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.
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.
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.
"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:
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
It’s a reasonable objection. However I think if anyone genuinely believes Musk’s objection here is based on principle or procedure they’re genuinely insane.
I dont care about that. If for example Hitler/Stalin said 2+2+4 I wouldnt argue about it, because it would be stupid whatever my opinion on them, or the reasons they said it, it still would be objectively correct.
On June 11 2025 07:31 WombaT wrote:
On June 11 2025 01:36 LightSpectra wrote:
On June 11 2025 01:19 Jankisa wrote: EDIT: I just noticed he replied, this long winded reply I will simply ignore it and won't read it, and now we wasted a nice amount of his time that he can't spend posting this shit on reddit or stormfront or wherever he usually spews his bullshit. It ain't much, but it's honest work.
Frustrating them by not participating in their bad-faith nonsense is the best strategy.
The evergreen Sartre quote universally applicable to the alt-right: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Good read, and I largely agree albeit I think it’s a subtly different domain being discussed.
To deny a platform, or to refuse to engage with one I think has value in not tacitly giving legitimacy, or at least the air of to certain folks.
However, in other domains the whole structure of the media and how it intersects with politics and culture has vastly changed in the past few decades. Everyone has some kind of public platform, to promulgate their ideas to a potentially large audience if they so wish.
In the micro sense, you can marginalise certain individuals, and I think it can be prudent to do so. In the macro sense, I don’t think you can marginalise ideas through non-engagement in the way that used to be much more doable when genuinely mass audience media was way less diffuse.
I do find it rather the conundrum, perhaps it’s one of those things where there simply isn’t a good solution.
As the article outlines, I do think many operate under a rather flawed conception that it’s a matter of facts and good arguments, and if you deliver those you’ll change all minds. The whole ‘in the free marketplace of ideas the good ideas will prosper and beat the bad ones’ has more evidence to the contrary than a human could look through in a lifetime.
But non-engagement just cedes the ground. As I frequently say, I doubt I’ll flip some deranged Neo-Nazi type around, they’re certainly not flipping me around, but in my absence is some third observer going to find their arguments convincing?
If one accepts the premise that boomers on Facebook and nonsense on Twitter etc have moved the needle for the worse, one is also acknowledging that the aggregative effect of all these millions of interactions in those mediums is impactful. And if so, to abandon at least attempting to do the same in a more positive direction I think is also a mistake.
Then you have option three, which is to engage, but with disdain and hostility rather than within the confines of civility. Which I think there’s absolutely a place for, but it can also backfire. Yer Fashy types love to abuse the conventions of civility to their advantage. ‘Hey look I’m being reasonable here and I’m being attacked!’ Which is quite effective in enabling their particular goals. It’s IMO a pretty big component of the auld Libertarian to Fascist pipeline for example.
So yeah. Maybe there just is no particularly good option here, I must confess I genuinely don’t know. Hey I’ve ideas and intuition, but I can’t say any I’m actually confident in, I imagine realistically a lot of people feel that way, even if they present differently.
Nout wrong with that I don’t think! If some time traveller came back to me in my late teens, where I was already a big politics nerd and gave me tidings from the future, I really don’t think I’d have believed them.
While gustibus non disputandum est, I am not sure how you can consider it good read. A lot of text to say "I dont like Bannon".
"The first time that white supremacists are denied a formal public platform, they get to plead martyrdom, to call the opposition cowards. And the second time. And the third time. But there’s only so many times you can whine that people aren’t paying you enough attention before those same people get bored and lose interest." - That worked out soooo great...
TLDR of article: I cant beat people I disagree wit me in debate so I'll call them fascists, white supremacists and hide behind "I refuse to dignify them"
"To deny a platform, or to refuse to engage with one I think has value in not tacitly giving legitimacy, or at least the air of to certain folks. "
"But non-engagement just cedes the ground. As I frequently say, I doubt I’ll flip some deranged Neo-Nazi type around, they’re certainly not flipping me around, but in my absence is some third observer going to find their arguments convincing? "
(I totally disagree regarding first quote, however totally agree with the second one)
Dont you see that this 2 are contrary? If you deny platform to someone, you loose opportunity to engage, and as such to convince third observer.
"Yer Fashy types love to abuse the conventions of civility to their advantage. ‘Hey look I’m being reasonable here and I’m being attacked!’ Which is quite effective in enabling their particular goals." Maybe because it is true? (also disagreeing with someone doesnt necessarily make one "fashy type") We are currently at "0 days since left violence", problem with that is, that right will eventually respond in similar fashion. This will be very brutal (and one sided) reality check.
They’re not contradictory IMO, to clarify.
If I, WombaT had some huge podcast, and influence, inviting some Fascist on to debate I think is a bad call, because it tacitly confers some legitimacy, and it’s exposing ideas to a wider audience, that I don’t think should have them exposed.
If I, actual WombaT without those things encounter such ideas on a Reddit thread or whatever and challenge them, I’m reacting to something that’s already out there. I’m not expanding the potential audience to that, I’m saying it’s bollocks and hopefully some folks will agree with me.
You also can’t win a debate with someone who doesn’t care about consistency or veracity, if they don’t and their audience doesn’t.
Attempting to is a fool’s errand.
If you’re a sensible person, left wing violence may be utterly undesirable, but it doesn’t overwrite what the right in America is currently doing. One can condemn both, absolutely. If you condemn only the left reaction to right wing overreach, you’re either just mistaken or not some kind of centrist but actively right wing in your politics.
"They’re not contradictory IMO, to clarify.
If I, WombaT had some huge podcast, and influence, inviting some Fascist on to debate I think is a bad call, because it tacitly confers some legitimacy, and it’s exposing ideas to a wider audience, that I don’t think should have them exposed.
If I, actual WombaT without those things encounter such ideas on a Reddit thread or whatever and challenge them, I’m reacting to something that’s already out there. I’m not expanding the potential audience to that, I’m saying it’s bollocks and hopefully some folks will agree with me.
You also can’t win a debate with someone who doesn’t care about consistency or veracity, if they don’t and their audience doesn’t. "
But they are?? You still missing the opportunity to convince third person, dont you? If thats your goal then winning debate is irrelevant, what you need is convince 3rd person not person which debate you.
"If you’re a sensible person, left wing violence may be utterly undesirable, but it doesn’t overwrite what the right in America is currently doing. One can condemn both, absolutely. If you condemn only the left reaction to right wing overreach, you’re either just mistaken or not some kind of centrist but actively right wing in your politics."
See the issue with this is that left is pretty much flailing around randomly. It is not that LA is some sort of Hive of right-wingers. It is just a place when they think they can get away with that.
What would *not* be escalation? Just let them continue to harass and impede law enforcement while the Governor does nothing? I am suspicious that literally any action at all will be labeled "escalation". I would say protestors attacking people and stuff are those who "escalated" tensions.
So, to be clear (since you basically answered my question with a question), you think the Trump administration's actions from the start of recent protests in LA until now, including federalizing and sending in the National Guard and then deploying Marines to LA, is not an unreasonable/unnecessary escalation?
I think it is, but if you think it's not, then come out and say it.
Yes, that's one reason why the President has that power in the first place. I see having the National Guard there to protect federal property and employees as perfectly legitimate if the state and local authorities refuse to do so.
What about the other half? The apparent use of Marines contrary to the law prohibiting using the Marines for law enforcement without the approval of Congress?
So far all I've read is that they've been "mobilized." I'm not super familiar with the law here but I'm not sure it's as obviously illegal as you are saying it is. And so far the National Guard isn't taking over law enforcement powers either. Nor the Marines (if they even have done anything at all yet).
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
"An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect"
"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
The Insurrection Act requires the governor to make an explicit request. Hence Newsom's lawsuit: he hasn't.
"to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights."
On June 11 2025 03:29 Acrofales wrote:
On June 10 2025 21:51 Velr wrote: Are you seriously trying to take the stance of "everyone that comes into country XYZ has a right to stay in that country just because"?
Whats the need for discussion here?
As someone who has legally moved around between 6 different countries on 4 different continents (and had to deal with all the corresponding paperwork), I'll make the case that where you happened to be born should not limit where you choose to live. We're all humans and if by some happy accident you are born in a place you like to live that's great, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else?
Now, I realize a heck of a lot of society is organized around those arbitrary lines on a map and if we currently were to open all borders without inhibition, society would absolutely collapse. But that isn't a reason not to move toward a societal organization where your birth country in the world is no more relevant than your birth town is now within a country.
bolded - even if you are Russian in uniform??
There’s like, zero resistance to Russians who disavow the current actions of their state moving elsewhere. I can’t remember her name but there’s an elite tennis player who did that, and took Australian citizenship.
Even within the StarCraft domain, nobody’s shitting on Skillous for moving country and refusing to use his nation’s flag. Hell, TL itself are his team.
Acrofales didnt make this exceptions. So milion armed Russians decided to live in Ukraine: "why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else"
On June 11 2025 08:46 micronesia wrote: [quote] So, to be clear (since you basically answered my question with a question), you think the Trump administration's actions from the start of recent protests in LA until now, including federalizing and sending in the National Guard and then deploying Marines to LA, is not an unreasonable/unnecessary escalation?
I think it is, but if you think it's not, then come out and say it.
Yes, that's one reason why the President has that power in the first place. I see having the National Guard there to protect federal property and employees as perfectly legitimate if the state and local authorities refuse to do so.
What about the other half? The apparent use of Marines contrary to the law prohibiting using the Marines for law enforcement without the approval of Congress?
So far all I've read is that they've been "mobilized." I'm not super familiar with the law here but I'm not sure it's as obviously illegal as you are saying it is. And so far the National Guard isn't taking over law enforcement powers either. Nor the Marines (if they even have done anything at all yet).
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
"An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect"
"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
The Insurrection Act requires the governor to make an explicit request. Hence Newsom's lawsuit: he hasn't.
"to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights."
On June 11 2025 03:29 Acrofales wrote:
On June 10 2025 21:51 Velr wrote: Are you seriously trying to take the stance of "everyone that comes into country XYZ has a right to stay in that country just because"?
Whats the need for discussion here?
As someone who has legally moved around between 6 different countries on 4 different continents (and had to deal with all the corresponding paperwork), I'll make the case that where you happened to be born should not limit where you choose to live. We're all humans and if by some happy accident you are born in a place you like to live that's great, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else?
Now, I realize a heck of a lot of society is organized around those arbitrary lines on a map and if we currently were to open all borders without inhibition, society would absolutely collapse. But that isn't a reason not to move toward a societal organization where your birth country in the world is no more relevant than your birth town is now within a country.
bolded - even if you are Russian in uniform??
There’s like, zero resistance to Russians who disavow the current actions of their state moving elsewhere. I can’t remember her name but there’s an elite tennis player who did that, and took Australian citizenship.
Even within the StarCraft domain, nobody’s shitting on Skillous for moving country and refusing to use his nation’s flag. Hell, TL itself are his team.
Acrofales didnt make this exceptions. So milion armed Russians decided to live in Ukraine: "why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else"
‘… zero resistance to Russians who disavow the current actions of their state moving elsewhere’.
My statement including ‘disavow the current actions of the state’ would heavily imply I’m not talking about a million armed Russians now wouldn’t it?
He didn’t have to make that exception, based on his posting history, I’d be incredibly surprised if he disagreed with me on that.
I’d say it’s a basically 100% safe bet that contextually is implicit in his statement is that it’s not referring to people running around with guns and ill intent and wanting to conquer a territory or whatever.
Yes, that's one reason why the President has that power in the first place. I see having the National Guard there to protect federal property and employees as perfectly legitimate if the state and local authorities refuse to do so.
What about the other half? The apparent use of Marines contrary to the law prohibiting using the Marines for law enforcement without the approval of Congress?
So far all I've read is that they've been "mobilized." I'm not super familiar with the law here but I'm not sure it's as obviously illegal as you are saying it is. And so far the National Guard isn't taking over law enforcement powers either. Nor the Marines (if they even have done anything at all yet).
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
"An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect"
"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
The Insurrection Act requires the governor to make an explicit request. Hence Newsom's lawsuit: he hasn't.
"to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights."
On June 11 2025 03:29 Acrofales wrote:
On June 10 2025 21:51 Velr wrote: Are you seriously trying to take the stance of "everyone that comes into country XYZ has a right to stay in that country just because"?
Whats the need for discussion here?
As someone who has legally moved around between 6 different countries on 4 different continents (and had to deal with all the corresponding paperwork), I'll make the case that where you happened to be born should not limit where you choose to live. We're all humans and if by some happy accident you are born in a place you like to live that's great, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else?
Now, I realize a heck of a lot of society is organized around those arbitrary lines on a map and if we currently were to open all borders without inhibition, society would absolutely collapse. But that isn't a reason not to move toward a societal organization where your birth country in the world is no more relevant than your birth town is now within a country.
bolded - even if you are Russian in uniform??
There’s like, zero resistance to Russians who disavow the current actions of their state moving elsewhere. I can’t remember her name but there’s an elite tennis player who did that, and took Australian citizenship.
Even within the StarCraft domain, nobody’s shitting on Skillous for moving country and refusing to use his nation’s flag. Hell, TL itself are his team.
Acrofales didnt make this exceptions. So milion armed Russians decided to live in Ukraine: "why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else"
‘… zero resistance to Russians who disavow the current actions of their state moving elsewhere’.
My statement including ‘disavow the current actions of the state’ would heavily imply I’m not talking about a million armed Russians now wouldn’t it?
He didn’t have to make that exception, based on his posting history, I’d be incredibly surprised if he disagreed with me on that.
I’d say it’s a basically 100% safe bet that contextually is implicit in his statement is that it’s not referring to people running around with guns and ill intent and wanting to conquer a territory or whatever.
How does it matter in face of : "why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else"??
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.
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.
"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:
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
It’s a reasonable objection. However I think if anyone genuinely believes Musk’s objection here is based on principle or procedure they’re genuinely insane.
I dont care about that. If for example Hitler/Stalin said 2+2+4 I wouldnt argue about it, because it would be stupid whatever my opinion on them, or the reasons they said it, it still would be objectively correct.
On June 11 2025 07:31 WombaT wrote:
On June 11 2025 01:36 LightSpectra wrote:
On June 11 2025 01:19 Jankisa wrote: EDIT: I just noticed he replied, this long winded reply I will simply ignore it and won't read it, and now we wasted a nice amount of his time that he can't spend posting this shit on reddit or stormfront or wherever he usually spews his bullshit. It ain't much, but it's honest work.
Frustrating them by not participating in their bad-faith nonsense is the best strategy.
The evergreen Sartre quote universally applicable to the alt-right: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Good read, and I largely agree albeit I think it’s a subtly different domain being discussed.
To deny a platform, or to refuse to engage with one I think has value in not tacitly giving legitimacy, or at least the air of to certain folks.
However, in other domains the whole structure of the media and how it intersects with politics and culture has vastly changed in the past few decades. Everyone has some kind of public platform, to promulgate their ideas to a potentially large audience if they so wish.
In the micro sense, you can marginalise certain individuals, and I think it can be prudent to do so. In the macro sense, I don’t think you can marginalise ideas through non-engagement in the way that used to be much more doable when genuinely mass audience media was way less diffuse.
I do find it rather the conundrum, perhaps it’s one of those things where there simply isn’t a good solution.
As the article outlines, I do think many operate under a rather flawed conception that it’s a matter of facts and good arguments, and if you deliver those you’ll change all minds. The whole ‘in the free marketplace of ideas the good ideas will prosper and beat the bad ones’ has more evidence to the contrary than a human could look through in a lifetime.
But non-engagement just cedes the ground. As I frequently say, I doubt I’ll flip some deranged Neo-Nazi type around, they’re certainly not flipping me around, but in my absence is some third observer going to find their arguments convincing?
If one accepts the premise that boomers on Facebook and nonsense on Twitter etc have moved the needle for the worse, one is also acknowledging that the aggregative effect of all these millions of interactions in those mediums is impactful. And if so, to abandon at least attempting to do the same in a more positive direction I think is also a mistake.
Then you have option three, which is to engage, but with disdain and hostility rather than within the confines of civility. Which I think there’s absolutely a place for, but it can also backfire. Yer Fashy types love to abuse the conventions of civility to their advantage. ‘Hey look I’m being reasonable here and I’m being attacked!’ Which is quite effective in enabling their particular goals. It’s IMO a pretty big component of the auld Libertarian to Fascist pipeline for example.
So yeah. Maybe there just is no particularly good option here, I must confess I genuinely don’t know. Hey I’ve ideas and intuition, but I can’t say any I’m actually confident in, I imagine realistically a lot of people feel that way, even if they present differently.
Nout wrong with that I don’t think! If some time traveller came back to me in my late teens, where I was already a big politics nerd and gave me tidings from the future, I really don’t think I’d have believed them.
While gustibus non disputandum est, I am not sure how you can consider it good read. A lot of text to say "I dont like Bannon".
"The first time that white supremacists are denied a formal public platform, they get to plead martyrdom, to call the opposition cowards. And the second time. And the third time. But there’s only so many times you can whine that people aren’t paying you enough attention before those same people get bored and lose interest." - That worked out soooo great...
TLDR of article: I cant beat people I disagree wit me in debate so I'll call them fascists, white supremacists and hide behind "I refuse to dignify them"
"To deny a platform, or to refuse to engage with one I think has value in not tacitly giving legitimacy, or at least the air of to certain folks. "
"But non-engagement just cedes the ground. As I frequently say, I doubt I’ll flip some deranged Neo-Nazi type around, they’re certainly not flipping me around, but in my absence is some third observer going to find their arguments convincing? "
(I totally disagree regarding first quote, however totally agree with the second one)
Dont you see that this 2 are contrary? If you deny platform to someone, you loose opportunity to engage, and as such to convince third observer.
"Yer Fashy types love to abuse the conventions of civility to their advantage. ‘Hey look I’m being reasonable here and I’m being attacked!’ Which is quite effective in enabling their particular goals." Maybe because it is true? (also disagreeing with someone doesnt necessarily make one "fashy type") We are currently at "0 days since left violence", problem with that is, that right will eventually respond in similar fashion. This will be very brutal (and one sided) reality check.
They’re not contradictory IMO, to clarify.
If I, WombaT had some huge podcast, and influence, inviting some Fascist on to debate I think is a bad call, because it tacitly confers some legitimacy, and it’s exposing ideas to a wider audience, that I don’t think should have them exposed.
If I, actual WombaT without those things encounter such ideas on a Reddit thread or whatever and challenge them, I’m reacting to something that’s already out there. I’m not expanding the potential audience to that, I’m saying it’s bollocks and hopefully some folks will agree with me.
You also can’t win a debate with someone who doesn’t care about consistency or veracity, if they don’t and their audience doesn’t.
Attempting to is a fool’s errand.
If you’re a sensible person, left wing violence may be utterly undesirable, but it doesn’t overwrite what the right in America is currently doing. One can condemn both, absolutely. If you condemn only the left reaction to right wing overreach, you’re either just mistaken or not some kind of centrist but actively right wing in your politics.
"They’re not contradictory IMO, to clarify.
If I, WombaT had some huge podcast, and influence, inviting some Fascist on to debate I think is a bad call, because it tacitly confers some legitimacy, and it’s exposing ideas to a wider audience, that I don’t think should have them exposed.
If I, actual WombaT without those things encounter such ideas on a Reddit thread or whatever and challenge them, I’m reacting to something that’s already out there. I’m not expanding the potential audience to that, I’m saying it’s bollocks and hopefully some folks will agree with me.
You also can’t win a debate with someone who doesn’t care about consistency or veracity, if they don’t and their audience doesn’t. "
But they are?? You still missing the opportunity to convince third person, dont you? If thats your goal then winning debate is irrelevant, what you need is convince 3rd person not person which debate you.
"If you’re a sensible person, left wing violence may be utterly undesirable, but it doesn’t overwrite what the right in America is currently doing. One can condemn both, absolutely. If you condemn only the left reaction to right wing overreach, you’re either just mistaken or not some kind of centrist but actively right wing in your politics."
See the issue with this is that left is pretty much flailing around randomly. It is not that LA is some sort of Hive of right-wingers. It is just a place when they think they can get away with that.
If you invite someone on to a show like Question Time in the UK, you’re offering a boost in publicity that might otherwise not exist, and you’re tacitly conferring legitimacy to whatever that position is.
If I, someone with no real influence or platform whatsoever wants to call something out, there’s none of that additional baggage.
Your post history is overwhelmingly anti-left, a left who aren’t even in power in the big offices at present in the States. I even said it in my ‘one can condemn both, absolutely’.
This doesn’t remotely actually make you right wing, but to an outside observer who doesn’t know you personally and only has your posts to go off, it’s hardly an ‘out-there’ assumption
On June 11 2025 07:46 Introvert wrote: The "escalatory" excuse is just the last lame thing Democrats like Gavin Newsom came up with to avoid blaming the people responsible and instead blame their political enemies.
Isn't it both? The escalation accusation and the lawbreaking in LA aren't mutually exclusive.
What would *not* be escalation? Just let them continue to harass and impede law enforcement while the Governor does nothing? I am suspicious that literally any action at all will be labeled "escalation". I would say protestors attacking people and stuff are those who "escalated" tensions.
So, to be clear (since you basically answered my question with a question), you think the Trump administration's actions from the start of recent protests in LA until now, including federalizing and sending in the National Guard and then deploying Marines to LA, is not an unreasonable/unnecessary escalation?
I think it is, but if you think it's not, then come out and say it.
Yes, that's one reason why the President has that power in the first place. I see having the National Guard there to protect federal property and employees as perfectly legitimate if the state and local authorities refuse to do so.
Sending in the NG without a specific call and prior consent is the opposite of common practice. Trump didn't send them because they were needed for anything, but because he wants to be front and center of every political affair in the country. If literally anything is not about him, big baby Twump gets upset and cwies. Why are a handful of burning cars among an overwhelmingly peaceful protest movement not his problem to solve? Waaahhh! Unfair! Waaaahhhh! Cleawly only Twump can save the pwincess! wah.
Same reason why he's been sending countless (but not cuntless) of executive orders (most of which have fortunately failed).
There was absolutely no need for the NG. Everything was under control, and a handful of images of fires and stones being thrown are not sufficient evidence to the contrary. Get rekt, right-wing propagandists. Your elephant is just another mouse, as it literally always is.
On June 11 2025 09:33 micronesia wrote: [quote] What about the other half? The apparent use of Marines contrary to the law prohibiting using the Marines for law enforcement without the approval of Congress?
So far all I've read is that they've been "mobilized." I'm not super familiar with the law here but I'm not sure it's as obviously illegal as you are saying it is. And so far the National Guard isn't taking over law enforcement powers either. Nor the Marines (if they even have done anything at all yet).
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
"An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect"
"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
The Insurrection Act requires the governor to make an explicit request. Hence Newsom's lawsuit: he hasn't.
"to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights."
On June 11 2025 03:29 Acrofales wrote:
On June 10 2025 21:51 Velr wrote: Are you seriously trying to take the stance of "everyone that comes into country XYZ has a right to stay in that country just because"?
Whats the need for discussion here?
As someone who has legally moved around between 6 different countries on 4 different continents (and had to deal with all the corresponding paperwork), I'll make the case that where you happened to be born should not limit where you choose to live. We're all humans and if by some happy accident you are born in a place you like to live that's great, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else?
Now, I realize a heck of a lot of society is organized around those arbitrary lines on a map and if we currently were to open all borders without inhibition, society would absolutely collapse. But that isn't a reason not to move toward a societal organization where your birth country in the world is no more relevant than your birth town is now within a country.
bolded - even if you are Russian in uniform??
There’s like, zero resistance to Russians who disavow the current actions of their state moving elsewhere. I can’t remember her name but there’s an elite tennis player who did that, and took Australian citizenship.
Even within the StarCraft domain, nobody’s shitting on Skillous for moving country and refusing to use his nation’s flag. Hell, TL itself are his team.
Acrofales didnt make this exceptions. So milion armed Russians decided to live in Ukraine: "why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else"
‘… zero resistance to Russians who disavow the current actions of their state moving elsewhere’.
My statement including ‘disavow the current actions of the state’ would heavily imply I’m not talking about a million armed Russians now wouldn’t it?
He didn’t have to make that exception, based on his posting history, I’d be incredibly surprised if he disagreed with me on that.
I’d say it’s a basically 100% safe bet that contextually is implicit in his statement is that it’s not referring to people running around with guns and ill intent and wanting to conquer a territory or whatever.
How does it matter in face of : "why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else"??
There's a mild difference between expressing a wish that moving between countries was easier and Putin's army invading your country.
As someone who's lived on two contintents and 4 countries, yeah, sometimes things are not peachy at home and it shouldn't be this hard to move.
On June 11 2025 08:46 micronesia wrote: [quote] So, to be clear (since you basically answered my question with a question), you think the Trump administration's actions from the start of recent protests in LA until now, including federalizing and sending in the National Guard and then deploying Marines to LA, is not an unreasonable/unnecessary escalation?
I think it is, but if you think it's not, then come out and say it.
Yes, that's one reason why the President has that power in the first place. I see having the National Guard there to protect federal property and employees as perfectly legitimate if the state and local authorities refuse to do so.
What about the other half? The apparent use of Marines contrary to the law prohibiting using the Marines for law enforcement without the approval of Congress?
So far all I've read is that they've been "mobilized." I'm not super familiar with the law here but I'm not sure it's as obviously illegal as you are saying it is. And so far the National Guard isn't taking over law enforcement powers either. Nor the Marines (if they even have done anything at all yet).
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
"An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect"
"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
The Insurrection Act requires the governor to make an explicit request. Hence Newsom's lawsuit: he hasn't.
"to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights."
On June 11 2025 03:29 Acrofales wrote:
On June 10 2025 21:51 Velr wrote: Are you seriously trying to take the stance of "everyone that comes into country XYZ has a right to stay in that country just because"?
Whats the need for discussion here?
As someone who has legally moved around between 6 different countries on 4 different continents (and had to deal with all the corresponding paperwork), I'll make the case that where you happened to be born should not limit where you choose to live. We're all humans and if by some happy accident you are born in a place you like to live that's great, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else?
Now, I realize a heck of a lot of society is organized around those arbitrary lines on a map and if we currently were to open all borders without inhibition, society would absolutely collapse. But that isn't a reason not to move toward a societal organization where your birth country in the world is no more relevant than your birth town is now within a country.
bolded - even if you are Russian in uniform??
There’s like, zero resistance to Russians who disavow the current actions of their state moving elsewhere. I can’t remember her name but there’s an elite tennis player who did that, and took Australian citizenship.
Even within the StarCraft domain, nobody’s shitting on Skillous for moving country and refusing to use his nation’s flag. Hell, TL itself are his team.
Acrofales didnt make this exceptions. So milion armed Russians decided to live in Ukraine: "why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else"
It's hard to predict all the exceptions. Perhaps we should have some kind of mechanism where the people living within the arbitrary lines to whom the lines belong could organize themselves, and decide how easy or difficult it is to cross the line and stay within it, and the same organization could manage making sure people followed the decided rules. Would you be on board with a system like that which would govern the movement of people?
Not a single right-winger in this thread is going to watch this video. Recommended for everyone else though. It's just Hank tossing his two cents, but these cents weigh a fuckton.
On June 11 2025 08:02 micronesia wrote: [quote] Isn't it both? The escalation accusation and the lawbreaking in LA aren't mutually exclusive.
What would *not* be escalation? Just let them continue to harass and impede law enforcement while the Governor does nothing? I am suspicious that literally any action at all will be labeled "escalation". I would say protestors attacking people and stuff are those who "escalated" tensions.
So, to be clear (since you basically answered my question with a question), you think the Trump administration's actions from the start of recent protests in LA until now, including federalizing and sending in the National Guard and then deploying Marines to LA, is not an unreasonable/unnecessary escalation?
I think it is, but if you think it's not, then come out and say it.
Yes, that's one reason why the President has that power in the first place. I see having the National Guard there to protect federal property and employees as perfectly legitimate if the state and local authorities refuse to do so.
What about the other half? The apparent use of Marines contrary to the law prohibiting using the Marines for law enforcement without the approval of Congress?
So far all I've read is that they've been "mobilized." I'm not super familiar with the law here but I'm not sure it's as obviously illegal as you are saying it is. And so far the National Guard isn't taking over law enforcement powers either. Nor the Marines (if they even have done anything at all yet).
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
"An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect"
"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
The Insurrection Act requires the governor to make an explicit request. Hence Newsom's lawsuit: he hasn't.
"to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights."
On June 10 2025 21:51 Velr wrote: Are you seriously trying to take the stance of "everyone that comes into country XYZ has a right to stay in that country just because"?
Whats the need for discussion here?
As someone who has legally moved around between 6 different countries on 4 different continents (and had to deal with all the corresponding paperwork), I'll make the case that where you happened to be born should not limit where you choose to live. We're all humans and if by some happy accident you are born in a place you like to live that's great, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else?
Now, I realize a heck of a lot of society is organized around those arbitrary lines on a map and if we currently were to open all borders without inhibition, society would absolutely collapse. But that isn't a reason not to move toward a societal organization where your birth country in the world is no more relevant than your birth town is now within a country.
bolded - even if you are Russian in uniform??
Well, you kinda ignored the bit about society collapsing if we did it now, and part of what I was thinking about was exactly the kind of situation you hint at: malicious actors deciding to carve out some space with their military force and then set up new borders. But that goes against the original premise, that there's no such thing as borders, so there'd have to be something stopping Russia from setting up a border. And if they can't set up a border then what are those uniformed men coming to do? Work? That's perfect and they're as welcome as Skillous is.
That said, once we're in this new state, I have no reason to think it'd be a problem. We don't see people complaining about Chicago sending uniformed men to Detroit, do we? It's an absurd proposition in the current USA, and in that situation where it were a problem, it'd mean a severe and utter collapse of the status quo: it's called a civil war and it means the state monopoly on violence has broken down. In a borderless world, that seems to be what you'd be referring to, and thus the question could be reframed as how do we stop civil wars from happening? I hope you understand I don't have an answer for that, but a fair and just government in which people feel heard and represented seems like an important place to start, and right now we seem to be moving away from that, with the state's monopoly of violence being directed at its own citizens in Los Angeles...
On June 11 2025 00:23 WombaT wrote: It’s a live ticker rather than an actual article, but something I found quite interesting and worth scrolling down a bit for.
But a small glimpse of the future shitshow we’re walking into. AI bullshit images, and even the skeptical who try to confirm veracity by asking AI may get false negatives or positives there.
It really doesn’t bode well the more sophisticated these images and videos become.
I’m already having a hard time with some, many of the more obvious tells are quite quickly disappearing.
Audio stuff? I’m finding that incredibly hard. That trademark flatness and lack of human inflection used to make it pretty trivial, I’m encountering more and more that are cracking that problem.
I assume you mean this post about Grok and ChatGPT being terrible?
It's wild that Wikipedia, which lists references on every page so that you can check them, and which is edited by people who are largely well-meaning, is considered a bad place to go for information, but hallucinating AIs are considered a good place to go for information.
I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.
For future reference, you can link to a specific post within a BBC live article, because there's a "Share" button at the bottom right of each post.
On June 11 2025 15:04 Magic Powers wrote: Not a single right-winger in this thread is going to watch this video. Recommended for everyone else though. It's just Hank tossing his two cents, but these cents weigh a fuckton.
But if some right-wingers unexpectedly do in fact watch it, it certainly won't change their minds.
.
He's right that Trump has become more of a king than a president. When his supporters will so easily disregard constitutional rights of citizens and claim outright that due process is something you can simply skip because 'he was elected to deport people', that hands absolute power to Trump to deport any individual he sees fit at any time without questions. Especially from the pesky courts, who are SUPPOSED to be the ones ensuring laws are followed. Its particularly disturbing that these people, who seem genuinely worried and terrified that the centrist Democrat government was constantly infringing their rights, are walking everyone into a straight up authoritarian nightmare and openly defending that as if its something everyone should want.
On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote: I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist.
I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared!
But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped.
I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023?
I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article:
I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden.
The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again.
I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that.
For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections.
Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This is what you are defending, you are defending senseless escalation of already tense moment in a Country and in the State that doesn't want this because, frankly, you obviously hate immigrants more then you love your country.
That seems pretty fucked up.
The "escalatory" excuse is just the last lame thing Democrats like Gavin Newsom came up with to avoid blaming the people responsible and instead blame their political enemies. And calling out the National Guard is to prevent violence and stop that which had already started. We have a heckler's veto for street action now?
I'm not sure you quite got what I was saying about the border bill. It wasn't serious, its "fixes" were bad, and there was little trust in Biden to do what was needed. Trump is certainly more trustworthy when it comes to securing the border, yes. It's hard to argue otherwise.
I live in California, and I didn't vote for either of them so I didn't for this or against it I am against letting the left and the violent activists use intimidation to prevent the carrying out of lawful activity or securing America's sovereignty. I would think people obsessed with January 6th, 2021 would get this. It's just so obviously absurd that I have to agree to let people burn cars, throw rocks at cops, and loot businesses or else *I'm* the one escalating. That's wild.
Ugh, I thought you might be a semi serious person, I can see that you are bought in to the "invasion" brainwashing and framing by the right.
I don't have a horse in this race but I don't really want to engage with another oBlade level great replacement theory racist, there doesn't seem to be a point.
On June 11 2025 15:04 Magic Powers wrote: Not a single right-winger in this thread is going to watch this video. Recommended for everyone else though. It's just Hank tossing his two cents, but these cents weigh a fuckton.
But if some right-wingers unexpectedly do in fact watch it, it certainly won't change their minds.
.
He's right that Trump has become more of a king than a president. When his supporters will so easily disregard constitutional rights of citizens and claim outright that due process is something you can simply skip because 'he was elected to deport people', that hands absolute power to Trump to deport any individual he sees fit at any time without questions. Especially from the pesky courts, who are SUPPOSED to be the ones ensuring laws are followed. Its particularly disturbing that these people, who seem genuinely worried and terrified that the centrist Democrat government was constantly infringing their rights, are walking everyone into a straight up authoritarian nightmare and openly defending that as if its something everyone should want.
100% agreed, Trump is now in a king's position. Fortunately America has enough barriers in place to prevent the total dismantling of the judiciary. For how much longer though, that I can't say. If the cards happen to fall in a certain way, it can result in further barriers collapsing. That's how SCOTUS turned 2:1 in the king's favor.
On June 11 2025 15:04 Magic Powers wrote: Not a single right-winger in this thread is going to watch this video. Recommended for everyone else though. It's just Hank tossing his two cents, but these cents weigh a fuckton.
But if some right-wingers unexpectedly do in fact watch it, it certainly won't change their minds.
.
He's right that Trump has become more of a king than a president. When his supporters will so easily disregard constitutional rights of citizens and claim outright that due process is something you can simply skip because 'he was elected to deport people', that hands absolute power to Trump to deport any individual he sees fit at any time without questions. Especially from the pesky courts, who are SUPPOSED to be the ones ensuring laws are followed. Its particularly disturbing that these people, who seem genuinely worried and terrified that the centrist Democrat government was constantly infringing their rights, are walking everyone into a straight up authoritarian nightmare and openly defending that as if its something everyone should want.
American conservatives have the brains of medieval serfs and yearn for the safety and comfort of the fields, overseen by their god-chosen Lords. It lets them have to use their limited intellectual capacity less on navigating the world around them and instead let rigid social hierarchy dictate their actions.
I want to illustrate what's happening on the ground. The real situation, the real lives that are at stake. Not just words and numbers, but also images.
This situation is actually so bad that I'm going to break one of my rules: never post content from creators such as Hasan Piker. Well, today is the day. Please accept my apology.
The video contains: - Report of coercion by Stephen Miller (Trump's far-right advisor) to hit big numbers of rounded up immigrants at 2:58 - Migrants on the path to asylum/citizenship being snatched away at their court meetings 3:11 - Reports of unlawful deportation 6:50 - Visual evidence of ICE's criminality at 8:26
And more.
The criminality of Trump's administration has reached a level rarely seen in a democratic country.
Friendly reminder that the last time the National Guard was sent out without approval was in 1965. That was 60 years ago. What was the purpose? To protect civil rights protesters.
This time the purpose is to crack down on protesters after a boatload of immigrants got kidnapped. That's fascism ya'll. If you deny it, you're one of them.
I love how this is being presented by "immigration worriers" here as "protecting American sovereignty" based on exactly 0 evidence of any threat to it from migrants, not in any US state (despite Haitians eating the pets of the people that live there) and especially not in LA / California while it's actually about these ICE heads being yelled at by Temu Gollum to meet their completely arbitrary quota and them going and indiscriminately arresting people to meet this quota.
But they don't really want to talk about that, they want to talk about "mutiny", "invasion" and "insurrection" and whatever other word they picked up in Trump's and the rest of his regime's propaganda.
On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote: I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist.
I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared!
But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped.
I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023?
I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article:
I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden.
The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again.
I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that.
For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections.
Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This is what you are defending, you are defending senseless escalation of already tense moment in a Country and in the State that doesn't want this because, frankly, you obviously hate immigrants more then you love your country.
That seems pretty fucked up.
The "escalatory" excuse is just the last lame thing Democrats like Gavin Newsom came up with to avoid blaming the people responsible and instead blame their political enemies. And calling out the National Guard is to prevent violence and stop that which had already started. We have a heckler's veto for street action now?
I'm not sure you quite got what I was saying about the border bill. It wasn't serious, its "fixes" were bad, and there was little trust in Biden to do what was needed. Trump is certainly more trustworthy when it comes to securing the border, yes. It's hard to argue otherwise.
I live in California, and I didn't vote for either of them so I didn't for this or against it I am against letting the left and the violent activists use intimidation to prevent the carrying out of lawful activity or securing America's sovereignty. I would think people obsessed with January 6th, 2021 would get this. It's just so obviously absurd that I have to agree to let people burn cars, throw rocks at cops, and loot businesses or else *I'm* the one escalating. That's wild.
Ugh, I thought you might be a semi serious person, I can see that you are bought in to the "invasion" brainwashing and framing by the right.
I don't have a horse in this race but I don't really want to engage with another oBlade level great replacement theory racist, there doesn't seem to be a point.
If there's anything that shouts "I'm serious" it's being unable to stop yourself from calling everyone a fascist and racist.
This is another rent free residency I don't need. When you run out of things to say, find an answer that doesn't involve my name.
Your horse in the race is Amazon subsidiary contracts. Your vitriol is your emotional coping because of anxiety about that. Adults can see through it.
On June 11 2025 17:27 Jankisa wrote: I love how this is being presented by "immigration worriers" here as "protecting American sovereignty" based on exactly 0 evidence of any threat to it from migrants, not in any US state (despite Haitians eating the pets of the people that live there) and especially not in LA / California while it's actually about these ICE heads being yelled at by Temu Gollum to meet their completely arbitrary quota and them going and indiscriminately arresting people to meet this quota.
But they don't really want to talk about that, they want to talk about "mutiny", "invasion" and "insurrection" and whatever other word they picked up in Trump's and the rest of his regime's propaganda.
It's honestly despicable.
Trump is just following the full fascist playbook with foreign invaders that threaten the country.
For his speech in Fort Bragg yesterday
Generations of army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion and third world lawlessness here at home like is happening in California. As Commander in chief, I will not let that happen. It's never going to happen. What you're witnessing in California is a full-blown assault on peace, on public order and on national sovereignty carried out by rioters bearing foreign flags with the aim of continuing a foreign invasion of our country.
Under the Trump administration, this anarchy will not stand. We will not allow federal agents to be attacked and we will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy and that's what they are.
You could change the names around and it could just be a speech from 193x
The New Jersey gubernatorial primaries just finished. The Democratic winner is Mikie Sherrill, and the Republican winner is Jack Ciattarelli. Sherrill wasn't my personal favorite - I had voted for someone else in the Democratic primary - but she's still miles ahead of Ciattarelli in terms of the policy positions I prefer. Definitely voting for Sherrill in the general election this November.
Mikie Sherrill, a four-term Democratic congresswoman, and former Republican state Rep. Jack Ciattarelli have won their parties’ nominations for New Jersey governor, according to projections from CNN’s Decision Desk.
Tuesday’s results set the stage for one of this year’s two potentially competitive gubernatorial races, along with Virginia, that will serve as a key barometer of President Donald Trump’s job performance and a gauge of the energy in both parties ahead of next year’s midterm elections.
Already, the president has been a central figure in both candidates’ campaigns.
Sherrill, a former Navy helicopter pilot, bested five other candidates who all ran as fighters who would push back on the chaos of Washington. Ciattarelli, who narrowly lost a 2021 bid for governor, won the nomination again with the help of Trump’s endorsement.
Turnout in both races broke records for New Jersey’s gubernatorial primaries.
Historic trends could favor Democrats in November. New Jersey voters have consistently picked the gubernatorial candidate from the party out of power in Washington in recent decades with one exception – incumbent Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy was re-elected in 2021, one year after Joe Biden won the presidency. Murphy is term-limited from seeking another term.
At the same time, New Jersey is among the states that shifted to the right during the 2024 general election. Vice President Kamala Harris won the state by just six percentage points in 2024, four years after Biden won the state by nearly 16 points.
EPT
I am against letting the left and the violent activists use intimidation to prevent the carrying out of lawful activity or securing America's sovereignty. I would think people obsessed with January 6th, 2021 would get this. It's just so obviously absurd that I have to agree to let people burn cars, throw rocks at cops, and loot businesses or else *I'm* the one escalating. That's wild. 
