the way for gay marriage by ordering marriage licenses to be issues to same-sex couples in 2004 when it was still illegal in his state and around the country. He's what you might call an "ally" to the LGBT movement but now he's being called a transphobe for his radical position that women's spaces are for women. Jon Stewart said he faced an immediate and intense backlash for the absurd position of believing the wuhan coronavirus pandemic originated in the wuhan lab that studies coronaviruses. Crazy, I know. Same for Bill Maher who often talks about getting accused of joining MAGA anytime he strays from modern leftist ideology despite the fact he has been a lifelong liberal with unchanged beliefs. It's pushing people out of their party and it's losing elections. Joe Rogan used to be a pot-smoking Bernie Sanders supporter. Elon Musk was a relatively apolitical environmentalist. Now they are perhaps the two biggest people to help Trump get elected. The Republicans already had their civil war of sorts and unfortunately the crazy side won and Liz Cheney is no more. The rest of them have fallen in line behind Trump. The left needs to sort out their schism and hopefully this time the crazy side will lose but based on how the moderates kowtow to them I doubt it. GH said something, everyone else who commented on not wanting illegal immigration not being innately right-wing disagreed with him. I personally disagree a bit with him there, although didn’t write a post/have a few caveats. Aside from the cultural friction, we don’t live under Marxism In a thread that largely leans centre left thru further left, folks on that specific point were behaving largely the opposite way to your snarky generalisation. Sure, those things can also be pretty prevalent more widely, but my point is why inject them back in when people are not exhibiting the behaviour that you find objectionable?
Nobody really pushed back on the idea that having immigration enforcement is a right-wing idea. In fact I think you would be hard pressed to find many in this thread that think anyone living here illegally should be deported unless they've committed a serious crime.
Last time you told me that nobody in this thread is in favor of vandalising Teslas and then your own poll quickly proved you wrong so maybe I have a better finger on the pulse of this thread than you?
Case in point the post directly above yours where Kwark says "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun." What do you think that means? Similar to his posts that "it's not illegal to shoot someone if you're in fear for your life" or "The solution to end a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS is obvious" (paraphrasing these last 2 as I don't remember them exactly). Do you need me to decode these things from Kwarkian to describe what he's getting at?
Forget believing that enforcing immigration law is right-wing or racist or nazism. There is, imo, at least one person in this thread that thinks ICE are enemy combatants and legitimate targets. So spare me the "nobody here thinks like that" posts.
|
Northern Ireland24814 Posts
On June 10 2025 07:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 06:20 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2025 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2025 02:19 Simberto wrote:On June 10 2025 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:The president suggesting one of his czars arrest Democrat politicians isn't a sign of a healthy democracy, is it? WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday suggested that he would support an arrest of California Governor Gavin Newsom amid pro-immigration protests in the state, which prompted the president to deploy the National Guard.
On Saturday, Tom Homan, the administration's border czar, threatened to arrest anyone who obstructs immigration enforcement efforts in the state, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.
Newsom responded during an NBC News interview by challenging Homan to "just get it over with" and move ahead with the arrest.
Asked on Monday about Newsom daring Homan to arrest him, Trump said, "I would." www.yahoo.com No, totally a normal thing. Oh, okay, nothing to worry about then. It's normal in democracies for police to take aim and shoot (less lethal projectiles) at reporters too right? https://twitter.com/PopCrave/status/1931940182191923223 Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Only a good guy with a camera can stop a bad guy with a gun...or something.
What if the bad guy is a vampire? I’m assuming given they really struggle with doing their hair, keeping their facial hair stylish etc given their inability to use mirrors that cameras are also ineffective on them.
Although I suppose this is somewhat mitigated by vampires only being able to riot after the sun goes down.
|
United States42428 Posts
On June 10 2025 07:49 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 06:22 WombaT wrote:On June 10 2025 04:07 BlackJack wrote:On June 10 2025 03:02 WombaT wrote:On June 10 2025 02:20 BlackJack wrote:On June 10 2025 01:11 Sadist wrote:On June 10 2025 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2025 19:05 baal wrote:
[quote]
I always find it funny when people assume hyper competence from obviously very flawed politicians.
Republicans think left wing ideologues infiltrated academia 40 years ago to infect young minds into the rise of socialist, and democrats think right wingers are brain washing young men with Joe Rogans and Andrew Tates but these things just happen organically.
They are not playing 4D Chess, they are playing checkers and badly, but out biased belief systems make us too invested and thus too blind to see how badly they are actually playing.
Yeah I don't think it's 4d chess, it's just checkers ( thought this sounded familiar) Wrestling is real. It's not a video game. Owen Hart actually died and getting hit actually hurts. They are however performers playing roles. Politicians are similar in that this is all a performance to them but real people are really getting hurt and dying as a consequence. Musk, Rogan, and Trump/his successor are going to dominate the Overton Window and libs will try to find policy that lands somewhere between those three with Rogan (generally) being the "advocate" for human rights. I don't even think they are doing this consciously, I think to them it really does feel like conflict. But more like friends trying to beat each other in a frivolous game than some sort of major clash. I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. + Show Spoiler + The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result. It's subtle, but it's there. On June 10 2025 00:33 Sadist wrote:On June 10 2025 00:02 Magic Powers wrote:On June 09 2025 23:45 Sadist wrote:
[quote]
If they are legal immigrants obviously they should be left alone but if they are illegal immigrants IMO they should be detained even if the charges are dropped from an unrelated case. It should be done with some common decency like not roughing up people, talking to them like human beings, wearing uniforms without face coverings, etc. I would fully expect if I as an American was an illegal immigrant in another country I would get the boot if I was caught or charged with something unrelated.
I disagree very strongly. There's a reason why cases get dismissed on the basis of police misconduct. This is meant to prevent abuse of authority. If protocol isn't being followed, the suspect can often simply go free, regardless of any proof of guilt. Same situation here. If ICE gets the desired result of deporting illegal immigrants by unlawfully snatching suspects of the streets, then not only is that in and of itself an illegal activity committed by ICE, but it also creates a situation where suspects are at a severe disadvantage due to not having sufficient legal representation (as mentioned in an earlier post of mine). If you allow one criminal activity, you allow two, and so forth. It results in perfectly legal immigrants being arrested and some of them even deported. On top of that it also creates an extremely hostile climate which leads to more violent protests, which leads to more violent enforcement, which is an escalation that helps absolutely no one. You cannot ever reward illegal behavior by the executive branch. If you do that, you create a police state, regardless of how many illegal migrants get deported at the end of it. This is completely unlawful, immoral and extremely damaging to the communities. By the way, it is estimated that illegal immigrants make up roughly 3% of the American population. Anyone arguing that these people are a problem is the real problem. I feel like we are talking past each other. I dont condone what it looks like ICE is doing. Im just pointing out that to an average american citizen, its going to be confusing why ICE apprehending someone at a court house is a big deal. IMO The big deal is no due process or the way they behave. Not the actual act of arresting someone who is illegal and deporting them after they get due process. Thinking ICE should exist is a right-wing position. Using phrases like "arresting someone who is illegal" is right wing. Im not right wing. Im not using words like undocumented immigrants or pretending like enforcing immigration law is right wing. Nice try, bud. You're not convincing us. You don't believe in open borders and you think enforcing immigration law is okay. You have failed the purity test. You are undeniably right-wing which by the way is also now synonymous with fascist, racist, misogynist and transphobic so enjoy those labels as well. It’s remarkable your capacity to interject in such a manner in a thread where people are largely saying the opposite. You think people are saying the opposite? LightSpectra says illegal immigrants should be deported if they've committed a felony. That's what? Maybe 2% of illegal immigrants? A felony is a serious crime which maybe calls for a more serious punishment than "alright mister, you're going to have to leave now." You think GH is on board with deporting people that are living here illegally? Seriously? Sadist has been in on TL longer than anyone in this thread and he's also been a left/center-left guy the entire time. Insisting he's pushing right-wing trash for his position that, paraphrasing, "Trump/ICE are going about this all wrong but if you're living in a country illegally you shouldn't expect to be allowed to stay" is absurd. This comes after someone accused GH of pushing right-wing propaganda that Kamala Harris is a "DEI-Hire" for his opinion that she's not a good politician/candidate. In Gavin Newsom's latest podcast he talks about having close friends that now won't speak to him because of the crime of calling biological males in women's sports "an issue of fairness" and believing it's unfair to allow biological males compete against women. This is a guy that basically paved the way for gay marriage by ordering marriage licenses to be issues to same-sex couples in 2004 when it was still illegal in his state and around the country. He's what you might call an "ally" to the LGBT movement but now he's being called a transphobe for his radical position that women's spaces are for women. Jon Stewart said he faced an immediate and intense backlash for the absurd position of believing the wuhan coronavirus pandemic originated in the wuhan lab that studies coronaviruses. Crazy, I know. Same for Bill Maher who often talks about getting accused of joining MAGA anytime he strays from modern leftist ideology despite the fact he has been a lifelong liberal with unchanged beliefs. It's pushing people out of their party and it's losing elections. Joe Rogan used to be a pot-smoking Bernie Sanders supporter. Elon Musk was a relatively apolitical environmentalist. Now they are perhaps the two biggest people to help Trump get elected. The Republicans already had their civil war of sorts and unfortunately the crazy side won and Liz Cheney is no more. The rest of them have fallen in line behind Trump. The left needs to sort out their schism and hopefully this time the crazy side will lose but based on how the moderates kowtow to them I doubt it. GH said something, everyone else who commented on not wanting illegal immigration not being innately right-wing disagreed with him. I personally disagree a bit with him there, although didn’t write a post/have a few caveats. Aside from the cultural friction, we don’t live under Marxism In a thread that largely leans centre left thru further left, folks on that specific point were behaving largely the opposite way to your snarky generalisation. Sure, those things can also be pretty prevalent more widely, but my point is why inject them back in when people are not exhibiting the behaviour that you find objectionable? Nobody really pushed back on the idea that having immigration enforcement is a right-wing idea. In fact I think you would be hard pressed to find many in this thread that think anyone living here illegally should be deported unless they've committed a serious crime. Last time you told me that nobody in this thread is in favor of vandalising Teslas and then your own poll quickly proved you wrong so maybe I have a better finger on the pulse of this thread than you? Case in point the post directly above yours where Kwark says "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun." What do you think that means? Similar to his posts that "it's not illegal to shoot someone if you're in fear for your life" or "The solution to end a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS is obvious" (paraphrasing these last 2 as I don't remember them exactly). Do you need me to decode these things from Kwarkian to describe what he's getting at? Forget believing that enforcing immigration law is right-wing or racist or nazism. There is, imo, at least one person in this thread that thinks ICE are enemy combatants and legitimate targets. So spare me the "nobody here thinks like that" posts.
There’s a colossal gulf between common sense immigration policy and a LAPD officer shooting an Australian journalist in the back with rubber bullets and it’s really weird that you can’t see that. Remarking on the impunity with which the LAPD operate is not a call for open borders and you’re the only person who would ever pretend that it was.
|
Northern Ireland24814 Posts
I have a bad history with polls, they usually actively disprove my intuition, but hey nout wrong with data.
Also for this hypothetical poll, we’re assuming some relatively benign detection and enforcement mechanisms
Poll: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation?Yes (14) 70% No (6) 30% 20 total votes Your vote: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
While I am saddened by the fact that BlackJack tends to reduce his own thoughts to quips and snark, I do view him as a good example of how immigration ends up being a purity test that goes beyond what the testers themselves actually support or want.
For example, while I am sure some people would want this, a huge majority would not: The US declares all humans are US citizens and they can all decide to live in the US as all current US citizens do. All border-related business is ceased. No barriers to entry.
People on the left know they don't want what Trump is doing. But I often find no one on the left is comfortable saying something Trump has done is good. Its like its never ok to specify a situation when someone should be deported.
I think democrats suffer in this way the same way republicans suffer from their perspective on abortion. They are so wildly pissed off about the topic they have lost their ability to see nuance or middle ground or whatever. There's just so much baggage attached to it, its no longer possible to be reasonable.
Directly addressing the BlackJack situation: It seems like he can't voice anything other than complete rejection of Trump's immigration policies without being directly related to Trump and everything Trump does.
Let's say Trump is "10" and the left is "1". If BlackJack describes 2, he is labeled as 10.
|
United States42428 Posts
On June 10 2025 07:56 WombaT wrote:I have a bad history with polls, they usually actively disprove my intuition, but hey nout wrong with data. Also for this hypothetical poll, we’re assuming some relatively benign detection and enforcement mechanisms Poll: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation?Yes (14) 70% No (6) 30% 20 total votes Your vote: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Yes, they should be deported. But they should be deported humanely, lawfully, to their home countries, and subject to appeal. So if the person is a citizen then they get a chance to tell that to a judge, even if ICE have them mixed up with a non citizen.
A process whereby someone the state identifies as a non citizen is seized in secret and sent to a foreign prison in secret without the knowledge of their family and without access to any legal recourse is just disappearing people. We have rules that govern the state monopoly on violence, there are legal limits to what they can do. If the police arrest you then you have to go with them and plead your innocence to a court. If secret police try to disappear you then they’re acting outside of the scope of the social contract and you don’t have to do shit.
The foreign prison part is bananas because of their insistence on a loophole that the foreign part exempts it from the judicial system because foreign = executive. Indefinite imprisonment without trial is not the same thing as border control.
|
United States42428 Posts
On June 10 2025 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:
While I am saddened by the fact that BlackJack tends to reduce his own thoughts to quips and snark, I do view him as a good example of how immigration ends up being a purity test that goes beyond what the testers themselves actually support or want.
For example, while I am sure some people would want this, a huge majority would not: The US declares all humans are US citizens and they can all decide to live in the US as all current US citizens do. All border-related business is ceased. No barriers to entry.
People on the left know they don't want what Trump is doing. But I often find no one on the left is comfortable saying something Trump has done is good. Its like its never ok to specify a situation when someone should be deported.
I think democrats suffer in this way the same way republicans suffer from their perspective on abortion. They are so wildly pissed off about the topic they have lost their ability to see nuance or middle ground or whatever. There's just so much baggage attached to it, its no longer possible to be reasonable.
Directly addressing the BlackJack situation: It seems like he can't voice anything other than complete rejection of Trump's immigration policies without being directly related to Trump and everything Trump does.
Let's say Trump is "10" and the left is "1". If BlackJack describes 2, he is labeled as 10.
What Trump is doing has basically nothing to do with border control. You’re falling into blackjack’s trap by accepting the premise that it does.
Consider the Stalinist purges and the quotas of counterrevolutionaries that Soviet leadership were handed. Let’s say in your city you are told to find, round up, and shoot 15,000 counterrevolutionaries. You want to impress the boss so you do 20,000. Is the revolution now 33% more secure? Blackjack would say “yes”. There was a stated aim and you worked in alignment with that aim and therefore you were fulfilling it and therefore any criticism of it must be counterrevolutionary. Someone saying “where did that 15,000 number come from?” or “how did you find another 5,000?” or “what criteria did these people meet?” is an agent of the enemy.
|
Northern Ireland24814 Posts
On June 10 2025 07:49 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 06:22 WombaT wrote:On June 10 2025 04:07 BlackJack wrote:On June 10 2025 03:02 WombaT wrote:On June 10 2025 02:20 BlackJack wrote:On June 10 2025 01:11 Sadist wrote:On June 10 2025 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2025 19:05 baal wrote:
[quote]
I always find it funny when people assume hyper competence from obviously very flawed politicians.
Republicans think left wing ideologues infiltrated academia 40 years ago to infect young minds into the rise of socialist, and democrats think right wingers are brain washing young men with Joe Rogans and Andrew Tates but these things just happen organically.
They are not playing 4D Chess, they are playing checkers and badly, but out biased belief systems make us too invested and thus too blind to see how badly they are actually playing.
Yeah I don't think it's 4d chess, it's just checkers ( thought this sounded familiar) Wrestling is real. It's not a video game. Owen Hart actually died and getting hit actually hurts. They are however performers playing roles. Politicians are similar in that this is all a performance to them but real people are really getting hurt and dying as a consequence. Musk, Rogan, and Trump/his successor are going to dominate the Overton Window and libs will try to find policy that lands somewhere between those three with Rogan (generally) being the "advocate" for human rights. I don't even think they are doing this consciously, I think to them it really does feel like conflict. But more like friends trying to beat each other in a frivolous game than some sort of major clash. I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. + Show Spoiler + The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result. It's subtle, but it's there. On June 10 2025 00:33 Sadist wrote:On June 10 2025 00:02 Magic Powers wrote:On June 09 2025 23:45 Sadist wrote:
[quote]
If they are legal immigrants obviously they should be left alone but if they are illegal immigrants IMO they should be detained even if the charges are dropped from an unrelated case. It should be done with some common decency like not roughing up people, talking to them like human beings, wearing uniforms without face coverings, etc. I would fully expect if I as an American was an illegal immigrant in another country I would get the boot if I was caught or charged with something unrelated.
I disagree very strongly. There's a reason why cases get dismissed on the basis of police misconduct. This is meant to prevent abuse of authority. If protocol isn't being followed, the suspect can often simply go free, regardless of any proof of guilt. Same situation here. If ICE gets the desired result of deporting illegal immigrants by unlawfully snatching suspects of the streets, then not only is that in and of itself an illegal activity committed by ICE, but it also creates a situation where suspects are at a severe disadvantage due to not having sufficient legal representation (as mentioned in an earlier post of mine). If you allow one criminal activity, you allow two, and so forth. It results in perfectly legal immigrants being arrested and some of them even deported. On top of that it also creates an extremely hostile climate which leads to more violent protests, which leads to more violent enforcement, which is an escalation that helps absolutely no one. You cannot ever reward illegal behavior by the executive branch. If you do that, you create a police state, regardless of how many illegal migrants get deported at the end of it. This is completely unlawful, immoral and extremely damaging to the communities. By the way, it is estimated that illegal immigrants make up roughly 3% of the American population. Anyone arguing that these people are a problem is the real problem. I feel like we are talking past each other. I dont condone what it looks like ICE is doing. Im just pointing out that to an average american citizen, its going to be confusing why ICE apprehending someone at a court house is a big deal. IMO The big deal is no due process or the way they behave. Not the actual act of arresting someone who is illegal and deporting them after they get due process. Thinking ICE should exist is a right-wing position. Using phrases like "arresting someone who is illegal" is right wing. Im not right wing. Im not using words like undocumented immigrants or pretending like enforcing immigration law is right wing. Nice try, bud. You're not convincing us. You don't believe in open borders and you think enforcing immigration law is okay. You have failed the purity test. You are undeniably right-wing which by the way is also now synonymous with fascist, racist, misogynist and transphobic so enjoy those labels as well. It’s remarkable your capacity to interject in such a manner in a thread where people are largely saying the opposite. You think people are saying the opposite? LightSpectra says illegal immigrants should be deported if they've committed a felony. That's what? Maybe 2% of illegal immigrants? A felony is a serious crime which maybe calls for a more serious punishment than "alright mister, you're going to have to leave now." You think GH is on board with deporting people that are living here illegally? Seriously? Sadist has been in on TL longer than anyone in this thread and he's also been a left/center-left guy the entire time. Insisting he's pushing right-wing trash for his position that, paraphrasing, "Trump/ICE are going about this all wrong but if you're living in a country illegally you shouldn't expect to be allowed to stay" is absurd. This comes after someone accused GH of pushing right-wing propaganda that Kamala Harris is a "DEI-Hire" for his opinion that she's not a good politician/candidate. In Gavin Newsom's latest podcast he talks about having close friends that now won't speak to him because of the crime of calling biological males in women's sports "an issue of fairness" and believing it's unfair to allow biological males compete against women. This is a guy that basically paved the way for gay marriage by ordering marriage licenses to be issues to same-sex couples in 2004 when it was still illegal in his state and around the country. He's what you might call an "ally" to the LGBT movement but now he's being called a transphobe for his radical position that women's spaces are for women. Jon Stewart said he faced an immediate and intense backlash for the absurd position of believing the wuhan coronavirus pandemic originated in the wuhan lab that studies coronaviruses. Crazy, I know. Same for Bill Maher who often talks about getting accused of joining MAGA anytime he strays from modern leftist ideology despite the fact he has been a lifelong liberal with unchanged beliefs. It's pushing people out of their party and it's losing elections. Joe Rogan used to be a pot-smoking Bernie Sanders supporter. Elon Musk was a relatively apolitical environmentalist. Now they are perhaps the two biggest people to help Trump get elected. The Republicans already had their civil war of sorts and unfortunately the crazy side won and Liz Cheney is no more. The rest of them have fallen in line behind Trump. The left needs to sort out their schism and hopefully this time the crazy side will lose but based on how the moderates kowtow to them I doubt it. GH said something, everyone else who commented on not wanting illegal immigration not being innately right-wing disagreed with him. I personally disagree a bit with him there, although didn’t write a post/have a few caveats. Aside from the cultural friction, we don’t live under Marxism In a thread that largely leans centre left thru further left, folks on that specific point were behaving largely the opposite way to your snarky generalisation. Sure, those things can also be pretty prevalent more widely, but my point is why inject them back in when people are not exhibiting the behaviour that you find objectionable? Nobody really pushed back on the idea that having immigration enforcement is a right-wing idea. In fact I think you would be hard pressed to find many in this thread that think anyone living here illegally should be deported unless they've committed a serious crime. Last time you told me that nobody in this thread is in favor of vandalising Teslas and then your own poll quickly proved you wrong so maybe I have a better finger on the pulse of this thread than you? Case in point the post directly above yours where Kwark says "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun." What do you think that means? Similar to his posts that "it's not illegal to shoot someone if you're in fear for your life" or "The solution to end a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS is obvious" (paraphrasing these last 2 as I don't remember them exactly). Do you need me to decode these things from Kwarkian to describe what he's getting at? Forget believing that enforcing immigration law is right-wing or racist or nazism. There is, imo, at least one person in this thread that thinks ICE are enemy combatants and legitimate targets. So spare me the "nobody here thinks like that" posts.
I never said nobody here thinks that.
Indeed, definitionally by saying that GH did say that, I am immediately conceding that a non-zero amount of people have that position.
Subsequently, nobody has expressed agreement with that sentiment. They’ve either not posted if they do, or if they have posted they have disagreed.
I’ll stick a wee poll up, if I’m wrong I’m wrong. Although I also never claimed with the Tesla vandalism that nobody thought that it was reasonable, merely that I didn’t think it was the majority in thread. I also consistently argued that I thought it was a practice that was neither morally justifiable, nor immoral but pragmatically useful. Which seems to be exactly what you’re looking for with ’The left needs to sort out their schism and hopefully this time the crazy side will lose but based on how the moderates kowtow to them I doubt it.’ Granted I wouldn’t consider myself a moderate, but even better no?
Kwark gonna Kwark man. If my Kwarkian isn’t too rusty yeah I know what he’s getting at. I don’t think he’s wrong though on any of those. I don’t even think he’s wrong on Israel/Palestine, even though his read is basically the diametric opposite of what I’d ideally like to see, I think realistically he’s probably correct. But it’s not as if he’s particularly desiring these states to be the case, or in an ideal world wants to chuck hand grenades into the Supreme Court.
|
Just so there's no misunderstanding, we've been talking about two different things at the same time:
1) Should nonfelonious undocumented immigrants be deported? I say no, but I'm well aware that's a minority opinion in my country right now and haven't pretended otherwise.
2) Should accused undocumented immigrants receive due process? Overwhelming majority say yes, even a majority of Republicans.
The protests in Los Angeles and elsewhere are about #2, not #1. Anyone pretending otherwise is trying to bait-and-switch and should be ignored.
|
On June 10 2025 07:51 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 07:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 10 2025 06:20 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2025 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2025 02:19 Simberto wrote:On June 10 2025 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:The president suggesting one of his czars arrest Democrat politicians isn't a sign of a healthy democracy, is it? WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday suggested that he would support an arrest of California Governor Gavin Newsom amid pro-immigration protests in the state, which prompted the president to deploy the National Guard.
On Saturday, Tom Homan, the administration's border czar, threatened to arrest anyone who obstructs immigration enforcement efforts in the state, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.
Newsom responded during an NBC News interview by challenging Homan to "just get it over with" and move ahead with the arrest.
Asked on Monday about Newsom daring Homan to arrest him, Trump said, "I would." www.yahoo.com No, totally a normal thing. Oh, okay, nothing to worry about then. It's normal in democracies for police to take aim and shoot (less lethal projectiles) at reporters too right? https://twitter.com/PopCrave/status/1931940182191923223 Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Only a good guy with a camera can stop a bad guy with a gun...or something. What if the bad guy is a vampire?
Judging from last year events, you just need to debate him...
On June 10 2025 07:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 07:49 BlackJack wrote:On June 10 2025 06:22 WombaT wrote:On June 10 2025 04:07 BlackJack wrote:On June 10 2025 03:02 WombaT wrote:On June 10 2025 02:20 BlackJack wrote:On June 10 2025 01:11 Sadist wrote:On June 10 2025 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Yeah I don't think it's 4d chess, it's just checkers ( thought this sounded familiar) Wrestling is real. It's not a video game. Owen Hart actually died and getting hit actually hurts. They are however performers playing roles. Politicians are similar in that this is all a performance to them but real people are really getting hurt and dying as a consequence. Musk, Rogan, and Trump/his successor are going to dominate the Overton Window and libs will try to find policy that lands somewhere between those three with Rogan (generally) being the "advocate" for human rights. I don't even think they are doing this consciously, I think to them it really does feel like conflict. But more like friends trying to beat each other in a frivolous game than some sort of major clash. I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. + Show Spoiler + The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result. It's subtle, but it's there. On June 10 2025 00:33 Sadist wrote:On June 10 2025 00:02 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
I disagree very strongly. There's a reason why cases get dismissed on the basis of police misconduct. This is meant to prevent abuse of authority. If protocol isn't being followed, the suspect can often simply go free, regardless of any proof of guilt.
Same situation here. If ICE gets the desired result of deporting illegal immigrants by unlawfully snatching suspects of the streets, then not only is that in and of itself an illegal activity committed by ICE, but it also creates a situation where suspects are at a severe disadvantage due to not having sufficient legal representation (as mentioned in an earlier post of mine). If you allow one criminal activity, you allow two, and so forth. It results in perfectly legal immigrants being arrested and some of them even deported.
On top of that it also creates an extremely hostile climate which leads to more violent protests, which leads to more violent enforcement, which is an escalation that helps absolutely no one.
You cannot ever reward illegal behavior by the executive branch. If you do that, you create a police state, regardless of how many illegal migrants get deported at the end of it. This is completely unlawful, immoral and extremely damaging to the communities.
By the way, it is estimated that illegal immigrants make up roughly 3% of the American population.
Anyone arguing that these people are a problem is the real problem. I feel like we are talking past each other. I dont condone what it looks like ICE is doing. Im just pointing out that to an average american citizen, its going to be confusing why ICE apprehending someone at a court house is a big deal. IMO The big deal is no due process or the way they behave. Not the actual act of arresting someone who is illegal and deporting them after they get due process. Thinking ICE should exist is a right-wing position. Using phrases like "arresting someone who is illegal" is right wing. Im not right wing. Im not using words like undocumented immigrants or pretending like enforcing immigration law is right wing. Nice try, bud. You're not convincing us. You don't believe in open borders and you think enforcing immigration law is okay. You have failed the purity test. You are undeniably right-wing which by the way is also now synonymous with fascist, racist, misogynist and transphobic so enjoy those labels as well. It’s remarkable your capacity to interject in such a manner in a thread where people are largely saying the opposite. You think people are saying the opposite? LightSpectra says illegal immigrants should be deported if they've committed a felony. That's what? Maybe 2% of illegal immigrants? A felony is a serious crime which maybe calls for a more serious punishment than "alright mister, you're going to have to leave now." You think GH is on board with deporting people that are living here illegally? Seriously? Sadist has been in on TL longer than anyone in this thread and he's also been a left/center-left guy the entire time. Insisting he's pushing right-wing trash for his position that, paraphrasing, "Trump/ICE are going about this all wrong but if you're living in a country illegally you shouldn't expect to be allowed to stay" is absurd. This comes after someone accused GH of pushing right-wing propaganda that Kamala Harris is a "DEI-Hire" for his opinion that she's not a good politician/candidate. In Gavin Newsom's latest podcast he talks about having close friends that now won't speak to him because of the crime of calling biological males in women's sports "an issue of fairness" and believing it's unfair to allow biological males compete against women. This is a guy that basically paved the way for gay marriage by ordering marriage licenses to be issues to same-sex couples in 2004 when it was still illegal in his state and around the country. He's what you might call an "ally" to the LGBT movement but now he's being called a transphobe for his radical position that women's spaces are for women. Jon Stewart said he faced an immediate and intense backlash for the absurd position of believing the wuhan coronavirus pandemic originated in the wuhan lab that studies coronaviruses. Crazy, I know. Same for Bill Maher who often talks about getting accused of joining MAGA anytime he strays from modern leftist ideology despite the fact he has been a lifelong liberal with unchanged beliefs. It's pushing people out of their party and it's losing elections. Joe Rogan used to be a pot-smoking Bernie Sanders supporter. Elon Musk was a relatively apolitical environmentalist. Now they are perhaps the two biggest people to help Trump get elected. The Republicans already had their civil war of sorts and unfortunately the crazy side won and Liz Cheney is no more. The rest of them have fallen in line behind Trump. The left needs to sort out their schism and hopefully this time the crazy side will lose but based on how the moderates kowtow to them I doubt it. GH said something, everyone else who commented on not wanting illegal immigration not being innately right-wing disagreed with him. I personally disagree a bit with him there, although didn’t write a post/have a few caveats. Aside from the cultural friction, we don’t live under Marxism In a thread that largely leans centre left thru further left, folks on that specific point were behaving largely the opposite way to your snarky generalisation. Sure, those things can also be pretty prevalent more widely, but my point is why inject them back in when people are not exhibiting the behaviour that you find objectionable? Nobody really pushed back on the idea that having immigration enforcement is a right-wing idea. In fact I think you would be hard pressed to find many in this thread that think anyone living here illegally should be deported unless they've committed a serious crime. Last time you told me that nobody in this thread is in favor of vandalising Teslas and then your own poll quickly proved you wrong so maybe I have a better finger on the pulse of this thread than you? Case in point the post directly above yours where Kwark says "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun." What do you think that means? Similar to his posts that "it's not illegal to shoot someone if you're in fear for your life" or "The solution to end a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS is obvious" (paraphrasing these last 2 as I don't remember them exactly). Do you need me to decode these things from Kwarkian to describe what he's getting at? Forget believing that enforcing immigration law is right-wing or racist or nazism. There is, imo, at least one person in this thread that thinks ICE are enemy combatants and legitimate targets. So spare me the "nobody here thinks like that" posts. There’s a colossal gulf between common sense immigration policy and a LAPD officer shooting an Australian journalist in the back with rubber bullets and it’s really weird that you can’t see that. Remarking on the impunity with which the LAPD operate is not a call for open borders and you’re the only person who would ever pretend that it was.
This alleges that LAPD officer was actively targeting person he knew to be journalist. It may have been the case, but I am doubtful.
On June 10 2025 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:
While I am saddened by the fact that BlackJack tends to reduce his own thoughts to quips and snark, I do view him as a good example of how immigration ends up being a purity test that goes beyond what the testers themselves actually support or want.
For example, while I am sure some people would want this, a huge majority would not: The US declares all humans are US citizens and they can all decide to live in the US as all current US citizens do. All border-related business is ceased. No barriers to entry.
People on the left know they don't want what Trump is doing. But I often find no one on the left is comfortable saying something Trump has done is good. Its like its never ok to specify a situation when someone should be deported.
I think democrats suffer in this way the same way republicans suffer from their perspective on abortion. They are so wildly pissed off about the topic they have lost their ability to see nuance or middle ground or whatever. There's just so much baggage attached to it, its no longer possible to be reasonable.
Directly addressing the BlackJack situation: It seems like he can't voice anything other than complete rejection of Trump's immigration policies without being directly related to Trump and everything Trump does.
Let's say Trump is "10" and the left is "1". If BlackJack describes 2, he is labeled as 10.
Shockingly I find this a reasonable take.
|
What are you talking about? the lady was giving an interview into a news camera, she had her back to the cop which means that he saw the camera crew and the giant camera, then lined up to shoot directly at her. It wasn't a long range random shot he paused, saw the camera and the lady speaking into it, then brought his launcher up and to her.
|
On June 10 2025 08:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:
While I am saddened by the fact that BlackJack tends to reduce his own thoughts to quips and snark, I do view him as a good example of how immigration ends up being a purity test that goes beyond what the testers themselves actually support or want.
For example, while I am sure some people would want this, a huge majority would not: The US declares all humans are US citizens and they can all decide to live in the US as all current US citizens do. All border-related business is ceased. No barriers to entry.
People on the left know they don't want what Trump is doing. But I often find no one on the left is comfortable saying something Trump has done is good. Its like its never ok to specify a situation when someone should be deported.
I think democrats suffer in this way the same way republicans suffer from their perspective on abortion. They are so wildly pissed off about the topic they have lost their ability to see nuance or middle ground or whatever. There's just so much baggage attached to it, its no longer possible to be reasonable.
Directly addressing the BlackJack situation: It seems like he can't voice anything other than complete rejection of Trump's immigration policies without being directly related to Trump and everything Trump does.
Let's say Trump is "10" and the left is "1". If BlackJack describes 2, he is labeled as 10. What Trump is doing has basically nothing to do with border control. You’re falling into blackjack’s trap by accepting the premise that it does. Consider the Stalinist purges and the quotas of counterrevolutionaries that Soviet leadership were handed. Let’s say in your city you are told to find, round up, and shoot 15,000 counterrevolutionaries. You want to impress the boss so you do 20,000. Is the revolution now 33% more secure? Blackjack would say “yes”. There was a stated aim and you worked in alignment with that aim and therefore you were fulfilling it and therefore any criticism of it must be counterrevolutionary. Someone saying “where did that 15,000 number come from?” or “how did you find another 5,000?” or “what criteria did these people meet?” is an agent of the enemy.
Sorry for my imprecise language. I am using Trump as a placeholder for generally right wing ideology and/or the laws pertaining to US immigration. However you want to define the difference between democrats and republicans on the vague issue of "immigration", I am saying left wing folks are too averse to their enemy's perspective. I think it is highlighted here, when people who have zero impact on immigration law, are disparaged and written off pretty easily. It all feels so incredibly similar to the weird knee jerk reaction right wingers have to abortion. Its like right wingers completely shut down and get even less rational than their generally low ability to be rational.
|
Northern Ireland24814 Posts
On June 10 2025 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:
While I am saddened by the fact that BlackJack tends to reduce his own thoughts to quips and snark, I do view him as a good example of how immigration ends up being a purity test that goes beyond what the testers themselves actually support or want.
For example, while I am sure some people would want this, a huge majority would not: The US declares all humans are US citizens and they can all decide to live in the US as all current US citizens do. All border-related business is ceased. No barriers to entry.
People on the left know they don't want what Trump is doing. But I often find no one on the left is comfortable saying something Trump has done is good. Its like its never ok to specify a situation when someone should be deported.
I think democrats suffer in this way the same way republicans suffer from their perspective on abortion. They are so wildly pissed off about the topic they have lost their ability to see nuance or middle ground or whatever. There's just so much baggage attached to it, its no longer possible to be reasonable.
Directly addressing the BlackJack situation: It seems like he can't voice anything other than complete rejection of Trump's immigration policies without being directly related to Trump and everything Trump does.
Let's say Trump is "10" and the left is "1". If BlackJack describes 2, he is labeled as 10.
I think what you describe is definitely a problem, but I think one that’s very influenced by the current political climate and a pretty consistent rise in right-wing populism. And racism clearly being a factor.
People don’t want to cede ground on it, and I think for pretty understandable reasons. Whether that’s the correct course is debatable.
It’s pretty fucking hard to legally emigrate to Australia, and based on location it’s harder than many to get to illegally. Equally, as per immigration I’ve yet to encounter anyone who considers their process and hoops that need jumped through to be unreasonable, or racist or whatever. I’m sure they exist, I just haven’t encountered them.
The problem here is that relatively centrist governments had fucking decades to do something similar, in the UK or elsewhere. Without some huge uproar from the left. But they never did it. It’s too politically useful to have the ‘blame immigrants’ card in the pocket if you’re the UK Conservatives, never mind the ‘hm our economic structures and business interests (who may or may not donate to us)’ kinda needs this’ angle
It would have been pretty palatable, the problem is that as the centre right party (who’ve governed for the majority of my life) and the centre-left party, in not doing so, have energised the rise of far-right parties, who appeal to racists and bigots as much as they do to the genuinely disenfranchised.
So you’re somewhat left trying to stem that tide by going the diametric opposite direction.
If Blackjack was, as Duke Nukem was, an ‘equal opportunities asskicker’ he wouldn’t have that problem. I think many of his takes are reasonable, but they’re so overwhelmingly critiquing the left and not the right that this influences perception. Especially at a time where the right are actually wielding the levers of power.
While I think his rationale that left-leaning positions are so prevalent in this thread, and thus him joining that chorus is a bit redundant is entirely reasonable, the inevitable consequence of doing that is to be perceived in a certain way.
|
On June 10 2025 06:52 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2025 05:33 Sermokala wrote:On June 10 2025 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2025 05:15 blomsterjohn wrote:
I'm gonna take an outrageous bet and say that he was very obviously being sarcastic Mayhaps I was joining in? No it doesn't look like that. It looks like more of your woke scolding behavior when you try to convince people who already agree with you to agree with you more by just being an ass to them about the thing you already agree about. I was being sarcastic. Glad you're opposed to being an ass to people you agree with, looking forward to you implementing that yourself. I get thats what you want it to look like but the fact that someone else posted the post you responded to shows you failed, instead of owning up to your failure you have to double down on your infalability by trying to confuse people. Its not clever GH and you've never given anyone a reason to care what you're looking forward too so why should I start now?
Actually it seems you are correct. While it does seem that she was between the police and protestors, it also seem like she was shot in the leg. So yes my bad.
|
On June 10 2025 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 08:03 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2025 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:
While I am saddened by the fact that BlackJack tends to reduce his own thoughts to quips and snark, I do view him as a good example of how immigration ends up being a purity test that goes beyond what the testers themselves actually support or want.
For example, while I am sure some people would want this, a huge majority would not: The US declares all humans are US citizens and they can all decide to live in the US as all current US citizens do. All border-related business is ceased. No barriers to entry.
People on the left know they don't want what Trump is doing. But I often find no one on the left is comfortable saying something Trump has done is good. Its like its never ok to specify a situation when someone should be deported.
I think democrats suffer in this way the same way republicans suffer from their perspective on abortion. They are so wildly pissed off about the topic they have lost their ability to see nuance or middle ground or whatever. There's just so much baggage attached to it, its no longer possible to be reasonable.
Directly addressing the BlackJack situation: It seems like he can't voice anything other than complete rejection of Trump's immigration policies without being directly related to Trump and everything Trump does.
Let's say Trump is "10" and the left is "1". If BlackJack describes 2, he is labeled as 10. What Trump is doing has basically nothing to do with border control. You’re falling into blackjack’s trap by accepting the premise that it does. Consider the Stalinist purges and the quotas of counterrevolutionaries that Soviet leadership were handed. Let’s say in your city you are told to find, round up, and shoot 15,000 counterrevolutionaries. You want to impress the boss so you do 20,000. Is the revolution now 33% more secure? Blackjack would say “yes”. There was a stated aim and you worked in alignment with that aim and therefore you were fulfilling it and therefore any criticism of it must be counterrevolutionary. Someone saying “where did that 15,000 number come from?” or “how did you find another 5,000?” or “what criteria did these people meet?” is an agent of the enemy. Sorry for my imprecise language. I am using Trump as a placeholder for generally right wing ideology and/or the laws pertaining to US immigration. However you want to define the difference between democrats and republicans on the vague issue of "immigration", I am saying left wing folks are too averse to their enemy's perspective. I think it is highlighted here, when people who have zero impact on immigration law, are disparaged and written off pretty easily. It all feels so incredibly similar to the weird knee jerk reaction right wingers have to abortion. Its like right wingers completely shut down and get even less rational than their generally low ability to be rational.
Flashback to 2024, when Biden and Congressional Democrats were going to vote for a bipartisan border security bill that essentially gave Republicans everything they wanted, but Trump told Republicans to vote No on it so he could campaign on Biden being weak on the border.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/23/senate-democrats-immigration-border-bill
At the time I thought Republicans were fucking stupid, but they did end up winning the election because of it. The moral of the story being it doesn't matter how far to the right Democrats move on immigration, they'll never satisfy the endless cruelty of MAGA.
|
Northern Ireland24814 Posts
On June 10 2025 08:55 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 10 2025 08:03 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2025 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:
While I am saddened by the fact that BlackJack tends to reduce his own thoughts to quips and snark, I do view him as a good example of how immigration ends up being a purity test that goes beyond what the testers themselves actually support or want.
For example, while I am sure some people would want this, a huge majority would not: The US declares all humans are US citizens and they can all decide to live in the US as all current US citizens do. All border-related business is ceased. No barriers to entry.
People on the left know they don't want what Trump is doing. But I often find no one on the left is comfortable saying something Trump has done is good. Its like its never ok to specify a situation when someone should be deported.
I think democrats suffer in this way the same way republicans suffer from their perspective on abortion. They are so wildly pissed off about the topic they have lost their ability to see nuance or middle ground or whatever. There's just so much baggage attached to it, its no longer possible to be reasonable.
Directly addressing the BlackJack situation: It seems like he can't voice anything other than complete rejection of Trump's immigration policies without being directly related to Trump and everything Trump does.
Let's say Trump is "10" and the left is "1". If BlackJack describes 2, he is labeled as 10. What Trump is doing has basically nothing to do with border control. You’re falling into blackjack’s trap by accepting the premise that it does. Consider the Stalinist purges and the quotas of counterrevolutionaries that Soviet leadership were handed. Let’s say in your city you are told to find, round up, and shoot 15,000 counterrevolutionaries. You want to impress the boss so you do 20,000. Is the revolution now 33% more secure? Blackjack would say “yes”. There was a stated aim and you worked in alignment with that aim and therefore you were fulfilling it and therefore any criticism of it must be counterrevolutionary. Someone saying “where did that 15,000 number come from?” or “how did you find another 5,000?” or “what criteria did these people meet?” is an agent of the enemy. Sorry for my imprecise language. I am using Trump as a placeholder for generally right wing ideology and/or the laws pertaining to US immigration. However you want to define the difference between democrats and republicans on the vague issue of "immigration", I am saying left wing folks are too averse to their enemy's perspective. I think it is highlighted here, when people who have zero impact on immigration law, are disparaged and written off pretty easily. It all feels so incredibly similar to the weird knee jerk reaction right wingers have to abortion. Its like right wingers completely shut down and get even less rational than their generally low ability to be rational. Flashback to 2024, when Biden and Congressional Democrats were going to vote for a bipartisan border security bill that essentially gave Republicans everything they wanted, but Trump told Republicans to vote No on it so he could campaign on Biden being weak on the border. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/23/senate-democrats-immigration-border-billAt the time I thought Republicans were fucking stupid, but they did end up winning the election because of it. The moral of the story being it doesn't matter how far to the right Democrats move on immigration, they'll never satisfy the endless cruelty of MAGA.
Pretty much this. You can’t solve a grievance if the purported grievance isn’t actually the grievance.
Not my position, but one argument I did have a lot of success with in the pre-Brexit debates was ‘if you make it harder for culturally similar, white Europeans to migrate, and we have shortfalls in various industries, that gap is going to be filled with more brown folks. Neither Labour or the Conservatives have really curbed net immigration, leaving the EU is just going to change the ratios of immigration.’
Which incidentally, has actually happened, so I was proven right, a rare event indeed!
It was quite noticeable in my anecdotal experience that this argument was way, way more effective than a lot of others I had in my locker, and ones I considered much better arguments.
|
United States42428 Posts
On June 10 2025 08:43 Sermokala wrote:
What are you talking about? the lady was giving an interview into a news camera, she had her back to the cop which means that he saw the camera crew and the giant camera, then lined up to shoot directly at her. It wasn't a long range random shot he paused, saw the camera and the lady speaking into it, then brought his launcher up and to her.
Just because we literally all watched the same video of it happening doesn’t mean they can’t insist they didn’t see what they saw. First day dealing with these people?
|
On June 10 2025 08:55 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 10 2025 08:03 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2025 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:
While I am saddened by the fact that BlackJack tends to reduce his own thoughts to quips and snark, I do view him as a good example of how immigration ends up being a purity test that goes beyond what the testers themselves actually support or want.
For example, while I am sure some people would want this, a huge majority would not: The US declares all humans are US citizens and they can all decide to live in the US as all current US citizens do. All border-related business is ceased. No barriers to entry.
People on the left know they don't want what Trump is doing. But I often find no one on the left is comfortable saying something Trump has done is good. Its like its never ok to specify a situation when someone should be deported.
I think democrats suffer in this way the same way republicans suffer from their perspective on abortion. They are so wildly pissed off about the topic they have lost their ability to see nuance or middle ground or whatever. There's just so much baggage attached to it, its no longer possible to be reasonable.
Directly addressing the BlackJack situation: It seems like he can't voice anything other than complete rejection of Trump's immigration policies without being directly related to Trump and everything Trump does.
Let's say Trump is "10" and the left is "1". If BlackJack describes 2, he is labeled as 10. What Trump is doing has basically nothing to do with border control. You’re falling into blackjack’s trap by accepting the premise that it does. Consider the Stalinist purges and the quotas of counterrevolutionaries that Soviet leadership were handed. Let’s say in your city you are told to find, round up, and shoot 15,000 counterrevolutionaries. You want to impress the boss so you do 20,000. Is the revolution now 33% more secure? Blackjack would say “yes”. There was a stated aim and you worked in alignment with that aim and therefore you were fulfilling it and therefore any criticism of it must be counterrevolutionary. Someone saying “where did that 15,000 number come from?” or “how did you find another 5,000?” or “what criteria did these people meet?” is an agent of the enemy. Sorry for my imprecise language. I am using Trump as a placeholder for generally right wing ideology and/or the laws pertaining to US immigration. However you want to define the difference between democrats and republicans on the vague issue of "immigration", I am saying left wing folks are too averse to their enemy's perspective. I think it is highlighted here, when people who have zero impact on immigration law, are disparaged and written off pretty easily. It all feels so incredibly similar to the weird knee jerk reaction right wingers have to abortion. Its like right wingers completely shut down and get even less rational than their generally low ability to be rational. Flashback to 2024, when Biden and Congressional Democrats were going to vote for a bipartisan border security bill that essentially gave Republicans everything they wanted, but Trump told Republicans to vote No on it so he could campaign on Biden being weak on the border. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/23/senate-democrats-immigration-border-billAt the time I thought Republicans were fucking stupid, but they did end up winning the election because of it. The moral of the story being it doesn't matter how far to the right Democrats move on immigration, they'll never satisfy the endless cruelty of MAGA.
Oh FFS with border bill:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/06/border-bill-ukraine-aid-military-00139870
"Of the just over $60 billion dedicated to helping Ukraine repel Russia’s invasion, it would send $48.4 billion to the Pentagon — much of it destined to be sent to U.S. companies."
WTF it has to do with border??
As for border I already presented math for border crossing way earlier in the thread.
The issue with border bill is the same as with many others bills - you get shitton of stuff staffed in one bill. I am with Musk on this one - there is no such thing as big beautiful bill. Vote on every part of the bill separately.
Edit:
On June 10 2025 09:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 08:43 Sermokala wrote:
What are you talking about? the lady was giving an interview into a news camera, she had her back to the cop which means that he saw the camera crew and the giant camera, then lined up to shoot directly at her. It wasn't a long range random shot he paused, saw the camera and the lady speaking into it, then brought his launcher up and to her. Just because we literally all watched the same video of it happening doesn’t mean they can’t insist they didn’t see what they saw. First day dealing with these people?
lol at bad timing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
