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.
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.
Haha, buddy, just like you compared Lincoln and Trump, I compared the two of you, being the resident right wingers who buy this insane propaganda hook, line and sinker.
I am not conservative and not Republican. You can ask Introvert his affiliation if you're curious, and if he still bothers to give you the time of day after you polluted the conversation by calling him a racist after he said... the national sovereignty of a country he's a citizen of should exist.
What countries are you a citizen of? Croatia and Non Sequitur Island? Suppose I want to vote in your elections. But I'm not a citizen. If you oppose my suffrage, you're a big racist. You're welcome for me calling out your BS.
You're a broken record on that and this Lincoln thing. What part of my "comparison" was objectionable? You brought it up now. Again. So okay, explain. Say something other than a synonym of "I can't even." I specifically said Trump is no Lincoln. Another guy said Lincoln was shit anyway. As president, both of them share the job of preserving the Union. I find this to be basically the definition of president. Is your crash out anything more than a manifestation of denial that Trump could really be president and work in the same office Lincoln did? Explain the scope of my error while I'm still listening.
Oh, you are free to stop listening at any time friend.
Anyway, could you please explain how is sending national guard despite objections and without the request or consent of the governor or the mayor of a city working to preserve the union?
How are daily quotas for arrest of immigrants helping to preserve the union? How are these immigrants threatening the union? Are you implying that immigrants vote? I'm pretty sure that's not something that happens unless they become citizens. Are you saying that you believe Trump's big lie from 2020? Why is deploying marines necessary? You seem to be a fan of history, are you not aware of dangerous precedent for using military on domestic soil and where does that usually lead? Given that the scale of these protests are so much smaller then previous such protests / riots, why is this level of response warranted?
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.
I'll be nice.
You could engage with what I said instead of reading "national sovereignty" (a phrase I didn't know Trump used yesterday) as some sort of code. Borders are a quintessential part of what makes a nation? And people who violate them are quite literally violating a nation's sovereignty, this is almost true by definition. Invasion is not the word I would use as it normally has a more military connotation and I'm not sure drug cartels quite rise to that level. But in the game of political hyperbole I don't think anyone here or you in particular have any ground from which to criticize.
If you think it's fine for people here illegally to be allowed to stay just by virtue of the fact they made it over the border than fine I guess but I think it's perfectly reasonable to object to that. And objecting to that implies a willingness to enforce the prohibition on that conduct. Imo your name calling and exasperation at engaging with people is, if I may generalize now, a serious problem on the left. those of us who have different opinions than the majority here somehow manage without it. I still commend your earlier condemnation of violence, but you seem quick to apply labels.
I think that pretending like having ICE raids in LA is for the propose of preserving "national sovereignty" is something that's been fed to you guys recently and now you are parroting it all the time. I understand that it's hard to see that you are propagandized from your perspective but you, to most people in this thread, which majorly doesn't really support "unchecked migration" but does support normal ways of dealing with it are obviously someone who buys and spreads this shit, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.
If Trump wanted to deal with this problem instead of using it as an excuse for a power grab he could have, we went over that, but I guess using Congress and Senate in order to enact laws is not something you guys are interested, as you noted, a bipartisan bill supported (before Trump ordered otherwise) by 219 republicans in Congress in 2023 was proclaimed as "weak" by Trump and you decided to parrot that, despite Democrats being willing to swing all the way to the right on it, it wasn't good enough, it didn't bring political points to Trump so it was abandoned.
I think that sending national guard and marines, without consent of the governor to a state in order to enable filling out of quotas for arresting "illegals" is doing a lot to break the union apart, and no matter how much you guys feel offended cheering that on is anti-American, since it's been done based on color of people's skin it's also racist and since these kind of moves are 1:1 fascist playbook it's enabling fascism.
If you feel offended by that perhaps you should stop supporting it, when you support it you get labeled for what you are.
I find both your and oBlade's bloviating about civility hilarious, by the way, it's another tactic from the fascist playbook and this video covered it amazingly:
First, I gave you the reasons for opposing the bill, and for the most part you have totally ignored those objections but have instead taken its mere existence as a sign your own correctness.
Second you are the one throwing insults around and then complaining about who you are talking to. I have been more or less trying to keep on track. I don't recall exactly when you started posting here but I've been here, and complaining about the border, since before Trump ran for president. Your go-to repsonse now is "well I don't have to reply seriously or civilly because you aren't actually thinking of anything yourself" is just an obvious dodge.
Third enforcing immigration law *as it currently is* is not illegal or fascist. Fourth, defending federal property and people is also not illegal or fascist. You seem to think ICE raids are a thing the government is not allowed to do under current law, but you are just wrong. Again you can object to that, but you are in fact tacitly approving of letting anyone stay who just happens to make it across the border. That's a position a lot people here don't even agree with and it obviously creates horrible incentives. You should reckon with the implications of your preferred policy (if you have given it any thought at all) before declaring opposition to it support for dissolution of the Union.
On June 11 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote: 3% of the population being illegal immigrants definitely undermines America's national sovereignty to a degree that the national guard has to be sent out without prior approval so they can fight law-abiding American citizens in their own communities for protesting against government overreach.
Sure, why not. Lets go all the way with the bootlicking, why not.
Yeah It’s 'just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn.
I must've missed the part where burning cars were a reason to deploy the NG without approval. Must've been in the stone age because I certainly wasn't alive at the time. Neither was my dad. Or my grandpa. Or my great grandpa. Somehow America survived burnings cars for a century without the NG. Incredible how soft the modern right-wingers have become.
On June 09 2025 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Let's hope the next parts of Trump's crackdown aren't comparably more extreme than this juxtaposition between "tank man" and ICE running over a protester.
EDIT: I should mention they are threatening to send active duty Marines (after already deploying the National Guard) into California, (both) against the wishes of the democratically elected leaders of California.
Earlier Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s controversial and hardline defense secretary, had raised the possibility of deploying US marines onto the streets of the Democrat-run state amid the protests that had erupted in the wake of Ice raids in the state.
“Under President Trump, violence & destruction against federal agents & federal facilities will NOT be tolerated. It’s COMMON SENSE,” Hegseth wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
“If violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized – they are on high alert,” Hegseth said. Camp Pendleton is a large military base south of Los Angeles and north of San Diego.
On June 09 2025 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Let's hope the next parts of Trump's crackdown aren't comparably more extreme than this juxtaposition between "tank man" and ICE running over a protester.
EDIT: I should mention they are threatening to send active duty Marines (after already deploying the National Guard) into California, (both) against the wishes of the democratically elected leaders of California.
Earlier Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s controversial and hardline defense secretary, had raised the possibility of deploying US marines onto the streets of the Democrat-run state amid the protests that had erupted in the wake of Ice raids in the state.
“Under President Trump, violence & destruction against federal agents & federal facilities will NOT be tolerated. It’s COMMON SENSE,” Hegseth wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
“If violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized – they are on high alert,” Hegseth said. Camp Pendleton is a large military base south of Los Angeles and north of San Diego.
Why would they? Who would want to be a willing human shield for the left-wing terrorists hiding among the crowd? You are supposed to just surrender in the face of superior military power.
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.
Haha, buddy, just like you compared Lincoln and Trump, I compared the two of you, being the resident right wingers who buy this insane propaganda hook, line and sinker.
I am not conservative and not Republican. You can ask Introvert his affiliation if you're curious, and if he still bothers to give you the time of day after you polluted the conversation by calling him a racist after he said... the national sovereignty of a country he's a citizen of should exist.
What countries are you a citizen of? Croatia and Non Sequitur Island? Suppose I want to vote in your elections. But I'm not a citizen. If you oppose my suffrage, you're a big racist. You're welcome for me calling out your BS.
You're a broken record on that and this Lincoln thing. What part of my "comparison" was objectionable? You brought it up now. Again. So okay, explain. Say something other than a synonym of "I can't even." I specifically said Trump is no Lincoln. Another guy said Lincoln was shit anyway. As president, both of them share the job of preserving the Union. I find this to be basically the definition of president. Is your crash out anything more than a manifestation of denial that Trump could really be president and work in the same office Lincoln did? Explain the scope of my error while I'm still listening.
Oh, you are free to stop listening at any time friend.
You didn't answer my one question, and instead spammed me 15 others. Sure, let's go.
On June 11 2025 22:56 Jankisa wrote: Anyway, could you please explain how is sending national guard despite objections and without the request or consent of the governor or the mayor of a city working to preserve the union?
Because mayors and governors are lower than the president, and because of how federalism works, it doesn't matter what they think, especially when they lack correctness. You have to solve the problem despite their opinion.
On June 11 2025 22:56 Jankisa wrote: How are daily quotas for arrest of immigrants helping to preserve the union?
A softball. Since people entering and living in your country without permission is bad, working harder to fix the problem is better. If a quota is greater than the current number of something, it encourages more efficiency, productivity, and faster improvement. If a quota is lower than the current number of something, it encourages slacking and reduction down to the level of the quota.
On June 11 2025 22:56 Jankisa wrote: How are these immigrants threatening the union?
Defying and attacking federal government is arguably the worse part of that. Illegal immigrants, you don't know who they are, they include gang members and terrorists, they make enclaves and don't assimilate, subversive extremists hijack main political parties to try to promise citizenship to them to turn them into future voters - yeah that's a sovereignty issue.
On June 11 2025 22:56 Jankisa wrote: Are you implying that immigrants vote? I'm pretty sure that's not something that happens unless they become citizens.
Nobody was implying that. Certainly immigrants, both legal and illegal, vote illegally. You'd have to be a cultist to think it never ever happened. For the same reasons my friend's Obamacare identity got stolen by an illegal alien. For the same reasons there are cases of people voting more than one time, either maliciously or by pure ignorance. Government systems are susceptible to being defrauded.
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted Tuesday to scrap a Washington, DC, law permitting noncitizens to vote in local elections and overturn another local law curtailing law enforcement liability protections.
In a 266 to 148 vote with one present, the House moved to nix the 2022 Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act and ensure that only US citizens can vote in DC elections.
“Free and fair elections are a prerequisite for a healthy republic,” Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), who introduced the bill, said in a statement. “The radical DC Council’s decision to allow noncitizens—including illegal aliens and foreign agents—to vote in local elections dilutes the voting power of the citizen voter.”
On June 11 2025 22:56 Jankisa wrote: Why is deploying marines necessary? You seem to be a fan of history, are you not aware of dangerous precedent for using military on domestic soil and where does that usually lead?
Not really, seems fine, what dangerous precedent are you referring to, sir?
On June 11 2025 22:56 Jankisa wrote: Given that the scale of these protests are so much smaller then previous such protests / riots, why is this level of response warranted?
Let's bigbrain this one. Perhaps it's not at the scale of the Rodney King riots or the 2020 LA riots yet because the federal government responded so quickly.
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.
I'll be nice.
You could engage with what I said instead of reading "national sovereignty" (a phrase I didn't know Trump used yesterday) as some sort of code. Borders are a quintessential part of what makes a nation? And people who violate them are quite literally violating a nation's sovereignty, this is almost true by definition. Invasion is not the word I would use as it normally has a more military connotation and I'm not sure drug cartels quite rise to that level. But in the game of political hyperbole I don't think anyone here or you in particular have any ground from which to criticize.
If you think it's fine for people here illegally to be allowed to stay just by virtue of the fact they made it over the border than fine I guess but I think it's perfectly reasonable to object to that. And objecting to that implies a willingness to enforce the prohibition on that conduct. Imo your name calling and exasperation at engaging with people is, if I may generalize now, a serious problem on the left. those of us who have different opinions than the majority here somehow manage without it. I still commend your earlier condemnation of violence, but you seem quick to apply labels.
I think that pretending like having ICE raids in LA is for the propose of preserving "national sovereignty" is something that's been fed to you guys recently and now you are parroting it all the time. I understand that it's hard to see that you are propagandized from your perspective but you, to most people in this thread, which majorly doesn't really support "unchecked migration" but does support normal ways of dealing with it are obviously someone who buys and spreads this shit, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.
CBP and ICE are the enforcement arms of immigration law. There should be ICE raids everywhere that there are people in wanton violation of immigration law (legally with due process of course). The reason it's LA is not that Blumpf is picking on Democrats. It's that California and LA have explicit policies ignoring federal law and sheltering people who break it. And LA is huge. Consequently, it has a large population of illegal immigrants.
On June 11 2025 22:44 Jankisa wrote: If Trump wanted to deal with this problem instead of using it as an excuse for a power grab he could have, we went over that, but I guess using Congress and Senate in order to enact laws is not something you guys are interested, as you noted, a bipartisan bill supported (before Trump ordered otherwise) by 219 republicans in Congress in 2023 was proclaimed as "weak" by Trump and you decided to parrot that, despite Democrats being willing to swing all the way to the right on it, it wasn't good enough, it didn't bring political points to Trump so it was abandoned.
You are stuck on level one thinking, and at this point it's intentional.
The bill that was rejected by both parties was a border bill. It was not an interior deportations bill - which is what ICE does that you have a problem with. In other words, you pass that bill, even if it allegedly secures the border, that doesn't mean you don't do interior deportations. They're independent. You have to enforce in the interior as well. That bill wouldn't have stopped ICE raids in LA, unless it stopped Trump from getting elected, which is honestly what I think its main goal was based on the concern trolling levels I saw at the time.
Okay, but securing the border is important also right? Of course. Trump's border numbers now are 30 times better than the level set as an "emergency" in that bill. You can know this by taking any time at all to read the bill you keep talking about. Or take 10 seconds to read any of the times someone explained it to you. What is happening in LA has nothing to do with the border, or any border bill. The situation at the border now is better than anything dreamed of by the "border bill." Like it's been proven by history now. You are still in the 2024 campaign. "But Republicans don't really care about the border because they torpedoed the-" The border compared to Biden is solved. The Lankford bill was a mistake because it was bad. The bill was a political mistake because it signals "look a bipartisan border bill was passed" to people who don't read past the headlines, and they would think that meant the border was fixed so they didn't need to elect Trump. And then they would get the same Biden border but under Kamala.
The bill said under 5000 a day is okay, more than that is an emergency if it lasts 7 days. Trump's at 8000 per month. You didn't need the bill because you can do better than the bill, even without the bill. It's in the data, and it's in the anecdotes. This was explained to you, probably in a "too fascist; didn't read" post. It's okay if you don't know about something. That's not a problem by itself except you don't learn anything and are stuck at the same question. It's becoming tedious.
On June 11 2025 22:44 Jankisa wrote: I think that sending national guard and marines, without consent of the governor to a state in order to enable filling out of quotas for arresting "illegals" is doing a lot to break the union apart, and no matter how much you guys feel offended cheering that on is anti-American, since it's been done based on color of people's skin it's also racist and since these kind of moves are 1:1 fascist playbook it's enabling fascism.
Immigration status is not a skin color.
Neither of them are there to enforce immigration law, in other words neither are filling out quotas for arresting illegal immigrants. They are there to restore order with crowd control and de-escalation so federal agents are safe because of rioting and violence.
Marines I'm not sure on exactly the authority myself. It could be a gray area. It was being discussed.
National Guard, he does not need the consent.
Just like Eisenhower did not need the consent of Arkansas to send the 101st Airborne to allow black students to attend school, even though that was actually based on the color of people's skin and Arkansas was a bit mad since they didn't vote for it. It doesn't matter. The Civil Rights Act is federal law.
This is how the country works. Let me give you an analogy. New York has a lot of rich people. Maybe they can vote for a no federal tax party, lose, and then not pay federal tax anyway because... fascism. When the IRS comes, they can say "you don't have our permission" and "we didn't vote for you" and "#NotMyIRS." Any attempt to get New York to follow federal law and pay taxes would doubtless be the F-word. The police can't arrest you if you say they aren't your police and throw concrete at them.
On June 11 2025 22:44 Jankisa wrote: If you feel offended by that perhaps you should stop supporting it, when you support it you get labeled for what you are.
I find both your and oBlade's bloviating about civility hilarious, by the way, it's another tactic from the fascist playbook and this video covered it amazingly:
Yes not calling people racist fascist white supremacist bootlickers, is textbook fascism.
I am civil out of respect for 2 things: myself and this website.
You are calling me a racist because the TV told you Trump was bad. You can believe the TV, it's your life. You are free to think that about Trump. None of us here is Trump. I don't mind it personally either - maybe I should? - but you want to meme-ify my name as an stand-in for all the fascists you can't get close to and punch in real life, and then drag other posters through the dirt by another level of association, that's bullshit. They aren't me - they'll tell you - and I'm not Trump - I told you. You call me a racist, if you think that's a US political issue, then man up, put your best foot forward and prove it. Can't, then you've been misled. Move on.
I would never stoop to calling any colleague here a dementia patient just because they voted for Biden, who I think is a dementia patient. Because even I am smart enough to realize they are different fucking people. Even if I thought that, I wouldn't say it, out of basic tact. But this is not paralipsis. Legitimately I do not think that about any poster, and if I did, I would be ashamed.
On June 11 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote: 3% of the population being illegal immigrants definitely undermines America's national sovereignty to a degree that the national guard has to be sent out without prior approval so they can fight law-abiding American citizens in their own communities for protesting against government overreach.
Sure, why not. Lets go all the way with the bootlicking, why not.
Yeah It’s 'just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn.
Spoken like a person who has never enjoyed watching things burn. Its relaxing, you should try it.
I asked you why would a party and their leader that is actually motivated by fixing this problem not work it through legislature, as the founders have intended and you completely ignored it, for the, well, I lost count at this point. Then you went for some more hand wringing about civility.
The ICE raids have broken numerous laws, which is another thing you are ignoring. There are 0 precedents of masked "law enforcement" officers disappearing people from the streets and "mistakenly" deporting people in any country, including USA of 7 months ago, which is another thing you keep ignoring. Again, this is fine to you because you hate brown people so fuck them and fuck their due process.
2. oBlade:
You spend inordinate amount of time defending Trump and his policies, including the ones that are "gray area" and that were never used in the way that he's using them because you want to see brown people suffer, because you are, just like him a racist and a bad person.
I'm calling you a racist because you are a Tucker Carlson super-fan who spreads white replacement theory bullshit thinly veiled as "protecting sovereignty".
Also, just as a side note on your most hilarious and obvious omissions or non answers, SF school board voting = attack on sovereignty and lack of answering if you believe Trump's 2020 lies.
This is getting framed by the usual suspects as a matter of LAW and ORDER vs Democrat anarchy. But that is not the question.
Protesting is legal. Rioting is not and generally should be stopped and punished. The question is, 1) Do the protests and the violence that has broken out rise to the level of emergency that requires the use of federalizing the National Guard? Something that has not been done for sixty years. 2) And is this an emergency that is so great that requires contravening the Posse Comitatus Act which bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement? (Is this not the nightmare scenario the 2a militia groups and preppers have been dreaming about since Waco, Texas?)
And let's add a few pieces to whether this rises to that level of emergency: 1) Trump (the sharpest of bulbs) has been calling everything and anything an emergency this administration so he can rule by fiat without Congress. Is everything an emergency all the time in America these days (fentanyl over the border of Canada, let's recall.) Wolf! Wolf! cried the boy.
2) He wants to use the military all the time on his political foes (last administration there were still conservatives that could check his authoritarian impulses). But insurrectionists on his behalf? Full pardons, deny the violence and weapons carried: just a big beautiful party. His every impulse is authoritarian use of the military as evidenced by holding a military parade for his birthday party.
3) He's the moron who gets his news from clip chimped social media posts- if you still believe the stolen election lies, then at least he demonstrated his idiocy (or else bold and unapologetic dishonesty) in plain view by showing clips from the Congo to accuse South Africa of white genocide. And thought the letters and numbers M S 13 were literally tattooed onto Kilmar's knuckles and wouldn't let up when the reporter desperately and cowardly tried to move on.
4) He's already lying saying the riots are causing a lot of death. Where? Which ones? Or is that a warning for when he sends in the troops?
You are going to believe this Washington elite over local LA police who say they do not need the National Guard nor the military and in fact it's simply making matters worse according to them?
No, this is not federalism in action. The entire point of federalism (or at least used to be) is that power is not centralized but especially in the US and Canada states/ provinces have a lot of reserved power to run their own affairs because the country is too vast for a central authority to accurately know how to govern from afar. Local matters resolved locally. Why is the federal government over-riding state authority when all you have is the clips of the same cars on fire cycled again and again?
Kristi Noem under Biden said federalizing the National Guard against her authority would be a 'direct attack on state's rights' and were Biden to do so, 'oh, boy, we do have a war on our hands.'
But now that it's Trump the Beneficient against his political opponents, everything is peachy. Why? What compelling evidence is there that local LA police and state authority should be over-ridden? Why this one in particular?
I was firmly against the Emergency Act being used against the Trucker protest as I believed that was government over-reach. This is a hundred times worse. It's nice to confirm (or be reminded) that you, oBlade, are not a conservative as I don't see how any principled conservative could support this. But what are you?
Any protest that isn't advantageous to the far-right is "anarchy," "riots," etc. That's simply how it's being framed as. Catch someone in California jaywalking without being ticketed and lo and behold, the law isn't being enforced, guess we need the military to restore order. The numerous Republican-donating companies that knowingly utilize sub-minimum wage undocumented immigrants? Silence.
But again, the far-right isn't hurt by hypocrisy. They believe in a social hierarchy where they have the privilege to be hypocritical. The law protects but does not bind them; the law binds but does not protect anyone else.
It's also why they love the Confederacy. Is it hypocritical to be all about "law and order" while supporting a treasonous insurrection? Absolutely, yet their law and order exists to uplift the white man above everyone else, so it doesn't matter.
On June 12 2025 01:24 Jankisa wrote: 1. Introvert:
Re: The immigration bill.
I asked you why would a party and their leader that is actually motivated by fixing this problem not work it through legislature, as the founders have intended and you completely ignored it, for the, well, I lost count at this point. Then you went for some more hand wringing about civility.
The ICE raids have broken numerous laws, which is another thing you are ignoring. There are 0 precedents of masked "law enforcement" officers disappearing people from the streets and "mistakenly" deporting people in any country, including USA of 7 months ago, which is another thing you keep ignoring. Again, this is fine to you because you hate brown people so fuck them and fuck their due process.
2. oBlade:
You spend inordinate amount of time defending Trump and his policies, including the ones that are "gray area" and that were never used in the way that he's using them because you want to see brown people suffer, because you are, just like him a racist and a bad person.
I'm calling you a racist because you are a Tucker Carlson super-fan who spreads white replacement theory bullshit thinly veiled as "protecting sovereignty".
Also, just as a side note on your most hilarious and obvious omissions or non answers, SF school board voting = attack on sovereignty and lack of answering if you believe Trump's 2020 lies.
Both:
You guys should start a circus!
I respect you pressuring Introvert's position, because Introvert is one of the last standing genuine conservatives that occupies this thread. They're also typically a person willing to have actual conversations about their position given a reasonable level of cordiality. Introvert and oBlade are very certainly not the same person, and I feel your dialogue would be far more productive if you stopped treating Introvert like human waste.
oBlade though, you could go quite a bit harder on.
I think this is a great time to post this video from six years ago. Driver refuses to comply with ICE agents because he knows the law. Has an attourney ready on the phone overhearing the whole conversation. ICE attempts to bypass the law but is unable to proceed. This is one of the ways illegal immigrants can be protected from Trump's fascist administration. They want to instill fear and panic in people, but if people keep a cool head they can put up strong resistance.
We built a wholeass surveillance state just so ICE could abduct people for looking too Latino.
Incidentally this is why everything is happening at breakneck speed. There's slim approval for mass deportations at the moment but the far-right is well aware that'll degrade as more incidents like this pile up.
On June 12 2025 01:24 Jankisa wrote: 1. Introvert:
Re: The immigration bill.
I asked you why would a party and their leader that is actually motivated by fixing this problem not work it through legislature, as the founders have intended and you completely ignored it, for the, well, I lost count at this point. Then you went for some more hand wringing about civility.
The ICE raids have broken numerous laws, which is another thing you are ignoring. There are 0 precedents of masked "law enforcement" officers disappearing people from the streets and "mistakenly" deporting people in any country, including USA of 7 months ago, which is another thing you keep ignoring. Again, this is fine to you because you hate brown people so fuck them and fuck their due process.
2. oBlade:
You spend inordinate amount of time defending Trump and his policies, including the ones that are "gray area" and that were never used in the way that he's using them because you want to see brown people suffer, because you are, just like him a racist and a bad person.
I'm calling you a racist because you are a Tucker Carlson super-fan who spreads white replacement theory bullshit thinly veiled as "protecting sovereignty".
Also, just as a side note on your most hilarious and obvious omissions or non answers, SF school board voting = attack on sovereignty and lack of answering if you believe Trump's 2020 lies.
Both:
You guys should start a circus!
I respect you pressuring Introvert's position, because Introvert is one of the last standing genuine conservatives that occupies this thread. They're also typically a person willing to have actual conversations about their position given a reasonable level of cordiality. Introvert and oBlade are very certainly not the same person, and I feel your dialogue would be far more productive if you stopped treating Introvert like human waste.
oBlade though, you could go quite a bit harder on.
Duly noted.
To me, again, as an outsider it really seems like incredibly unprincipled, hypocritical drivel that uses the same tactic of not actually addressing any of the hypocrisy and questions regarding "how can you find this to be OK when if it was the other side doing it you would be (justifiably) outraged".
I have no problem with apologizing, I acknowledge that sometimes my tone and flattening of people to whatever the position they are defending at the time might be reductive and unfair, however, someone defending this level of obvious escalation of things for no fucking reason other then, from what I can best tell racism means no holds barred approach is warranted.
I don't live in the US, I do however pay very close attention to what happens over there, I might be in a sort of a bubble but I believe that through 10 years of closely working with Americans, talking to them, keeping contact on forums, social networks and real life interactions I can tell that the country is not being invaded, it's sovereignty is not threatened by immigrants and there is no crisis.
When someone comes here and justifies blatant fascistic attacks on this population, no matter how principled and cordial they might present I will call them out.
On another note, I haven't really initiated this exchange, Introvert saw my post and after immediately calling things I usually write histrionic which I didn't engage with, so I tried to keep it civil. However, after he started regurgitating great replacement theory "Trump the protector of American sovereignty" I stopped doing that because I honestly feel that is a fascist and racist talking point.
On June 12 2025 01:27 Falling wrote: Posse Comitatus.
This is getting framed by the usual suspects as a matter of LAW and ORDER vs Democrat anarchy. But that is not the question.
Protesting is legal. Rioting is not and generally should be stopped and punished. The question is, 1) Do the protests and the violence that has broken out rise to the level of emergency that requires the use of federalizing the National Guard? Something that has not been done for sixty years. 2) And is this an emergency that is so great that requires contravening the Posse Comitatus Act which bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement? (Is this not the nightmare scenario the 2a militia groups and preppers have been dreaming about since Waco, Texas?)
And let's add a few pieces to whether this rises to that level of emergency: 1) Trump (the sharpest of bulbs) has been calling everything and anything an emergency this administration so he can rule by fiat without Congress. Is everything an emergency all the time in America these days (fentanyl over the border of Canada, let's recall.) Wolf! Wolf! cried the boy.
2) He wants to use the military all the time on his political foes (last administration there were still conservatives that could check his authoritarian impulses). But insurrectionists on his behalf? Full pardons, deny the violence and weapons carried: just a big beautiful party. His every impulse is authoritarian use of the military as evidenced by holding a military parade for his birthday party.
3) He's the moron who gets his news from clip chimped social media posts- if you still believe the stolen election lies, then at least he demonstrated his idiocy (or else bold and unapologetic dishonesty) in plain view by showing clips from the Congo to accuse South Africa of white genocide. And thought the letters and numbers M S 13 were literally tattooed onto Kilmar's knuckles and wouldn't let up when the reporter desperately and cowardly tried to move on.
4) He's already lying saying the riots are causing a lot of death. Where? Which ones? Or is that a warning for when he sends in the troops?
You are going to believe this Washington elite over local LA police who say they do not need the National Guard nor the military and in fact it's simply making matters worse according to them?
No, this is not federalism in action. The entire point of federalism (or at least used to be) is that power is not centralized but especially in the US and Canada states/ provinces have a lot of reserved power to run their own affairs because the country is too vast for a central authority to accurately know how to govern from afar. Local matters resolved locally. Why is the federal government over-riding state authority when all you have is the clips of the same cars on fire cycled again and again?
Kristi Noem under Biden said federalizing the National Guard against her authority would be a 'direct attack on state's rights' and were Biden to do so, 'oh, boy, we do have a war on our hands.'
But now that it's Trump the Beneficient against his political opponents, everything is peachy. Why? What compelling evidence is there that local LA police and state authority should be over-ridden? Why this one in particular?
I was firmly against the Emergency Act being used against the Trucker protest as I believed that was government over-reach. This is a hundred times worse. It's nice to confirm (or be reminded) that you, oBlade, are not a conservative as I don't see how any principled conservative could support this. But what are you?
Indeed.
As I frequently say, I don’t remotely expect conservatives to agree with all my stances, or even the majority.
I do somewhat expect them to have things to say on certain matters, not because I expect them to believe x or y, but because they themselves have told me they believe x and y in other circumstances.
One can treat politics as this adversarial my team against your team thing, or as something more couched in principles.
You can’t however do the former, while expecting to be treated like you’re doing the latter.
I can respectfully disagree with person A, if they tell me they have certain red lines, and act accordingly when their guy transgresses them. If person B seemingly drops all their stated red lines when expedient, one’s natural conclusion can only be that they don’t value those red lines at all.
If, rather than some individual discussion, it’s one you’re consistently seeing that pattern in for an extended period, then it’s naturally going to harden you a bit, and make you more prone to hostility and dismissiveness.
Wider conservatism can more consistently criticise a Trump for transgressions of some of its core principles, and have a more civil discourse with its political opponents, or it can refuse to do the former and have less of the latter. I don’t really think you can have one without the other.
Criticism need not be disavowal either. Perhaps some individual broadly favours Trump’s platform and conduct, but has an issue in a specific area. Perhaps someone is a Trump voter as the ‘lesser evil’, they’ve issues with him, but the Dem platform is too far away from their principles to countenance voting that way.
But ya need summat. To my eyes it’s become a cult of collective Conservative cowardice in recent years. And that’s defusing down all the strata.
The politicians basically got eventually intimidated into towing the Trump line. Over time so too did the more prominent conservative pundits, then the less prominent. Regrettable, but I think also understandable. Folks don’t wanna stick their head above certain parapets and become RINOs or whatever. The political winds are blowing in a certain direction.
We’re now at a point seemingly though where some faceless individual on Reddit, with no real consequence in doing otherwise, also steadfastly hold the party line on everything too.
And hey it ain’t always about me. To my eyes, in the current climate certain types of conservatives are effectively politically homeless in the US. Surely that’s got to be a bit frustrating no?
On June 11 2025 21:39 oBlade wrote: I am not conservative
What sets you apart from American conservatives?
Just think of him as the GH of conservatives, way further down the rabbit hole but they are nice to him because he is on their side.
Are people especially nice to GH here? I must have missed that memo.
Regardless. GH is clearly some flavour of socialist, and is happy with that label. Perhaps oBlade isn’t some flavour of conservative, but if he isn’t I’m somewhat confused as to what his ideology actually is.
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. 
