|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 25 2025 23:04 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2025 22:58 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 22:30 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 21:48 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 17:46 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 25 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 07:58 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2025 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 03:51 Falling wrote:
Yeah, as long as hallucinations remain, I don't see how I could us AI LLM as a source of information. LLM is good at generating content that matches the form of facts, but looks like a fact is not the same thing as a fact. Most of the time it does manage to come up with facts, but it cannot distinguish between fact and not fact. And so if you as a user are using it to gain knowledge, you cannot tell when it hallucinated as you don't know what you don't know. Replace "AI" with "Google" and you'd be equally right with all of that. It's not the tool that's the problem, it's the user. No, because if you come here and spout something ridiculous, get asked for sources and you say "I read it on breitbart", we laugh you out of the thread. Nobody says they read it on Google, because Google doesn't provide information (well, it's changing, and the AI overview has all of the same problems we highlighted above): Google provides access to information. You then have to inspect the websites it links to in order to see if that website says what you think it said, or you were actually wrong. If you were using ChatGPT in a similar way, and linking the sources it used to support your point, people might have laughed you out of the room for using breitbart as a source, but at least they'd know. And if your source was an eminent Yale professor citing various laws to argue the same thing you were, people would take that as mostly true. Instead you slapped a ChatGPT answer in here and called it a day. It's the laziest use of AI since some Trump PAC created Taylor Swift deepfakes. TLDR: you're wrong. Be better. No, I did it the other way around. I first googled and read articles about the case of Abrego Garcia. I fact checked the sources and the news articles. That's how I knew that the deportation was wrongful to begin with. Not just the method or the target location or the imprisonment. Only when I was asked specifically about the law regarding deportation to third countries - which is unrelated to Garcia's case - did I resort to using ChatGPT. My only mistake was that I fell for the goalpost shift. And you, in arguing so furiously with me, are aiding right-wing lies. You say things like '3rd country deportations are basically a favour to the deportee'. When pressed for sources, you resort to ChatGPT. In the past, you've also uncritically referenced stuff like Kristi Noem's White House blog to make your points because it was something that you agreed with. In general, you will take stuff you agree with as true and stuff you disagree with as false. This whole saga has little to do with right-wing lies and more about how you construct your arguments (poorly). Ah yes, because Introvert argued so much better. He did not. If you wanna pick any sides, picking his seems worse. He made a number of false claims and you didn't question him on that. For example. On August 23 2025 07:06 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 04:14 LightSpectra wrote:Kilmar Abrego Garcia is free. Turns out MS Painting the words "MS-13" on a picture of someone isn't enough evidence to detain them indefinitely. What's wild is that now he can be deported again without trial. Constitutionally. What a joke country. He's still in the country illegally. That hasn't changed and was always the basis of his deportation. Expecting an entire jury trial for a removal would be the joke. That was in fact not the basis. It was the smuggling charges. But Introvert simply repeats the misinformation. On August 23 2025 08:44 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 08:09 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 07:52 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 07:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 07:06 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
He's still in the country illegally. That hasn't changed and was always the basis of his deportation. Expecting an entire jury trial for a removal would be the joke. These illegal immigrants literally get jury trials to receive visa extensions or citizenship to prevent being deported. That's the top spot where ICE generally abducts them nowadays. Joke country. No? Immigration trials are before immigration judges which are article 2 judges (executive branch) not article 3 (judicial branch). At no point in American history had it been required to have a criminal jury trial to deport someone in the country illegally unless there was some other factor. A joke is thinking that sneaking across the border entitles you to the delays, due process, and legal protections of the criminal system. It'd be overwhelmed instantly. Just imagine if eveyone who Biden, being derelict at the border, let in, had to have a full jury trial to be deported. It's rediculous and easy to see why. Bruh. You brought up jury trials, not me. I thought you were talking about whatever regular trials they get summoned to. That's where ICE picks them up and abducts them. You know this. Imagine being an illegal person in a country that you take nothing from. You respect the law, you work, you even pay taxes, you're better than the typical citizen. And yet you get treated like trash. Well you said it was a joke he could be deported without a trial, but when we talked about this before I pointed out that he already had his normal immigration adjudication process and it was determined he could be deported. So I assumed you were talking about something else because otherwise what you said was just wrong. Imagine being someone who broke American law, lives in the country illegally and thinks that you shouldn't be concerned about being deported at any moment. How many countries, that presumably are not jokes, even puts up with illegal immigration as much as the US does. I've asked before, but you claim to not be for open borders yet it's hard to find a policy you support that isn't effectively open borders. On August 23 2025 08:09 Billyboy wrote:On August 23 2025 07:06 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 04:14 LightSpectra wrote:Kilmar Abrego Garcia is free. Turns out MS Painting the words "MS-13" on a picture of someone isn't enough evidence to detain them indefinitely. What's wild is that now he can be deported again without trial. Constitutionally. What a joke country. He's still in the country illegally. That hasn't changed and was always the basis of his deportation. Expecting an entire jury trial for a removal would be the joke. What do you think the final price tag on this giant fuck up is going to be? And do not forget to add all the new legal costs from the civil suit he will most certainly win. On August 23 2025 07:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Canada is removing most retaliatory tariffs against the USA. It'll be a big win once the LCBO opens back up their shelves to American products. The anti-USA hate is waning. The Toronto BLue Jays are a 100% American product and the entire country is just gobbling up their pennant run. Every city the Blue Jays visit has thousands of Canadian fans at the games. The WNBA managed to sell out a full sized NBA arena in a regular season game in Canada. Canadians loves "America's Past Time". They just can't help themselves. The Blue Jays were a much cooler team when they were distinctly un-American. Oh well. LOL. Big Win for the USA today. On August 23 2025 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 04:14 LightSpectra wrote:Kilmar Abrego Garcia is free. Turns out MS Painting the words "MS-13" on a picture of someone isn't enough evidence to detain them indefinitely. What's wild is that now he can be deported again without trial. Constitutionally. What a joke country. meh, like most people who've lived around Toronto, Canada I have a few options in which country I can live. For me, and many hard working Canadians the USA is the best option. All these millions and millions of Albertans and Quebecers whining forever about separating from Canada and it'll prolly never happen. They can just leave for the USA. Big Red Sox//Yankees game tonight! USA! USA!. I'm really mad at the less taxes I'm going to have pay. I sure wish I was down there with you so I could pay more so the ultra rich could pay less! Im not as sure about his chances in the legal system as you are, but he should have been deported to somewhere he could legally be sent and that should have been the end of it. There was no legal basis for Garcia's deportation because the smuggling charges weren't yet resolved. Wait that's your argument? The smuggling charges didn’t occur until after he was deported. I hate to hop back in here but your argument is worse than I thought. If he was in fact charged with smuggling after being abducted, then his whole deportation case was even more wrongful. That means he was first wrongly accused of gang association, then abducted and imprisoned (where he allegedly faced physical violence) in violation of a court ruling, then wrongfully charged with human smuggling from 2022. No matter how much the information changes, it only looks worse and worse for Trump's America. It looks more and more like a joke country. You can't possibly tell me that you're making a good argument for Garcia's deportation. The way he was treated was blatantly criminal from start to finish. I just don't know how you can take me to task for being wrong on the facts, and specifically cite the smuggling charge, while positing a theory that is impossible because time doesn't run backwards. I suspect you know as little about this case as you do about Ameican immigration law in general. The good argument for his deportation is that he was here illegally and had an active order for his deportation. The potential gang links are just icing on the cake for public consumption. If you wanted to lecture me on this case being even more wrongful than I thought it was, then you made a great effort never to mention that it's even worse. You instead did the exact opposite, trying to paint the deportation case as lawful, which it was not. It was reported that it wasn't lawful. The court ruling made it unlawful. If you just want to argue about things that don't matter, then I'm the wrong person to argue with. I said recently I'm more of a big picture person, and in contrast someone like BJ is more of a fact-oriented person. That means I may get a detail wrong on occasion, but I get the bigger picture right more often. If you just want to argue details, then do it with someone else.
The "detail" that I shouldn't argue about is the very thing you cited to contend that I was wrong, you even quoted it to EnDeR as proof of my error. That's not a mere detail. Nonetheless, you are simply wrong about third country deportation. But on the very thing you thought was so important, you had it backwards. We have to at least be operating on the same timeline.
|
On August 25 2025 23:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2025 23:07 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 23:02 KwarK wrote:
MP, I think you need to make within your posts clear which parts are your own ideological moral beliefs (nobody should be deported from anywhere, immigration crimes are not crimes) and which are statements of legal fact. The legal facts are that under the current immigration laws he should have been deported because he was breaking the law. Your belief is that he shouldn’t have been, not because that law doesn’t exist, but because you believe it shouldn’t exist.
Without clarifying that you’re just talking past each other. Introvert is saying what the law is and you’re saying what the law should be but you’re using language that presents your opinion of what the law should be as your understanding of what the law is. I'm arguing what the court argued. The court argued for no deportation, that was a ruling. This ruling made any and all deportation of Garcia unlawful. Introvert never acknowledged that. Why should I give in to Introvert's argument if he doesn't acknowledge such a basic fact? He's not any more right about the details than I am. People are somehow focusing more on whether I misunderstood something and nobody's focusing on Introvert's misunderstanding. This makes no sense. Explain. The court ruled that he should not be sent to El Salvador due to fears of persecution there. The court did not give him a Green Card nor any kind of resident alien status. The court did not rule his presence in the US to be legal. Simply that El Salvador wasn't the right place to send him. Those are two separate issues. In theory citizens are the responsibility of the government of the nation of which they have citizenship. If you find someone else's citizens in your country illegally you just let that government know that you found their people and that you'll swing by their house and leave them on the porch. They can take it from there. The problem is some nations aren't responsible enough to take care of their citizens which is when asylum claims kick in. Sometimes people in your country will say, for example, "sure, I'm here illegally, because I'm a political dissident and I'm fleeing Cuba" and you don't really want to phone up Castro and say "I found your dissident, I'll drop him off later". But there's a mechanism for that, an asylum claim, and people who are granted asylum are given legal resident status. Garcia was not. The administration should have worked out a better plan for what to do with him than nothing at all. And obviously Trump's administration should have done better than MS Painting gang member onto a photo of him and sending him to a prison colony. Whatever the right answer is, we know that that's definitely a wrong one.
Garcia refused the deportation offers. Initially a court ruled that he "can" be deported elsewhere, but that doesn't give carte blanche to the state to deport him wherever they want. He had a "withholding of removal". This came after he applied for asylum, which was denied in 2019. He then continued to live and work in the US. His asylum application wasn't off the table, although he apparently failed to show up to one of his court meetings - that's what opened the door to rapid deportation, which then turned into an abduction.
Recently Garcia refused the Costa Rica offer. So that's off the table. Uganda is the new offer. But Garcia also refuses this one and he's working with his lawyers so he can stay in the US. He has a reasonable case for asylum or perhaps otherwise.
If people want to argue that failing to show up just once means a person should be immediately deported, then ok, sure. Make that argument. One can argue that alone doesn't make America a joke country. I disagree. But at least then we'd be talking honestly. Just painting this as a straight forward deportation case is completely wrong.
|
On August 25 2025 23:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2025 23:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 22:58 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 22:30 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 21:48 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 17:46 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 25 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 07:58 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2025 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Replace "AI" with "Google" and you'd be equally right with all of that. It's not the tool that's the problem, it's the user. No, because if you come here and spout something ridiculous, get asked for sources and you say "I read it on breitbart", we laugh you out of the thread. Nobody says they read it on Google, because Google doesn't provide information (well, it's changing, and the AI overview has all of the same problems we highlighted above): Google provides access to information. You then have to inspect the websites it links to in order to see if that website says what you think it said, or you were actually wrong. If you were using ChatGPT in a similar way, and linking the sources it used to support your point, people might have laughed you out of the room for using breitbart as a source, but at least they'd know. And if your source was an eminent Yale professor citing various laws to argue the same thing you were, people would take that as mostly true. Instead you slapped a ChatGPT answer in here and called it a day. It's the laziest use of AI since some Trump PAC created Taylor Swift deepfakes. TLDR: you're wrong. Be better. No, I did it the other way around. I first googled and read articles about the case of Abrego Garcia. I fact checked the sources and the news articles. That's how I knew that the deportation was wrongful to begin with. Not just the method or the target location or the imprisonment. Only when I was asked specifically about the law regarding deportation to third countries - which is unrelated to Garcia's case - did I resort to using ChatGPT. My only mistake was that I fell for the goalpost shift. And you, in arguing so furiously with me, are aiding right-wing lies. You say things like '3rd country deportations are basically a favour to the deportee'. When pressed for sources, you resort to ChatGPT. In the past, you've also uncritically referenced stuff like Kristi Noem's White House blog to make your points because it was something that you agreed with. In general, you will take stuff you agree with as true and stuff you disagree with as false. This whole saga has little to do with right-wing lies and more about how you construct your arguments (poorly). Ah yes, because Introvert argued so much better. He did not. If you wanna pick any sides, picking his seems worse. He made a number of false claims and you didn't question him on that. For example. On August 23 2025 07:06 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 04:14 LightSpectra wrote:Kilmar Abrego Garcia is free. Turns out MS Painting the words "MS-13" on a picture of someone isn't enough evidence to detain them indefinitely. What's wild is that now he can be deported again without trial. Constitutionally. What a joke country. He's still in the country illegally. That hasn't changed and was always the basis of his deportation. Expecting an entire jury trial for a removal would be the joke. That was in fact not the basis. It was the smuggling charges. But Introvert simply repeats the misinformation. On August 23 2025 08:44 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 08:09 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 07:52 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 07:40 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
These illegal immigrants literally get jury trials to receive visa extensions or citizenship to prevent being deported. That's the top spot where ICE generally abducts them nowadays.
Joke country. No? Immigration trials are before immigration judges which are article 2 judges (executive branch) not article 3 (judicial branch). At no point in American history had it been required to have a criminal jury trial to deport someone in the country illegally unless there was some other factor. A joke is thinking that sneaking across the border entitles you to the delays, due process, and legal protections of the criminal system. It'd be overwhelmed instantly. Just imagine if eveyone who Biden, being derelict at the border, let in, had to have a full jury trial to be deported. It's rediculous and easy to see why. Bruh. You brought up jury trials, not me. I thought you were talking about whatever regular trials they get summoned to. That's where ICE picks them up and abducts them. You know this. Imagine being an illegal person in a country that you take nothing from. You respect the law, you work, you even pay taxes, you're better than the typical citizen. And yet you get treated like trash. Well you said it was a joke he could be deported without a trial, but when we talked about this before I pointed out that he already had his normal immigration adjudication process and it was determined he could be deported. So I assumed you were talking about something else because otherwise what you said was just wrong. Imagine being someone who broke American law, lives in the country illegally and thinks that you shouldn't be concerned about being deported at any moment. How many countries, that presumably are not jokes, even puts up with illegal immigration as much as the US does. I've asked before, but you claim to not be for open borders yet it's hard to find a policy you support that isn't effectively open borders. On August 23 2025 08:09 Billyboy wrote:On August 23 2025 07:06 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
What's wild is that now he can be deported again without trial. Constitutionally. What a joke country. He's still in the country illegally. That hasn't changed and was always the basis of his deportation. Expecting an entire jury trial for a removal would be the joke. What do you think the final price tag on this giant fuck up is going to be? And do not forget to add all the new legal costs from the civil suit he will most certainly win. On August 23 2025 07:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Canada is removing most retaliatory tariffs against the USA. It'll be a big win once the LCBO opens back up their shelves to American products. The anti-USA hate is waning. The Toronto BLue Jays are a 100% American product and the entire country is just gobbling up their pennant run. Every city the Blue Jays visit has thousands of Canadian fans at the games. The WNBA managed to sell out a full sized NBA arena in a regular season game in Canada. Canadians loves "America's Past Time". They just can't help themselves. The Blue Jays were a much cooler team when they were distinctly un-American. Oh well. LOL. Big Win for the USA today. On August 23 2025 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
What's wild is that now he can be deported again without trial. Constitutionally. What a joke country. meh, like most people who've lived around Toronto, Canada I have a few options in which country I can live. For me, and many hard working Canadians the USA is the best option. All these millions and millions of Albertans and Quebecers whining forever about separating from Canada and it'll prolly never happen. They can just leave for the USA. Big Red Sox//Yankees game tonight! USA! USA!. I'm really mad at the less taxes I'm going to have pay. I sure wish I was down there with you so I could pay more so the ultra rich could pay less! Im not as sure about his chances in the legal system as you are, but he should have been deported to somewhere he could legally be sent and that should have been the end of it. There was no legal basis for Garcia's deportation because the smuggling charges weren't yet resolved. Wait that's your argument? The smuggling charges didn’t occur until after he was deported. I hate to hop back in here but your argument is worse than I thought. If he was in fact charged with smuggling after being abducted, then his whole deportation case was even more wrongful. That means he was first wrongly accused of gang association, then abducted and imprisoned (where he allegedly faced physical violence) in violation of a court ruling, then wrongfully charged with human smuggling from 2022. No matter how much the information changes, it only looks worse and worse for Trump's America. It looks more and more like a joke country. You can't possibly tell me that you're making a good argument for Garcia's deportation. The way he was treated was blatantly criminal from start to finish. I just don't know how you can take me to task for being wrong on the facts, and specifically cite the smuggling charge, while positing a theory that is impossible because time doesn't run backwards. I suspect you know as little about this case as you do about Ameican immigration law in general. The good argument for his deportation is that he was here illegally and had an active order for his deportation. The potential gang links are just icing on the cake for public consumption. If you wanted to lecture me on this case being even more wrongful than I thought it was, then you made a great effort never to mention that it's even worse. You instead did the exact opposite, trying to paint the deportation case as lawful, which it was not. It was reported that it wasn't lawful. The court ruling made it unlawful. If you just want to argue about things that don't matter, then I'm the wrong person to argue with. I said recently I'm more of a big picture person, and in contrast someone like BJ is more of a fact-oriented person. That means I may get a detail wrong on occasion, but I get the bigger picture right more often. If you just want to argue details, then do it with someone else. The "detail" that I shouldn't argue about is the very thing you cited to contend that I was wrong, you even quoted it to EnDeR as proof of my error. That's not a mere detail. Nonetheless, you are simply wrong about third country deportation. But on the very thing you thought was so important, you had it backwards. We have to at least be operating on the same timeline.
I don't know why your mistake is less grievous than whatever you think was my mistake. You got the case fundamentally wrong. You're just the pot calling the kettle black.
|
United States42861 Posts
On August 25 2025 23:36 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2025 23:15 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2025 23:07 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 23:02 KwarK wrote:
MP, I think you need to make within your posts clear which parts are your own ideological moral beliefs (nobody should be deported from anywhere, immigration crimes are not crimes) and which are statements of legal fact. The legal facts are that under the current immigration laws he should have been deported because he was breaking the law. Your belief is that he shouldn’t have been, not because that law doesn’t exist, but because you believe it shouldn’t exist.
Without clarifying that you’re just talking past each other. Introvert is saying what the law is and you’re saying what the law should be but you’re using language that presents your opinion of what the law should be as your understanding of what the law is. I'm arguing what the court argued. The court argued for no deportation, that was a ruling. This ruling made any and all deportation of Garcia unlawful. Introvert never acknowledged that. Why should I give in to Introvert's argument if he doesn't acknowledge such a basic fact? He's not any more right about the details than I am. People are somehow focusing more on whether I misunderstood something and nobody's focusing on Introvert's misunderstanding. This makes no sense. Explain. The court ruled that he should not be sent to El Salvador due to fears of persecution there. The court did not give him a Green Card nor any kind of resident alien status. The court did not rule his presence in the US to be legal. Simply that El Salvador wasn't the right place to send him. Those are two separate issues. In theory citizens are the responsibility of the government of the nation of which they have citizenship. If you find someone else's citizens in your country illegally you just let that government know that you found their people and that you'll swing by their house and leave them on the porch. They can take it from there. The problem is some nations aren't responsible enough to take care of their citizens which is when asylum claims kick in. Sometimes people in your country will say, for example, "sure, I'm here illegally, because I'm a political dissident and I'm fleeing Cuba" and you don't really want to phone up Castro and say "I found your dissident, I'll drop him off later". But there's a mechanism for that, an asylum claim, and people who are granted asylum are given legal resident status. Garcia was not. The administration should have worked out a better plan for what to do with him than nothing at all. And obviously Trump's administration should have done better than MS Painting gang member onto a photo of him and sending him to a prison colony. Whatever the right answer is, we know that that's definitely a wrong one. Garcia refused the deportation offers. Initially a court ruled that he "can" be deported elsewhere, but that doesn't give carte blanche to the state to deport him wherever they want. He had a "withholding of removal". This came after he applied for asylum, which was denied in 2019. He then continued to live and work in the US. His asylum application wasn't off the table, although he apparently failed to show up to one of his court meetings - that's what opened the door to rapid deportation, which then turned into an abduction. Recently Garcia refused the Costa Rica offer. So that's off the table. Uganda is the new offer. But Garcia also refuses this one and he's working with his lawyers so he can stay in the US. He has a reasonable case for asylum or perhaps otherwise. If people want to argue that failing to show up just once means a person should be immediately deported, then ok, sure. Make that argument. One can argue that alone doesn't make America a joke country. I disagree. But at least then we'd be talking honestly. Just painting this as a straight forward deportation case is completely wrong.
It’s not a menu. If you refuse your country of citizenship because of valid fears of persecution you can’t demand a first choice elsewhere. That’s not a reasonable demand to have on a nation you entered illegally.
Edit: The US would have been well within its rights to simply say
"If you wanted to claim asylum then you should have done so on the day you crossed the border as is your right. You declined to do that and instead opted to live and work here illegally. Now you have been caught living and working illegally and there is a threat to that you are invoking your fears of persecution in your home country, fears which you kept to yourself until it suited you to bring them up. It is our belief that this claim is not being invoked in good faith out of a genuine fear but are rather as a matter of convenience now that your continued illegal stay is threatened".
The US would have been well within its rights to just send him anyway. There is a process and he opted not to use it. Negotiating on his behalf to find another nation willing to take him as an asylum refugee is generous.
|
On August 25 2025 23:38 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2025 23:32 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 23:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 22:58 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 22:30 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 21:48 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 17:46 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 25 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 07:58 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
No, because if you come here and spout something ridiculous, get asked for sources and you say "I read it on breitbart", we laugh you out of the thread. Nobody says they read it on Google, because Google doesn't provide information (well, it's changing, and the AI overview has all of the same problems we highlighted above): Google provides access to information. You then have to inspect the websites it links to in order to see if that website says what you think it said, or you were actually wrong. If you were using ChatGPT in a similar way, and linking the sources it used to support your point, people might have laughed you out of the room for using breitbart as a source, but at least they'd know. And if your source was an eminent Yale professor citing various laws to argue the same thing you were, people would take that as mostly true.
Instead you slapped a ChatGPT answer in here and called it a day. It's the laziest use of AI since some Trump PAC created Taylor Swift deepfakes.
TLDR: you're wrong. Be better. No, I did it the other way around. I first googled and read articles about the case of Abrego Garcia. I fact checked the sources and the news articles. That's how I knew that the deportation was wrongful to begin with. Not just the method or the target location or the imprisonment. Only when I was asked specifically about the law regarding deportation to third countries - which is unrelated to Garcia's case - did I resort to using ChatGPT. My only mistake was that I fell for the goalpost shift. And you, in arguing so furiously with me, are aiding right-wing lies. You say things like '3rd country deportations are basically a favour to the deportee'. When pressed for sources, you resort to ChatGPT. In the past, you've also uncritically referenced stuff like Kristi Noem's White House blog to make your points because it was something that you agreed with. In general, you will take stuff you agree with as true and stuff you disagree with as false. This whole saga has little to do with right-wing lies and more about how you construct your arguments (poorly). Ah yes, because Introvert argued so much better. He did not. If you wanna pick any sides, picking his seems worse. He made a number of false claims and you didn't question him on that. For example. On August 23 2025 07:06 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 04:14 LightSpectra wrote:Kilmar Abrego Garcia is free. Turns out MS Painting the words "MS-13" on a picture of someone isn't enough evidence to detain them indefinitely. What's wild is that now he can be deported again without trial. Constitutionally. What a joke country. He's still in the country illegally. That hasn't changed and was always the basis of his deportation. Expecting an entire jury trial for a removal would be the joke. That was in fact not the basis. It was the smuggling charges. But Introvert simply repeats the misinformation. On August 23 2025 08:44 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 08:09 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 07:52 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
No? Immigration trials are before immigration judges which are article 2 judges (executive branch) not article 3 (judicial branch). At no point in American history had it been required to have a criminal jury trial to deport someone in the country illegally unless there was some other factor.
A joke is thinking that sneaking across the border entitles you to the delays, due process, and legal protections of the criminal system. It'd be overwhelmed instantly. Just imagine if eveyone who Biden, being derelict at the border, let in, had to have a full jury trial to be deported. It's rediculous and easy to see why. Bruh. You brought up jury trials, not me. I thought you were talking about whatever regular trials they get summoned to. That's where ICE picks them up and abducts them. You know this. Imagine being an illegal person in a country that you take nothing from. You respect the law, you work, you even pay taxes, you're better than the typical citizen. And yet you get treated like trash. Well you said it was a joke he could be deported without a trial, but when we talked about this before I pointed out that he already had his normal immigration adjudication process and it was determined he could be deported. So I assumed you were talking about something else because otherwise what you said was just wrong. Imagine being someone who broke American law, lives in the country illegally and thinks that you shouldn't be concerned about being deported at any moment. How many countries, that presumably are not jokes, even puts up with illegal immigration as much as the US does. I've asked before, but you claim to not be for open borders yet it's hard to find a policy you support that isn't effectively open borders. On August 23 2025 08:09 Billyboy wrote:On August 23 2025 07:06 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
He's still in the country illegally. That hasn't changed and was always the basis of his deportation. Expecting an entire jury trial for a removal would be the joke. What do you think the final price tag on this giant fuck up is going to be? And do not forget to add all the new legal costs from the civil suit he will most certainly win. On August 23 2025 07:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Canada is removing most retaliatory tariffs against the USA. It'll be a big win once the LCBO opens back up their shelves to American products.
The anti-USA hate is waning. The Toronto BLue Jays are a 100% American product and the entire country is just gobbling up their pennant run. Every city the Blue Jays visit has thousands of Canadian fans at the games. The WNBA managed to sell out a full sized NBA arena in a regular season game in Canada.
Canadians loves "America's Past Time". They just can't help themselves. The Blue Jays were a much cooler team when they were distinctly un-American. Oh well. LOL.
Big Win for the USA today.
[quote]
meh, like most people who've lived around Toronto, Canada I have a few options in which country I can live. For me, and many hard working Canadians the USA is the best option. All these millions and millions of Albertans and Quebecers whining forever about separating from Canada and it'll prolly never happen. They can just leave for the USA.
Big Red Sox//Yankees game tonight!
USA! USA!. I'm really mad at the less taxes I'm going to have pay. I sure wish I was down there with you so I could pay more so the ultra rich could pay less! Im not as sure about his chances in the legal system as you are, but he should have been deported to somewhere he could legally be sent and that should have been the end of it. There was no legal basis for Garcia's deportation because the smuggling charges weren't yet resolved. Wait that's your argument? The smuggling charges didn’t occur until after he was deported. I hate to hop back in here but your argument is worse than I thought. If he was in fact charged with smuggling after being abducted, then his whole deportation case was even more wrongful. That means he was first wrongly accused of gang association, then abducted and imprisoned (where he allegedly faced physical violence) in violation of a court ruling, then wrongfully charged with human smuggling from 2022. No matter how much the information changes, it only looks worse and worse for Trump's America. It looks more and more like a joke country. You can't possibly tell me that you're making a good argument for Garcia's deportation. The way he was treated was blatantly criminal from start to finish. I just don't know how you can take me to task for being wrong on the facts, and specifically cite the smuggling charge, while positing a theory that is impossible because time doesn't run backwards. I suspect you know as little about this case as you do about Ameican immigration law in general. The good argument for his deportation is that he was here illegally and had an active order for his deportation. The potential gang links are just icing on the cake for public consumption. If you wanted to lecture me on this case being even more wrongful than I thought it was, then you made a great effort never to mention that it's even worse. You instead did the exact opposite, trying to paint the deportation case as lawful, which it was not. It was reported that it wasn't lawful. The court ruling made it unlawful. If you just want to argue about things that don't matter, then I'm the wrong person to argue with. I said recently I'm more of a big picture person, and in contrast someone like BJ is more of a fact-oriented person. That means I may get a detail wrong on occasion, but I get the bigger picture right more often. If you just want to argue details, then do it with someone else. The "detail" that I shouldn't argue about is the very thing you cited to contend that I was wrong, you even quoted it to EnDeR as proof of my error. That's not a mere detail. Nonetheless, you are simply wrong about third country deportation. But on the very thing you thought was so important, you had it backwards. We have to at least be operating on the same timeline. I don't know why your mistake is less grievous than whatever you think was my mistake. You got the case fundamentally wrong. You're just the pot calling the kettle black.
I don’t know why you are treating deportation as some sort of option that can be refused. There are certain legal challenges that can be raised, but the determination in his case had already been made. Garcia getting a say would be very generous. I'm not sure this is worth continuing, you have a very strange view of American law and I have no idea where it came from.
|
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not.
|
United States42861 Posts
No argument from me there Sermo.
|
On August 25 2025 23:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2025 23:36 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 23:15 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2025 23:07 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 23:02 KwarK wrote:
MP, I think you need to make within your posts clear which parts are your own ideological moral beliefs (nobody should be deported from anywhere, immigration crimes are not crimes) and which are statements of legal fact. The legal facts are that under the current immigration laws he should have been deported because he was breaking the law. Your belief is that he shouldn’t have been, not because that law doesn’t exist, but because you believe it shouldn’t exist.
Without clarifying that you’re just talking past each other. Introvert is saying what the law is and you’re saying what the law should be but you’re using language that presents your opinion of what the law should be as your understanding of what the law is. I'm arguing what the court argued. The court argued for no deportation, that was a ruling. This ruling made any and all deportation of Garcia unlawful. Introvert never acknowledged that. Why should I give in to Introvert's argument if he doesn't acknowledge such a basic fact? He's not any more right about the details than I am. People are somehow focusing more on whether I misunderstood something and nobody's focusing on Introvert's misunderstanding. This makes no sense. Explain. The court ruled that he should not be sent to El Salvador due to fears of persecution there. The court did not give him a Green Card nor any kind of resident alien status. The court did not rule his presence in the US to be legal. Simply that El Salvador wasn't the right place to send him. Those are two separate issues. In theory citizens are the responsibility of the government of the nation of which they have citizenship. If you find someone else's citizens in your country illegally you just let that government know that you found their people and that you'll swing by their house and leave them on the porch. They can take it from there. The problem is some nations aren't responsible enough to take care of their citizens which is when asylum claims kick in. Sometimes people in your country will say, for example, "sure, I'm here illegally, because I'm a political dissident and I'm fleeing Cuba" and you don't really want to phone up Castro and say "I found your dissident, I'll drop him off later". But there's a mechanism for that, an asylum claim, and people who are granted asylum are given legal resident status. Garcia was not. The administration should have worked out a better plan for what to do with him than nothing at all. And obviously Trump's administration should have done better than MS Painting gang member onto a photo of him and sending him to a prison colony. Whatever the right answer is, we know that that's definitely a wrong one. Garcia refused the deportation offers. Initially a court ruled that he "can" be deported elsewhere, but that doesn't give carte blanche to the state to deport him wherever they want. He had a "withholding of removal". This came after he applied for asylum, which was denied in 2019. He then continued to live and work in the US. His asylum application wasn't off the table, although he apparently failed to show up to one of his court meetings - that's what opened the door to rapid deportation, which then turned into an abduction. Recently Garcia refused the Costa Rica offer. So that's off the table. Uganda is the new offer. But Garcia also refuses this one and he's working with his lawyers so he can stay in the US. He has a reasonable case for asylum or perhaps otherwise. If people want to argue that failing to show up just once means a person should be immediately deported, then ok, sure. Make that argument. One can argue that alone doesn't make America a joke country. I disagree. But at least then we'd be talking honestly. Just painting this as a straight forward deportation case is completely wrong. It’s not a menu. If you refuse your country of citizenship because of valid fears of persecution you can’t demand a first choice elsewhere. That’s not a reasonable demand to have on a nation you entered illegally. Edit: The US would have been well within its rights to simply say "If you wanted to claim asylum then you should have done so on the day you crossed the border as is your right. You declined to do that and instead opted to live and work here illegally. Now you have been caught living and working illegally and there is a threat to that you are invoking your fears of persecution in your home country, fears which you kept to yourself until it suited you to bring them up. It is our belief that this claim is not being invoked in good faith out of a genuine fear but are rather as a matter of convenience now that your continued illegal stay is threatened". The US would have been well within its rights to just send him anyway. There is a process and he opted not to use it. Negotiating on his behalf to find another nation willing to take him as an asylum refugee is generous.
Garcia has a right to refuse offers such as Costa Rica, and he did.
Also, Garcia did ask for asylum when he arrived. That's why he was allowed to stay. He was only up for deportation when he failed to come to one court date. It's not good that he failed to do so, he should've showed up, but that's a fairly minor issue in my opinion that can be resolved with means other than an immediate order for deportation. Either way, that was his real and his only offense - so far at least, and that we know of.
The US cannot just send people to random places in the world. No. That's a complete misrepresentation of these cases where it can happen. It's not as simple as "we'll send you there, we don't wanna hear anything, end of debate". No.
|
On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not.
Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint.
|
On August 25 2025 23:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2025 23:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 23:32 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 23:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 22:58 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 22:30 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 21:48 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 17:46 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 25 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
No, I did it the other way around. I first googled and read articles about the case of Abrego Garcia. I fact checked the sources and the news articles. That's how I knew that the deportation was wrongful to begin with. Not just the method or the target location or the imprisonment.
Only when I was asked specifically about the law regarding deportation to third countries - which is unrelated to Garcia's case - did I resort to using ChatGPT.
My only mistake was that I fell for the goalpost shift. And you, in arguing so furiously with me, are aiding right-wing lies. You say things like '3rd country deportations are basically a favour to the deportee'. When pressed for sources, you resort to ChatGPT. In the past, you've also uncritically referenced stuff like Kristi Noem's White House blog to make your points because it was something that you agreed with. In general, you will take stuff you agree with as true and stuff you disagree with as false. This whole saga has little to do with right-wing lies and more about how you construct your arguments (poorly). Ah yes, because Introvert argued so much better. He did not. If you wanna pick any sides, picking his seems worse. He made a number of false claims and you didn't question him on that. For example. On August 23 2025 07:06 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
What's wild is that now he can be deported again without trial. Constitutionally. What a joke country. He's still in the country illegally. That hasn't changed and was always the basis of his deportation. Expecting an entire jury trial for a removal would be the joke. That was in fact not the basis. It was the smuggling charges. But Introvert simply repeats the misinformation. On August 23 2025 08:44 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 08:09 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Bruh. You brought up jury trials, not me. I thought you were talking about whatever regular trials they get summoned to. That's where ICE picks them up and abducts them. You know this.
Imagine being an illegal person in a country that you take nothing from. You respect the law, you work, you even pay taxes, you're better than the typical citizen. And yet you get treated like trash. Well you said it was a joke he could be deported without a trial, but when we talked about this before I pointed out that he already had his normal immigration adjudication process and it was determined he could be deported. So I assumed you were talking about something else because otherwise what you said was just wrong. Imagine being someone who broke American law, lives in the country illegally and thinks that you shouldn't be concerned about being deported at any moment. How many countries, that presumably are not jokes, even puts up with illegal immigration as much as the US does. I've asked before, but you claim to not be for open borders yet it's hard to find a policy you support that isn't effectively open borders. On August 23 2025 08:09 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
What do you think the final price tag on this giant fuck up is going to be? And do not forget to add all the new legal costs from the civil suit he will most certainly win.
[quote]
I'm really mad at the less taxes I'm going to have pay. I sure wish I was down there with you so I could pay more so the ultra rich could pay less! Im not as sure about his chances in the legal system as you are, but he should have been deported to somewhere he could legally be sent and that should have been the end of it. There was no legal basis for Garcia's deportation because the smuggling charges weren't yet resolved. Wait that's your argument? The smuggling charges didn’t occur until after he was deported. I hate to hop back in here but your argument is worse than I thought. If he was in fact charged with smuggling after being abducted, then his whole deportation case was even more wrongful. That means he was first wrongly accused of gang association, then abducted and imprisoned (where he allegedly faced physical violence) in violation of a court ruling, then wrongfully charged with human smuggling from 2022. No matter how much the information changes, it only looks worse and worse for Trump's America. It looks more and more like a joke country. You can't possibly tell me that you're making a good argument for Garcia's deportation. The way he was treated was blatantly criminal from start to finish. I just don't know how you can take me to task for being wrong on the facts, and specifically cite the smuggling charge, while positing a theory that is impossible because time doesn't run backwards. I suspect you know as little about this case as you do about Ameican immigration law in general. The good argument for his deportation is that he was here illegally and had an active order for his deportation. The potential gang links are just icing on the cake for public consumption. If you wanted to lecture me on this case being even more wrongful than I thought it was, then you made a great effort never to mention that it's even worse. You instead did the exact opposite, trying to paint the deportation case as lawful, which it was not. It was reported that it wasn't lawful. The court ruling made it unlawful. If you just want to argue about things that don't matter, then I'm the wrong person to argue with. I said recently I'm more of a big picture person, and in contrast someone like BJ is more of a fact-oriented person. That means I may get a detail wrong on occasion, but I get the bigger picture right more often. If you just want to argue details, then do it with someone else. The "detail" that I shouldn't argue about is the very thing you cited to contend that I was wrong, you even quoted it to EnDeR as proof of my error. That's not a mere detail. Nonetheless, you are simply wrong about third country deportation. But on the very thing you thought was so important, you had it backwards. We have to at least be operating on the same timeline. I don't know why your mistake is less grievous than whatever you think was my mistake. You got the case fundamentally wrong. You're just the pot calling the kettle black. I don’t know why you are treating deportation as some sort of option that can be refused. There are certain legal challenges that can be raised, but the determination in his case had already been made. Garcia getting a say would be very generous. I'm not sure this is worth continuing, you have a very strange view of American law and I have no idea where it came from.
I'm treating it so because it it so. You can choose to refuse a variety of countries. All of them if you like. Under some circumstances you can be deported to one of those countries against your will, but it is not something that's just being done willy nilly. There must be a clear reason for why deportation makes the most sense.
If the deportee had no say in the matter, then the Costa Rica offer would've been the end of the debate. Garcia refused and Costa Rica was off the table. Now it's Uganda that's being offered. Garcia refuses again, as he has the right to. His lawyers are arguing that it makes more sense for him to stay in the US. They're probably right.
|
On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint.
I agrued as a youth that the nation should be willing to call up the militia onto the streets of a major city in order to combat a crime epidemic. I still think that idea has some merit. DC hasn't seen any murders while under military occupation. Short-term military occupations like in New Orleans in the civil war saw huge benefits for the city.
Calling up the Militia from states far away from that city is straight up looking at Tienimen square and saying "hey that was a good idea the communists did we should do that."
|
On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint.
One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant.
They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...
The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping.
Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it.
|
Northern Ireland25523 Posts
On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it.
How does calling folks genocide enablers fit into this?
|
On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it.
I do not think reinventing terms for people will help. They will most likely be less descriptive of issues and just be included in the list as quickly as before. Some people do not even want to understand the issues behind the terms and will just make up their own meanings for them. Thus, catering for them is a waste of time.
|
It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word.
GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive.
Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one.
|
However, I agree that they have become repugnant to way too many. Unfortunately, you can really replace them with longer explanations of issues without being seen as needlessly long-winded. Especially, in a time period where the focus is on short content that is easily shared in mass.
The key to me seems to be to present ideas outside of the normal political context. If the idea is presented by a known politician instead of a random everyday person, it's coming from an already poisoned source. The problem is that these everyday people would have to transition to politics at some point, which would poison them.
|
If someone's already weeping blood every time they hear "LGBTQIA+" or "cisgender" before they even start taking an interest in politics they're probably already a lost cause.
|
I'm all for using every single word by everty single person in any case. Culturul fragility is bullshit anyway. Oh my heritage...
The west fucked up the world. Now we're being "replaced" by migrants because we're not breeding anymore. The caucasian will become a minority in the us and western europe and mostly be present in scandinavia and greenland. Who cares if we dwindle down tp 100m population, we made our bed. Segregating culturally fucked multiculturalism. Having some kind of ip on your culture and then calling our appropriation fucks multiculturalism. It's supposed to be a melting pot, not a mini nation in a nation. Many examples in the Benelux can be used to address the failure of integration. Perhaps it was never the goal though, who knows.
We're using current conditions to draw the conclusion why it was never meant to be. Certainly, the dominant population at the time never really embraced the people who looked different from them. Now it's too late to try again. We could've made allies for life (in the EU at least), but we're about to tear ourselves apart. So is the US for that matter. Forcing multiculturalism down everyone's throat without actually practising it systemically is just a recipe for your own demise. I fear for my children's futures and while it probably won't be that extreme yet probably, a few generations down the line we'll really see some deconstruction of "Western society".
|
On August 26 2025 00:31 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2025 23:50 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 23:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 23:32 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 23:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 22:58 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 22:30 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 21:48 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 17:46 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
You say things like '3rd country deportations are basically a favour to the deportee'. When pressed for sources, you resort to ChatGPT. In the past, you've also uncritically referenced stuff like Kristi Noem's White House blog to make your points because it was something that you agreed with. In general, you will take stuff you agree with as true and stuff you disagree with as false.
This whole saga has little to do with right-wing lies and more about how you construct your arguments (poorly). Ah yes, because Introvert argued so much better. He did not. If you wanna pick any sides, picking his seems worse. He made a number of false claims and you didn't question him on that. For example. On August 23 2025 07:06 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
He's still in the country illegally. That hasn't changed and was always the basis of his deportation. Expecting an entire jury trial for a removal would be the joke. That was in fact not the basis. It was the smuggling charges. But Introvert simply repeats the misinformation. On August 23 2025 08:44 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Well you said it was a joke he could be deported without a trial, but when we talked about this before I pointed out that he already had his normal immigration adjudication process and it was determined he could be deported. So I assumed you were talking about something else because otherwise what you said was just wrong.
Imagine being someone who broke American law, lives in the country illegally and thinks that you shouldn't be concerned about being deported at any moment. How many countries, that presumably are not jokes, even puts up with illegal immigration as much as the US does. I've asked before, but you claim to not be for open borders yet it's hard to find a policy you support that isn't effectively open borders.
[quote]
Im not as sure about his chances in the legal system as you are, but he should have been deported to somewhere he could legally be sent and that should have been the end of it. There was no legal basis for Garcia's deportation because the smuggling charges weren't yet resolved. Wait that's your argument? The smuggling charges didn’t occur until after he was deported. I hate to hop back in here but your argument is worse than I thought. If he was in fact charged with smuggling after being abducted, then his whole deportation case was even more wrongful. That means he was first wrongly accused of gang association, then abducted and imprisoned (where he allegedly faced physical violence) in violation of a court ruling, then wrongfully charged with human smuggling from 2022. No matter how much the information changes, it only looks worse and worse for Trump's America. It looks more and more like a joke country. You can't possibly tell me that you're making a good argument for Garcia's deportation. The way he was treated was blatantly criminal from start to finish. I just don't know how you can take me to task for being wrong on the facts, and specifically cite the smuggling charge, while positing a theory that is impossible because time doesn't run backwards. I suspect you know as little about this case as you do about Ameican immigration law in general. The good argument for his deportation is that he was here illegally and had an active order for his deportation. The potential gang links are just icing on the cake for public consumption. If you wanted to lecture me on this case being even more wrongful than I thought it was, then you made a great effort never to mention that it's even worse. You instead did the exact opposite, trying to paint the deportation case as lawful, which it was not. It was reported that it wasn't lawful. The court ruling made it unlawful. If you just want to argue about things that don't matter, then I'm the wrong person to argue with. I said recently I'm more of a big picture person, and in contrast someone like BJ is more of a fact-oriented person. That means I may get a detail wrong on occasion, but I get the bigger picture right more often. If you just want to argue details, then do it with someone else. The "detail" that I shouldn't argue about is the very thing you cited to contend that I was wrong, you even quoted it to EnDeR as proof of my error. That's not a mere detail. Nonetheless, you are simply wrong about third country deportation. But on the very thing you thought was so important, you had it backwards. We have to at least be operating on the same timeline. I don't know why your mistake is less grievous than whatever you think was my mistake. You got the case fundamentally wrong. You're just the pot calling the kettle black. I don’t know why you are treating deportation as some sort of option that can be refused. There are certain legal challenges that can be raised, but the determination in his case had already been made. Garcia getting a say would be very generous. I'm not sure this is worth continuing, you have a very strange view of American law and I have no idea where it came from. I'm treating it so because it it so. You can choose to refuse a variety of countries. All of them if you like. Under some circumstances you can be deported to one of those countries against your will, but it is not something that's just being done willy nilly. There must be a clear reason for why deportation makes the most sense. If the deportee had no say in the matter, then the Costa Rica offer would've been the end of the debate. Garcia refused and Costa Rica was off the table. Now it's Uganda that's being offered. Garcia refuses again, as he has the right to. His lawyers are arguing that it makes more sense for him to stay in the US. They're probably right.
Ah, you are still confused. The current "Uganda or Costa Rica" dealing right now is in the context of his criminal trial. Prosecutors are doing a variant of their normal "plead to this and we'll do X, refuse and we'll do Y" thing. This is not being done in the context of his immigration or (rejected) asylum claims. They charged him when he was sent back from El Salvador and they are now offering him a "deal" as part of his *criminal* proceedings.
|
On August 26 2025 00:31 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2025 23:50 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 23:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 23:32 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 23:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 22:58 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 22:30 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 21:48 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 17:46 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
You say things like '3rd country deportations are basically a favour to the deportee'. When pressed for sources, you resort to ChatGPT. In the past, you've also uncritically referenced stuff like Kristi Noem's White House blog to make your points because it was something that you agreed with. In general, you will take stuff you agree with as true and stuff you disagree with as false.
This whole saga has little to do with right-wing lies and more about how you construct your arguments (poorly). Ah yes, because Introvert argued so much better. He did not. If you wanna pick any sides, picking his seems worse. He made a number of false claims and you didn't question him on that. For example. On August 23 2025 07:06 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
He's still in the country illegally. That hasn't changed and was always the basis of his deportation. Expecting an entire jury trial for a removal would be the joke. That was in fact not the basis. It was the smuggling charges. But Introvert simply repeats the misinformation. On August 23 2025 08:44 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Well you said it was a joke he could be deported without a trial, but when we talked about this before I pointed out that he already had his normal immigration adjudication process and it was determined he could be deported. So I assumed you were talking about something else because otherwise what you said was just wrong.
Imagine being someone who broke American law, lives in the country illegally and thinks that you shouldn't be concerned about being deported at any moment. How many countries, that presumably are not jokes, even puts up with illegal immigration as much as the US does. I've asked before, but you claim to not be for open borders yet it's hard to find a policy you support that isn't effectively open borders.
[quote]
Im not as sure about his chances in the legal system as you are, but he should have been deported to somewhere he could legally be sent and that should have been the end of it. There was no legal basis for Garcia's deportation because the smuggling charges weren't yet resolved. Wait that's your argument? The smuggling charges didn’t occur until after he was deported. I hate to hop back in here but your argument is worse than I thought. If he was in fact charged with smuggling after being abducted, then his whole deportation case was even more wrongful. That means he was first wrongly accused of gang association, then abducted and imprisoned (where he allegedly faced physical violence) in violation of a court ruling, then wrongfully charged with human smuggling from 2022. No matter how much the information changes, it only looks worse and worse for Trump's America. It looks more and more like a joke country. You can't possibly tell me that you're making a good argument for Garcia's deportation. The way he was treated was blatantly criminal from start to finish. I just don't know how you can take me to task for being wrong on the facts, and specifically cite the smuggling charge, while positing a theory that is impossible because time doesn't run backwards. I suspect you know as little about this case as you do about Ameican immigration law in general. The good argument for his deportation is that he was here illegally and had an active order for his deportation. The potential gang links are just icing on the cake for public consumption. If you wanted to lecture me on this case being even more wrongful than I thought it was, then you made a great effort never to mention that it's even worse. You instead did the exact opposite, trying to paint the deportation case as lawful, which it was not. It was reported that it wasn't lawful. The court ruling made it unlawful. If you just want to argue about things that don't matter, then I'm the wrong person to argue with. I said recently I'm more of a big picture person, and in contrast someone like BJ is more of a fact-oriented person. That means I may get a detail wrong on occasion, but I get the bigger picture right more often. If you just want to argue details, then do it with someone else. The "detail" that I shouldn't argue about is the very thing you cited to contend that I was wrong, you even quoted it to EnDeR as proof of my error. That's not a mere detail. Nonetheless, you are simply wrong about third country deportation. But on the very thing you thought was so important, you had it backwards. We have to at least be operating on the same timeline. I don't know why your mistake is less grievous than whatever you think was my mistake. You got the case fundamentally wrong. You're just the pot calling the kettle black. I don’t know why you are treating deportation as some sort of option that can be refused. There are certain legal challenges that can be raised, but the determination in his case had already been made. Garcia getting a say would be very generous. I'm not sure this is worth continuing, you have a very strange view of American law and I have no idea where it came from. I'm treating it so because it it so. You can choose to refuse a variety of countries. All of them if you like. Under some circumstances you can be deported to one of those countries against your will, but it is not something that's just being done willy nilly. There must be a clear reason for why deportation makes the most sense. If the deportee had no say in the matter, then the Costa Rica offer would've been the end of the debate. Garcia refused and Costa Rica was off the table. Now it's Uganda that's being offered. Garcia refuses again, as he has the right to. His lawyers are arguing that it makes more sense for him to stay in the US. They're probably right.
Costa Rica is not a simple deportation destination "offer," it's part of a plea deal for him pleading guilty to the criminal smuggling case brought dealing with the traffic stop years ago. He's not picking from a menu here.
He doesn't want to go to Uganda, his lawyer says, because he doesn't even speak the language (their official language and most spoken language is English).
The reason the US deports people to third countries is not for their convenience or pleasure, it's because they have no right to be in the US, regardless of whether a court says their own country is not safe enough. The withholding of deportation order in Garcia's case only applies to El Salvador, and realistically it should just be challenged and thrown out because it no longer applies since there's no risk of gang persecution in El Salvador which now has no gang violence.
The only thing you need to deport to a 3rd country is an agreement they will take the person, and a lack of any other obstacle like withholding of deportation to that country too. The reasons you can't deport someone to their home country are not just that it (allegedly) isn't safe for them - the home country may not accept them individually, or indeed anyone. Due to poor relations or sheer lack of functional government ability. That doesn't magically give them US residency.
When anyone is going to court to get a reason to stay, it's something of a hail mary. You can compare that to how any other country works. Normally you get permission first. Anywhere from 2 in 3 to 9 in 10 cases for asylum don't make it past the first court appearance in the US, depending on who you ask.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
