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

Hat Trick of Today

140 Posts

6 hours ago

#106761

All of that is nice sentiment and all but you do know what you voted for? The man and his high value supporters have told you exactly the type of immigration system they want, unfortunately you made it your colleague’s problem.

JimmyJRaynor

Canada16925 Posts

6 hours ago

#106762

On November 04 2025 10:44 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
All of that is nice sentiment and all but you do know what you voted for? The man and his high value supporters have told you exactly the type of immigration system they want, unfortunately you made it your colleague’s problem.

Part of an effective immigration system is to prevent random people from entering the country. I trust Trump more than whatsherface to make that happen.

I share Obama's view expressed in November, 2014. Its at 1 minute and 5 seconds. Obama discusses preventing illegals from entering the country earlier in this speech.

Between 2009 and 2016 the Department of Homeland Security reported about 3 million formal removals, more than under any previous administration.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-us-deported-more-130000074.html?guccounter=1

I prefer Obama's tone and delivery as opposed to Trump's communication style. Obama is not celebrating having to deport people.

Hat Trick of Today

140 Posts

5 hours ago

#106763

Exactly, so I don’t know what you are complaining about. Do you know anything about this colleague beyond he is a competent worker? That is literally the only thing that makes him a “good” person in your eyes. To me, he is literally just a random person entering the country.

If he wants to get into the US, he just has to go through the proper channels. They already exist. If he can’t get the right papers, he’s just not high value enough sorry.

The contempt I have with the US immigration system is not that they are choosing to take a hard line but it’s the fact that they are using illegal immigration to prime domestic sentiment to be hostile towards visible foreigners like whole Hyundai visa fuckup. High value supporters and donors are still positioning themselves and policy in such a way they still have access to a captive (illegal) immigrant work force. It is a system whose only consistency is that monetary wealth is the only value that matters.

oBlade

United States5758 Posts

3 hours ago

#106764

On November 04 2025 07:16 ChristianS wrote:

Show nested quote +

Getting into what “clean CR” means in this context is the argument I was skipping with Intro, and I’ll skip it here if it’s all the same to you.

It’s interesting, though, how ICE and Trump’s ballroom keep funding, even though embassy workers or soldiers or SNAP do not. What’s going on there, do you think?

The ballroom is still privately funded. Congress passed a law to fund ICE months ago. They have not passed a law to fund SNAP and the military past the funding lapse at the end of the fiscal year, meaning the beginning of October. That is the extent of what is "going on." Congress has to pass laws to fund the government every year. The executive branch, meaning the government, can't just wizard itself money.

ChristianS

United States3239 Posts

3 hours ago

#106765

On November 04 2025 13:22 oBlade wrote:

Show nested quote +

On November 04 2025 07:16 ChristianS wrote:

On November 04 2025 04:32 oBlade wrote:

On November 03 2025 23:57 ChristianS wrote:

On November 03 2025 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:
For many Americans missing 1 paycheck is a big problem, how about missing 2? Can Trump conjure another check for the military out of a hat?

Its only a matter of time before the people literally revolt.
That is where this ends, when the Republican caucus betrays Trump to save their own hides, potentially literally.

Obviously the juxtaposition of “we’re not funding SNAP because we don’t want to” with the ballroom, bathroom remodeling, Great Gatsby-themed party, etc. has a lot of “let them eat cake” vibes to it. Nothing foments revolt quite like mass starvation.

I’m almost tempted to suspect it’s intentional? I definitely think a lot of the invasions of blue cities were done partly in hopes of sparking some kind of rebellion they could crush. That would have been a smaller scale thing, though, something you could be confident in suppressing with force. 40 million Americans without SNAP and a military months without a paycheck seems like an insane danger to intentionally court.

Honestly, though, I’d still probably give the chances of something like that before end of year less than 50%. That’s just not really a mode Americans have. They could learn it but I think that’s not something that can happen in a few weeks.

I mean the Senate could at any time vote to allow a vote on the clean CR which would then pass, and includes SNAP. But also, whether legal or not, the administration has announced they will tap the USDA contingency fund to disburse SNAP benefits, which will cover not even a month's worth. There are limits to what the government can fund when Congress doesn't give them the money to fund it.

Sure, all of which to say when they wanted that stuff they were happy to find the votes, or maybe just schmooze up to their rich buddies and get it done that way. But food stamps? Fuck em. Health care premiums more than doubling? Oh we think that’s good actually.

By their own admission they’re so determined to *ensuring* that people’s healthcare premiums go up that they’re willing to accept all the other consequences of the shutdown. I have no doubt Democrats would happily help them pass something that funded SNAP in the interim, but clearly Republicans have no interest in that either. And the procedural argument you’re making feels pretty hollow when they’re so happy to ignore procedure the rest of the time. Last shutdown ended when Trump decided to sidestep the appropriations process entirely and fund his wall with “emergency funds.” But 40 million Americans losing the money they depend on for food? Pff, that’s not an *emergency.* They can’t even make up their minds whether that’s *bad* or not.

Again, I’m not predicting revolt but it’s hard to avoid the “let them eat cake” of the moment.