|
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 September 26 2024 03:39 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 03:12 Billyboy wrote:On September 26 2024 02:58 Simberto wrote:On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:On September 25 2024 23:44 oBlade wrote:On September 25 2024 23:30 Billyboy wrote:
It is hard to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he uses terms like "reimigration", which only exist in white nationalist and other racists groups vernacular. No one who is not full of hate uses it, most wouldn't even know what it means without looking it up. Anyone familiar with English immediately knows and understands the concepts and distinctions covered by the words migration, emigration, immigration, and remigration. Same with expatriation and repatriation. The interesting part is when you google all the words you have listed except remigration you get definitions. With remigration you get either white nationalists tweets or articles explaining why white nationalists use the word. I'm not sure if English is your first language but remigration is just not used outside of those circles, as far as I can tell it is a dead word. I did find a Webster's definition but it talked about how it was used about the Irish and Jews, which given the time period also tells you something about it even when it was common. And then Kwark's post really takes all the guess work out, if you are reposting from nazis there is no mystery left. I think people mistakenly think that this somehow means all Trump supporters are white nationalists, which it does not. What it means is that Trump is actively courting white nationalists. You can decide if that is OK with you or not but it simply fact. Funnily enough, the word "remigration" has also become very popular with our current German hard-right assholes. I was reading that when it came up, that it is more commonly used across Europe but massively in Germany, (paraphrase incoming) even that there was some semi secret meeting about getting all non German blood out of the country , and that Frances far right even thought it was too far. Is this a term you hear fairly regularly in Germany? Like would an average German know what it meant or does it go over most peoples heads if they are not part of the pure German blood crowd? And does it sound as awkward in German as English? Re-migration is a very common word in Sweden too. The government plans to offer up to 35 000 bucks per person who re-migrates from 2026 and the opposition parties aren't even particularly critical about it. Most of the people here are clear about the absurd amount of damage our migration policies have caused over the last 15 years.
I'm not going to dive into the merits of the program (like cost benefit or anything like that), but this is too my point about context. Sweden is talking about trying to encourage people to make a choice based on a reward. Trump is not. Had he attached Sweden's policy as the tweet instead of something hateful the context would be different.
The whole open borders thing being a leftist idea is not true, not that no one holds those beliefs but it is far from mainstream. From center right to most of the way left people want legal immigration with a purpose. It is just that we don't believe the people themselves from other places are inherently evil or bad. So the solutions end up different, like much of the talk on the left in NA is about how to make it better in countries south of the US so they don't need to leave for safety reasons.
Part of the big problem in politics now a days is people want to spend all the time talking about the problem and not the solution. And populists, who are envouge for all sides, only propose overly simple solutions that anyone with a little expertise knows are stupid and won't work. They are also pushing a narrative to not trust expertise. It makes coming up with and implementing a well thought out complex solution near impossible. And that is really what is required in our ever more connected world.
|
There's nothing wrong with the word 'remigration' on its face, the caution around it is because it was popularized by the same French identitarians as the great replacement theory, specifically as a remedy for it. And no, they didn't mean it to be purely voluntary (as in the Swedish proposal) or only targeting illegals (as Trump said).
The French far right have quite a few people with academic backgrounds, they've had essayists and historians meeting up for the past few decades to discuss 'solutions' to what they perceive as French identity dying. The US doesn't really have that, their alt-right influencers are shouty mouthbreathers, hence why the developments of white nationalist concepts tend to flow from France. Literate Nazis scare me more.
|
On September 26 2024 03:18 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 02:12 ChristianS wrote:On September 26 2024 00:32 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 22:05 ChristianS wrote:On September 25 2024 20:35 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 20:27 Sadist wrote:On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious? I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest. The number of times people are shot per police interaction is near zero. You just hear about the bad encounters in the media. However i vehemently disagree with BJ's assertion that people overreact and Trump isnt so bad. I agree with Kwarks post. He already tried to overturn and cheat an election once. Its not far off to put anything past him or his weird team now. My main assertion was really that there’s enough bad things to say about Trump that you don’t have to invent more shit to add onto it. The fact that we’re now debating ICE death squads being a thing pretty much proves my point. By inventing death squads and concentration camps they are muddying their own waters and then complaining that people don’t see it clearly. I get the impulse to summarize people’s assertions with pithy hyperboles like “ICE death squads” but it really sucks to put hyperboles in other people’s mouths when your overall point is “look how hyperbolic you all are being.” Anyway I think it’s worth talking more about Trump’s deportation promises. As I recall he’s promised to deport millions of people within a few days of taking office; if anybody wants to supply an exact quote I’d appreciate it. But I don’t know why we’d need an analogy to 1944 Germany when 1954 US is right there. Overall, there were 1,074,277 "returns", defined as "confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal" in the first year of Operation Wetback.[36] This included many workers without papers who fled to Mexico fearing arrest; over half a million from Texas alone.[37] The total number of sweeps fell to just 242,608 in 1955, and continuously declined each year until 1962, when there was a slight rise in apprehended workers.[38] Despite the decline in sweeps, the total number of Border Patrol agents more than doubled to 1,692 by 1962, and an additional plane was added to the force.[38] WikipediaWhen the generation that stormed the beaches of Normandy decided they wanted to get rid of immigrants and didn’t care much about due process, they put together a task force and managed to deport about a million people in a year. Trump wants to deport 10million+ in a matter of days. I’m not overly focusing on the deaths (although to be certain, there were deaths caused by Operation Wetback) but with an operation of that scale and speed it’s simply not possible to have any real respect for due process. They deported legal migrants and US citizens just because they were brown. They didn’t give people a chance to retrieve their possessions or even talk to their families about what was happening. It’s total lawlessness, essentially a race riot carried out by the government instead of a mob. I see no reason to think Trump’s program here would be any better, and every reason to think it would be even more cruel and unburdened by conscience. Tell me, are my concerns hyperbolic? Because I’d really love to hear where specifically I’m failing to understand why this would be less awful than it seems. If you can’t give me that, I’d really rather not hear that I’m fabricating “ICE death squads” or failing to appeal to “Joe Schmoe.” Is “death squads” hyperbolic? He was pondering Trump signing a bill to give ICE authority to “shoot to kill” anyone that resists them. Is there a better name for teams of people employed by the government authorized to carry out extrajudicial killings to achieve their mission? To your main point, it sounds impossible to deport millions of people in days. I don’t know how barbaric something that won’t happen would look if it could happen. Probably very? If some state signed a bill authorizing cops to shoot to kill someone’s resisting arrest, would you consider all police in that state “death squads” from that point forward? I tend to doubt it. Not that I’m worried specifically about such a bill, I think most of Trump’s ambitions are intended to be done purely with executive authority. If (let’s say hypothetically) amoral, questionably competent men were asking you to give them a huge amount of power, and promising to use it to perpetrate enormous, impossibly ambitious cruelties, I suppose I’d agree with you that if given power, they’re unlikely to accomplish exactly what they’re promising. More likely they’ll try and fail in various bizarre ways, accomplishing merely large but ordinary cruelty along the way. Still, I’d understand their opposition choosing the rhetorical approach of essentially quoting their promises verbatim and arguing “That would be really bad, yeah?” And I would, um, question the priorities of someone whose first impulse in such a situation was to accuse the opposition of hyperbole. Just to be clear, if Trump got reelected and gave ICE or some paramilitary group directive to round up all the immigrants and shoot to kill anyone that resisted you would object to people in the thread calling them “Trump’s death squads” on grounds of hyperbole? I find that hard to believe.
Would you call the men that carried out Operation Wetback “Ike’s Death Squads”? It might literally be true that they killed some people in the process, but I’d consider it, at the very least, a deceptively colorful description. The sort of description people might use rhetorically to galvanize opposition to the program (and they’d have my sympathies in that cause!) but not the sort of description I’d choose to dispassionately analyze and understand it in a historical context.
I’d expect a Trump program like this to be at least somewhat comparable to Operation Wetback. On the one hand I think Eiswnhower’s people were probably just more competent at managing the logistics of a complex operation than Trump’s would be; on the other hand Trump’s people will be a lot more eager and would throw a lot more resources at the task. I’d expect the resulting program to be quite a bit bigger, less organized, and less principled; of course there are a lot of differences between 1954 and 2025 that would both simplify and complicate the task for them.
But at the end of the day they would probably throw a lot of people in vans, maybe load them into planes, and dump them in Veracruz or wherever. There’d be very little due process, certainly most of them wouldn’t get a day in court or an appeals process, and a huge number of legal migrants or even citizens would get caught up in it (as they did in 1954). And yes, sometimes it would be lethal, either as a direct result of enforcement actions by ICE or whoever, or indirectly because they dumped hundreds of people in a desert and drove off or something. And people like Introvert would shrug at all the lawlessness and say “well it was lawless for them to be here in the first place, what’s a little lawlessness to get them out?”
But anyway, this is pretty much what Trump is explicitly promising to do, and I’m still waiting for an explanation of why you think my analysis of what would probably happen is hyperbolic (if you think it is, I’m not sure you’ve explicitly said so).
|
On September 26 2024 03:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:On September 25 2024 23:44 oBlade wrote:On September 25 2024 23:30 Billyboy wrote:
It is hard to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he uses terms like "reimigration", which only exist in white nationalist and other racists groups vernacular. No one who is not full of hate uses it, most wouldn't even know what it means without looking it up. Anyone familiar with English immediately knows and understands the concepts and distinctions covered by the words migration, emigration, immigration, and remigration. Same with expatriation and repatriation. The interesting part is when you google all the words you have listed except remigration you get definitions. With remigration you get either white nationalists tweets or articles explaining why white nationalists use the word. That shows nothing more than despicable ideological capture of media in the Anglosphere. It's imperative for them to head off at the pass any development that suggests leftist policy about immigration is wrong, and simply lambast any opposition to it by whatever pejorative means available. The reason you can find more white nationalists using it in Europe is European countries are also ethnicities, so first of all they have more of those movements (Europe is more racist than the US, although I don't want to get into the race realist details of whether those from Hispania count as white supremacists or whatever else is important in modern leftist discourse), but also it's more plausible to label any old sap who still believes in the idea of their country's border as a whatever-supremacist when they use the completely innocuous term "remigration." Which even the Swedish government has adopted, by offering money for people to return home. It's that special kind of white supremacist, you know, the one that pays money to "minorities" (I use scare quotes because immigrants always are, and always should be, a minority, in every single country ever, because that's what differentiates countries). However, when for example Koreans have been, and are, repatriated to the DPRK from China, it's not because China is white supremacist. It's not even because China is Chinese supremacist, which it is. It's because it's a country and that's a policy that exists. Could anyone update me whether the word "deport" is inherently racist or not. I want to know whether kicking someone out of a country by force is less racist than Sweden paying them to leave voluntarily. Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
I did find a Webster's definition but it talked about how it was used about the Irish and Jews, which given the time period also tells you something about it even when it was common. What something does that tell us? "Re" has two meanings, roughly "again" and "back." In the case of Jews, they had been analogous to gypsies, essentially wandering without a home for many years, so my guess is "remigration" in that context referred to repeated migration a la nomadism. As prior to 20th century Zionism there wasn't really a "home" to be sent back to? But please reveal your tacit conclusions, inquiring minds want to know. + Show Spoiler +I'll be honest, I don't think you were really told anything by the use of Irish and Jews in whatever definition you read, you just briefly glanced the mention of what can be categorized as groups that were persecuted at some point or other and thought that was an insight - although Irish are nearly uncontroversially white. But the other half of me is legitimately curious. Please edify us. Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
And then Kwark's post really takes all the guess work out, if you are reposting from nazis there is no mystery left. The 9 year old retweet of a made-up infographic about black crime looks to me like a red herring for Drumpf saying to return illegal immigrants to their homes. Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
I think people mistakenly think that this somehow means all Trump supporters are white nationalists, which it does not. What it means is that Trump is actively courting white nationalists. You can decide if that is OK with you or not but it simply fact.
Maybe it actually means that Drumpf is courting people who believe in borders, and it's embarrassing that even white nationalists manage to be smart enough to be in this group - which by opinion polling now reads as a majority of Americans, thanks to years of Drumpf using immigration as one of his flagship issues - while so many of our comrades regrettably fall outside of this seemingly obvious group.
First of all, how do you measure Europe being more racist then the US? Is that your personal feeling from all the connections you have with people using remigration in normal conversation from Europe? Or are you just imposing 'Murica!' on the topic? You know, your argument suxx. The Swastika is a very normal symbol for luck and holyness, both in europe (roman) and asian societies . As words and symbols are just words and symbols, why don't you just decide that the politics associated to it by the people using it, are not relevant to you and just use the old meaning. Let's see how you do 
Remigration is the new idea of the alt-right (mostly in Austria and moving from there to every other right-wing movement in the continent) to magically get rid of people why are legally in the country but don't pass their definition of a good citizen. If you use that term now without providing context how your definition of the word differs from the other people using it, then maybe you just refer to what those other people use.
|
On September 26 2024 04:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 03:18 BlackJack wrote:On September 26 2024 02:12 ChristianS wrote:On September 26 2024 00:32 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 22:05 ChristianS wrote:On September 25 2024 20:35 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 20:27 Sadist wrote:On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious? I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest. The number of times people are shot per police interaction is near zero. You just hear about the bad encounters in the media. However i vehemently disagree with BJ's assertion that people overreact and Trump isnt so bad. I agree with Kwarks post. He already tried to overturn and cheat an election once. Its not far off to put anything past him or his weird team now. My main assertion was really that there’s enough bad things to say about Trump that you don’t have to invent more shit to add onto it. The fact that we’re now debating ICE death squads being a thing pretty much proves my point. By inventing death squads and concentration camps they are muddying their own waters and then complaining that people don’t see it clearly. I get the impulse to summarize people’s assertions with pithy hyperboles like “ICE death squads” but it really sucks to put hyperboles in other people’s mouths when your overall point is “look how hyperbolic you all are being.” Anyway I think it’s worth talking more about Trump’s deportation promises. As I recall he’s promised to deport millions of people within a few days of taking office; if anybody wants to supply an exact quote I’d appreciate it. But I don’t know why we’d need an analogy to 1944 Germany when 1954 US is right there. Overall, there were 1,074,277 "returns", defined as "confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal" in the first year of Operation Wetback.[36] This included many workers without papers who fled to Mexico fearing arrest; over half a million from Texas alone.[37] The total number of sweeps fell to just 242,608 in 1955, and continuously declined each year until 1962, when there was a slight rise in apprehended workers.[38] Despite the decline in sweeps, the total number of Border Patrol agents more than doubled to 1,692 by 1962, and an additional plane was added to the force.[38] WikipediaWhen the generation that stormed the beaches of Normandy decided they wanted to get rid of immigrants and didn’t care much about due process, they put together a task force and managed to deport about a million people in a year. Trump wants to deport 10million+ in a matter of days. I’m not overly focusing on the deaths (although to be certain, there were deaths caused by Operation Wetback) but with an operation of that scale and speed it’s simply not possible to have any real respect for due process. They deported legal migrants and US citizens just because they were brown. They didn’t give people a chance to retrieve their possessions or even talk to their families about what was happening. It’s total lawlessness, essentially a race riot carried out by the government instead of a mob. I see no reason to think Trump’s program here would be any better, and every reason to think it would be even more cruel and unburdened by conscience. Tell me, are my concerns hyperbolic? Because I’d really love to hear where specifically I’m failing to understand why this would be less awful than it seems. If you can’t give me that, I’d really rather not hear that I’m fabricating “ICE death squads” or failing to appeal to “Joe Schmoe.” Is “death squads” hyperbolic? He was pondering Trump signing a bill to give ICE authority to “shoot to kill” anyone that resists them. Is there a better name for teams of people employed by the government authorized to carry out extrajudicial killings to achieve their mission? To your main point, it sounds impossible to deport millions of people in days. I don’t know how barbaric something that won’t happen would look if it could happen. Probably very? If some state signed a bill authorizing cops to shoot to kill someone’s resisting arrest, would you consider all police in that state “death squads” from that point forward? I tend to doubt it. Not that I’m worried specifically about such a bill, I think most of Trump’s ambitions are intended to be done purely with executive authority. If (let’s say hypothetically) amoral, questionably competent men were asking you to give them a huge amount of power, and promising to use it to perpetrate enormous, impossibly ambitious cruelties, I suppose I’d agree with you that if given power, they’re unlikely to accomplish exactly what they’re promising. More likely they’ll try and fail in various bizarre ways, accomplishing merely large but ordinary cruelty along the way. Still, I’d understand their opposition choosing the rhetorical approach of essentially quoting their promises verbatim and arguing “That would be really bad, yeah?” And I would, um, question the priorities of someone whose first impulse in such a situation was to accuse the opposition of hyperbole. Just to be clear, if Trump got reelected and gave ICE or some paramilitary group directive to round up all the immigrants and shoot to kill anyone that resisted you would object to people in the thread calling them “Trump’s death squads” on grounds of hyperbole? I find that hard to believe. Would you call the men that carried out Operation Wetback “Ike’s Death Squads”? It might literally be true that they killed some people in the process, but I’d consider it, at the very least, a deceptively colorful description. The sort of description people might use rhetorically to galvanize opposition to the program (and they’d have my sympathies in that cause!) but not the sort of description I’d choose to dispassionately analyze and understand it in a historical context. I’d expect a Trump program like this to be at least somewhat comparable to Operation Wetback. On the one hand I think Eiswnhower’s people were probably just more competent at managing the logistics of a complex operation than Trump’s would be; on the other hand Trump’s people will be a lot more eager and would throw a lot more resources at the task. I’d expect the resulting program to be quite a bit bigger, less organized, and less principled; of course there are a lot of differences between 1954 and 2025 that would both simplify and complicate the task for them. But at the end of the day they would probably throw a lot of people in vans, maybe load them into planes, and dump them in Veracruz or wherever. There’d be very little due process, certainly most of them wouldn’t get a day in court or an appeals process, and a huge number of legal migrants or even citizens would get caught up in it (as they did in 1954). And yes, sometimes it would be lethal, either as a direct result of enforcement actions by ICE or whoever, or indirectly because they dumped hundreds of people in a desert and drove off or something. And people like Introvert would shrug at all the lawlessness and say “well it was lawless for them to be here in the first place, what’s a little lawlessness to get them out?” But anyway, this is pretty much what Trump is explicitly promising to do, and I’m still waiting for an explanation of why you think my analysis of what would probably happen is hyperbolic (if you think it is, I’m not sure you’ve explicitly said so).
I think it will most probably look like whatever his deportation efforts looked like in his first term, which as I said earlier, never reached the high scores set by the GOAT deporter-in-chief President Obama.
Trump says a lot of shit that I don’t take seriously. He’s also said he’s going to eliminate taxes on tips. A stupid idea. Kamala said that too. I take neither of them seriously. Trump said he’s going to eliminate taxes on overtime. I doubt that’s going to happen either. Kamala said she’s going to “ban price gouging” at grocery stores. What’s that going to look like? Soviet style price controls on milk and eggs? Would it be hyperbolic to accuse her of wanting to do that? I’m on record saying she’s just pandering to voters and she isn’t going to do shit, just like a lot of what comes out of Trump’s mouth.
|
It's great for you if you have the privilege to not take Trump seriously. It's just a fact that most Americans don't have that luxury. The Supreme Court is not a joke to most people.
|
On September 26 2024 03:47 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 03:19 Introvert wrote:
A silly debate, Biden abused (putting it mildly) the law to allow tens or hundreds or thousands of people in who shouldn't never have been allowed to cross the border, but it's Hitlarian to say they have to go home. The progressive rachet. I have less sympathy for people taking advantage of our laws and a president more concerned with making himself look good without offending his insane base. Why is there no talk from the Republican party about going after all the businesses who are hiring illegals? By the rhetoric these people should be considered traitors who are hurting America by lining their pockets by paying people who shouldn't be there much less than Americans (especially when you consider total compensation). How knowing that the vast majority of illegals in the US get into the US legally and just staying would you put such a massive amount of money into a giant wall that even if effective (which is not since everyone since medieval times knows you need to guard a wall or they are super easy to pass), will barely stop a trickle of the problem? As shown by Trumps actions (blocking the Republican immigration bill) he does not want to solve anything, he wants more problems so he can blame others for them
It hasn't come up as much recently but there has been a long, long fight about E-Verify. The very short version is that some states, all of them red, require participation. It's been a point of tension in immigration bills as well. Corporatist Republicans and iirc all dems oppose making it mandatory. Implementing it would make hiring illegal workers harder (ans make it harder to pay less) and would come with penalties for employers who hire illegal workers knowingly. But many in Congress oppose. So there has actually been proposals to deal with the employment side.
|
United States41512 Posts
On September 26 2024 03:19 Introvert wrote:
A silly debate, Biden abused (putting it mildly) the law to allow tens or hundreds or thousands of people in who shouldn't never have been allowed to cross the border, but it's Hitlarian to say they have to go home. The progressive rachet. I have less sympathy for people taking advantage of our laws and a president more concerned with making himself look good without offending his insane base.
Let’s not mince words here. Its Hitlerian to be a Nazi.
|
On September 26 2024 05:48 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 04:36 ChristianS wrote:On September 26 2024 03:18 BlackJack wrote:On September 26 2024 02:12 ChristianS wrote:On September 26 2024 00:32 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 22:05 ChristianS wrote:On September 25 2024 20:35 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 20:27 Sadist wrote:On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious? I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest. The number of times people are shot per police interaction is near zero. You just hear about the bad encounters in the media. However i vehemently disagree with BJ's assertion that people overreact and Trump isnt so bad. I agree with Kwarks post. He already tried to overturn and cheat an election once. Its not far off to put anything past him or his weird team now. My main assertion was really that there’s enough bad things to say about Trump that you don’t have to invent more shit to add onto it. The fact that we’re now debating ICE death squads being a thing pretty much proves my point. By inventing death squads and concentration camps they are muddying their own waters and then complaining that people don’t see it clearly. I get the impulse to summarize people’s assertions with pithy hyperboles like “ICE death squads” but it really sucks to put hyperboles in other people’s mouths when your overall point is “look how hyperbolic you all are being.” Anyway I think it’s worth talking more about Trump’s deportation promises. As I recall he’s promised to deport millions of people within a few days of taking office; if anybody wants to supply an exact quote I’d appreciate it. But I don’t know why we’d need an analogy to 1944 Germany when 1954 US is right there. Overall, there were 1,074,277 "returns", defined as "confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal" in the first year of Operation Wetback.[36] This included many workers without papers who fled to Mexico fearing arrest; over half a million from Texas alone.[37] The total number of sweeps fell to just 242,608 in 1955, and continuously declined each year until 1962, when there was a slight rise in apprehended workers.[38] Despite the decline in sweeps, the total number of Border Patrol agents more than doubled to 1,692 by 1962, and an additional plane was added to the force.[38] WikipediaWhen the generation that stormed the beaches of Normandy decided they wanted to get rid of immigrants and didn’t care much about due process, they put together a task force and managed to deport about a million people in a year. Trump wants to deport 10million+ in a matter of days. I’m not overly focusing on the deaths (although to be certain, there were deaths caused by Operation Wetback) but with an operation of that scale and speed it’s simply not possible to have any real respect for due process. They deported legal migrants and US citizens just because they were brown. They didn’t give people a chance to retrieve their possessions or even talk to their families about what was happening. It’s total lawlessness, essentially a race riot carried out by the government instead of a mob. I see no reason to think Trump’s program here would be any better, and every reason to think it would be even more cruel and unburdened by conscience. Tell me, are my concerns hyperbolic? Because I’d really love to hear where specifically I’m failing to understand why this would be less awful than it seems. If you can’t give me that, I’d really rather not hear that I’m fabricating “ICE death squads” or failing to appeal to “Joe Schmoe.” Is “death squads” hyperbolic? He was pondering Trump signing a bill to give ICE authority to “shoot to kill” anyone that resists them. Is there a better name for teams of people employed by the government authorized to carry out extrajudicial killings to achieve their mission? To your main point, it sounds impossible to deport millions of people in days. I don’t know how barbaric something that won’t happen would look if it could happen. Probably very? If some state signed a bill authorizing cops to shoot to kill someone’s resisting arrest, would you consider all police in that state “death squads” from that point forward? I tend to doubt it. Not that I’m worried specifically about such a bill, I think most of Trump’s ambitions are intended to be done purely with executive authority. If (let’s say hypothetically) amoral, questionably competent men were asking you to give them a huge amount of power, and promising to use it to perpetrate enormous, impossibly ambitious cruelties, I suppose I’d agree with you that if given power, they’re unlikely to accomplish exactly what they’re promising. More likely they’ll try and fail in various bizarre ways, accomplishing merely large but ordinary cruelty along the way. Still, I’d understand their opposition choosing the rhetorical approach of essentially quoting their promises verbatim and arguing “That would be really bad, yeah?” And I would, um, question the priorities of someone whose first impulse in such a situation was to accuse the opposition of hyperbole. Just to be clear, if Trump got reelected and gave ICE or some paramilitary group directive to round up all the immigrants and shoot to kill anyone that resisted you would object to people in the thread calling them “Trump’s death squads” on grounds of hyperbole? I find that hard to believe. Would you call the men that carried out Operation Wetback “Ike’s Death Squads”? It might literally be true that they killed some people in the process, but I’d consider it, at the very least, a deceptively colorful description. The sort of description people might use rhetorically to galvanize opposition to the program (and they’d have my sympathies in that cause!) but not the sort of description I’d choose to dispassionately analyze and understand it in a historical context. I’d expect a Trump program like this to be at least somewhat comparable to Operation Wetback. On the one hand I think Eiswnhower’s people were probably just more competent at managing the logistics of a complex operation than Trump’s would be; on the other hand Trump’s people will be a lot more eager and would throw a lot more resources at the task. I’d expect the resulting program to be quite a bit bigger, less organized, and less principled; of course there are a lot of differences between 1954 and 2025 that would both simplify and complicate the task for them. But at the end of the day they would probably throw a lot of people in vans, maybe load them into planes, and dump them in Veracruz or wherever. There’d be very little due process, certainly most of them wouldn’t get a day in court or an appeals process, and a huge number of legal migrants or even citizens would get caught up in it (as they did in 1954). And yes, sometimes it would be lethal, either as a direct result of enforcement actions by ICE or whoever, or indirectly because they dumped hundreds of people in a desert and drove off or something. And people like Introvert would shrug at all the lawlessness and say “well it was lawless for them to be here in the first place, what’s a little lawlessness to get them out?” But anyway, this is pretty much what Trump is explicitly promising to do, and I’m still waiting for an explanation of why you think my analysis of what would probably happen is hyperbolic (if you think it is, I’m not sure you’ve explicitly said so). I think it will most probably look like whatever his deportation efforts looked like in his first term, which as I said earlier, never reached the high scores set by the GOAT deporter-in-chief President Obama. Trump says a lot of shit that I don’t take seriously. He’s also said he’s going to eliminate taxes on tips. A stupid idea. Kamala said that too. I take neither of them seriously. Trump said he’s going to eliminate taxes on overtime. I doubt that’s going to happen either. Kamala said she’s going to “ban price gouging” at grocery stores. What’s that going to look like? Soviet style price controls on milk and eggs? Would it be hyperbolic to accuse her of wanting to do that? I’m on record saying she’s just pandering to voters and she isn’t going to do shit, just like a lot of what comes out of Trump’s mouth.
Sure, sure, politicians famously lie about their promises. Many of their promises would require a friendly Congress passing their preferred legislation, which is rarely present anyway. But usually when they make a big thing of “I’m going to do a big initiative about _____ Day One entirely on executive authority” they at least do *something* to gesture at the thing they said they’d do. By all accounts Obama really did make a diplomatic push to get other countries to take Guantanamo prisoners so we could close it, but nobody played ball and Congress actually passed a law stopping him from moving them to the mainland IIRC.
More to the point, Trump is explicitly staffing up with people excited to do exactly this kind of purge, promising repeatedly that he’s going to do this kind of purge, and as I said, it’s not the first time our government would be doing this kind of thing either. It’s not unprecedented, and in fact Trump references Operation Wetback kind of a lot (dancing around the name, obviously). Of course he says he’s going to do it bigger, and better, the best anybody’s ever seen it, everyone will love it even the immigrants, etc. But you get the idea, I’d love a better reason than “eh, he’s probably just lying” for why the fascist won’t do the fascist thing he’s promising to do if we give him power.
|
On September 26 2024 03:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 20:44 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 18:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 16:44 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 15:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 15:05 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 08:08 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
But it literally did pan out.
In 2016 they asked Trump if he'd accept the results of the election. He said "if I win". Then in 2020 he didn't accept the results of an election and attempted a literal coup. Even after that failed he did huge and continuing damage to the social fabric of the country by undermining the basic principle of the democratic system we all live under. The only thing that keeps political violence at bay is the belief that the system is fair. If we really did live in a one party state that was secretly controlled by a Chinese/Venezuelan alliance then bombing Federal buildings is a pretty reasonable and sane response.
The people crying wolf in 2016 were right. There was a fucking wolf. We all saw it. Then he started eating people. And then dumbasses like you go "this is more of the same crying wolf shit we heard in 2016" like you didn't see him eat people on live tv. Fuck right off.
He ordered election officials in Georgia to find him the extra votes required and told them that if they didn't comply then very angry people would hold them personally responsible for the election result. You’re missing the sentiment of my post. Denying elections is pretty small potatoes compared to being Hitler, building the camps, nuclear holocaust, starting world war 3 and other things that were said about him. Your response reads “but we were right about the election denying.” The point is the message would be better received if 8 years weren’t spent saying a bunch of other things that weren’t right. Isn't Trump promising to deport millions of people to clean up the blood of the nation? I know he didn't literally say it like that, before you nit pick me, but he did say that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our nation" and that he will deport tens of millions. That sounds a bit hitlery to me. I mean, how is that going to go? They are going to have to forcefully remove people from their homes, right? Considering how trigger-happy police are, how many are just going to get flat out killed for resisting? If ICE finds a lot of resistance, and Trump gets a bill authorizing them to shoot to kill any immigrant that resists, do you think he would not sign it? No matter how you dress it up, it's still systematic ethnic cleansing. Implying that if Trump gets reelected ICE might go around shooting immigrants only adds to my point. Is your point that Trump actually doing all the things he has said he'll do would be very very bad, but we have to trust him not to do all the things he says he'll do because he's just saying them to get elected? Because that's a pretty bad point to be making... Has Trump said he would sign a bill authorizing ICE to shoot immigrants that resist deportation? Are ICE police? Do police shoot people that resist arrest? Like conservatives like to say, I'm just asking questions. No, police don’t shoot people that resist arrest Trump is going to start world war 3. Who said that? This looks like a right-wing talking point that you are confusing. It's not that Trump will start world war 3. It's that he claims he's the one who will stop it (in other words: Biden/Harris will cause it): https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-issues-world-war-iii-warning-isnt-president-1931064https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-warns-us-approaching-world-war-iii-territory-under-biden-harris-admin-clownsThe actual criticism regarding war and Trump is that he will let Russia walk all over Ukraine, which seems to be his policy proposal, from his own words. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-praises-russias-military-record-argument-stop-funding-114048372 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/17/whats-donald-trumps-plan-to-end-russias-war-on-ukraineThe most I see regarding Trump causing WW3 is Zelenskyy's take on it. While I personally sympathize with that latter more than with Trump's own take, I wouldn't call Zelenskyy representative of "the left", let alone the people in this thread. https://www.foxnews.com/world/zelenskyy-warns-vances-plan-ukrainian-lands-seized-russia-result-global-showdown Here’s a quote from yourself you said in September 2016 pondering that a stupid Trump may lead us to WW3 Show nested quote +Trump advocates actively bullying other countries to "get what he wants". Which tends not to be taken very well on the world stage. I not only think it won't achieve its goals, but will actually backfire quite badly. As long as Trump isn't completely stupid, that only means a tariff war. If he is, it means ww3. You’re right that it’s been dropped this go around after it turned out that Trump wasn’t as much of a chicken hawk as people thought he would be but it was definitely something that was said in the run up to the 2016 elections
Ooooh, you sure got me!
Quote mining a post of mine from 8 years ago really did an excellent job of proving the messaging on the left is disproportionate hyperbole in 2024. You should keep going. I'm sure you'll find some balance whining about WoL from 2011 proving conclusively that hyperbole is just my go-to strategy in internet debates.
|
On September 26 2024 09:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 03:36 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 20:44 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 18:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 16:44 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 15:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 15:05 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
You’re missing the sentiment of my post. Denying elections is pretty small potatoes compared to being Hitler, building the camps, nuclear holocaust, starting world war 3 and other things that were said about him. Your response reads “but we were right about the election denying.” The point is the message would be better received if 8 years weren’t spent saying a bunch of other things that weren’t right.
Isn't Trump promising to deport millions of people to clean up the blood of the nation? I know he didn't literally say it like that, before you nit pick me, but he did say that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our nation" and that he will deport tens of millions. That sounds a bit hitlery to me. I mean, how is that going to go? They are going to have to forcefully remove people from their homes, right? Considering how trigger-happy police are, how many are just going to get flat out killed for resisting? If ICE finds a lot of resistance, and Trump gets a bill authorizing them to shoot to kill any immigrant that resists, do you think he would not sign it? No matter how you dress it up, it's still systematic ethnic cleansing. Implying that if Trump gets reelected ICE might go around shooting immigrants only adds to my point. Is your point that Trump actually doing all the things he has said he'll do would be very very bad, but we have to trust him not to do all the things he says he'll do because he's just saying them to get elected? Because that's a pretty bad point to be making... Has Trump said he would sign a bill authorizing ICE to shoot immigrants that resist deportation? Are ICE police? Do police shoot people that resist arrest? Like conservatives like to say, I'm just asking questions. No, police don’t shoot people that resist arrest Trump is going to start world war 3. Who said that? This looks like a right-wing talking point that you are confusing. It's not that Trump will start world war 3. It's that he claims he's the one who will stop it (in other words: Biden/Harris will cause it): https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-issues-world-war-iii-warning-isnt-president-1931064https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-warns-us-approaching-world-war-iii-territory-under-biden-harris-admin-clownsThe actual criticism regarding war and Trump is that he will let Russia walk all over Ukraine, which seems to be his policy proposal, from his own words. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-praises-russias-military-record-argument-stop-funding-114048372 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/17/whats-donald-trumps-plan-to-end-russias-war-on-ukraineThe most I see regarding Trump causing WW3 is Zelenskyy's take on it. While I personally sympathize with that latter more than with Trump's own take, I wouldn't call Zelenskyy representative of "the left", let alone the people in this thread. https://www.foxnews.com/world/zelenskyy-warns-vances-plan-ukrainian-lands-seized-russia-result-global-showdown Here’s a quote from yourself you said in September 2016 pondering that a stupid Trump may lead us to WW3 Trump advocates actively bullying other countries to "get what he wants". Which tends not to be taken very well on the world stage. I not only think it won't achieve its goals, but will actually backfire quite badly. As long as Trump isn't completely stupid, that only means a tariff war. If he is, it means ww3. You’re right that it’s been dropped this go around after it turned out that Trump wasn’t as much of a chicken hawk as people thought he would be but it was definitely something that was said in the run up to the 2016 elections Ooooh, you sure got me! Quote mining a post of mine from 8 years ago really did an excellent job of proving the messaging on the left is disproportionate hyperbole in 2024. You should keep going. I'm sure you'll find some balance whining about WoL from 2011 proving conclusively that hyperbole is just my go-to strategy in internet debates.
Infestor/Brood Lord wasn't as bad as people claimed. Fight me.
|
To be fair, people cryed about Infestor/Broodlord before they knew that the Swarmhost was around the corner  .
It's basically like the Republicans went from Bush to Trump.
|
On September 26 2024 09:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 03:36 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 20:44 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 18:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 16:44 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 15:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 15:05 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
You’re missing the sentiment of my post. Denying elections is pretty small potatoes compared to being Hitler, building the camps, nuclear holocaust, starting world war 3 and other things that were said about him. Your response reads “but we were right about the election denying.” The point is the message would be better received if 8 years weren’t spent saying a bunch of other things that weren’t right.
Isn't Trump promising to deport millions of people to clean up the blood of the nation? I know he didn't literally say it like that, before you nit pick me, but he did say that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our nation" and that he will deport tens of millions. That sounds a bit hitlery to me. I mean, how is that going to go? They are going to have to forcefully remove people from their homes, right? Considering how trigger-happy police are, how many are just going to get flat out killed for resisting? If ICE finds a lot of resistance, and Trump gets a bill authorizing them to shoot to kill any immigrant that resists, do you think he would not sign it? No matter how you dress it up, it's still systematic ethnic cleansing. Implying that if Trump gets reelected ICE might go around shooting immigrants only adds to my point. Is your point that Trump actually doing all the things he has said he'll do would be very very bad, but we have to trust him not to do all the things he says he'll do because he's just saying them to get elected? Because that's a pretty bad point to be making... Has Trump said he would sign a bill authorizing ICE to shoot immigrants that resist deportation? Are ICE police? Do police shoot people that resist arrest? Like conservatives like to say, I'm just asking questions. No, police don’t shoot people that resist arrest Trump is going to start world war 3. Who said that? This looks like a right-wing talking point that you are confusing. It's not that Trump will start world war 3. It's that he claims he's the one who will stop it (in other words: Biden/Harris will cause it): https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-issues-world-war-iii-warning-isnt-president-1931064https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-warns-us-approaching-world-war-iii-territory-under-biden-harris-admin-clownsThe actual criticism regarding war and Trump is that he will let Russia walk all over Ukraine, which seems to be his policy proposal, from his own words. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-praises-russias-military-record-argument-stop-funding-114048372 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/17/whats-donald-trumps-plan-to-end-russias-war-on-ukraineThe most I see regarding Trump causing WW3 is Zelenskyy's take on it. While I personally sympathize with that latter more than with Trump's own take, I wouldn't call Zelenskyy representative of "the left", let alone the people in this thread. https://www.foxnews.com/world/zelenskyy-warns-vances-plan-ukrainian-lands-seized-russia-result-global-showdown Here’s a quote from yourself you said in September 2016 pondering that a stupid Trump may lead us to WW3 Trump advocates actively bullying other countries to "get what he wants". Which tends not to be taken very well on the world stage. I not only think it won't achieve its goals, but will actually backfire quite badly. As long as Trump isn't completely stupid, that only means a tariff war. If he is, it means ww3. You’re right that it’s been dropped this go around after it turned out that Trump wasn’t as much of a chicken hawk as people thought he would be but it was definitely something that was said in the run up to the 2016 elections Ooooh, you sure got me! Quote mining a post of mine from 8 years ago really did an excellent job of proving the messaging on the left is disproportionate hyperbole in 2024. You should keep going. I'm sure you'll find some balance whining about WoL from 2011 proving conclusively that hyperbole is just my go-to strategy in internet debates.
In that instance the quote mining was done just to disprove your claim that nobody in the left was implying Trump would lead us to WW3. I’m sure the search function will come in handy in the future when we learn nobody on the left defended Biden’s cognitive ability, wanted to defund the police, wanted to banish the unvaccinated, put Kamala in charge of the southern border, etc.
|
On September 26 2024 16:11 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 09:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 26 2024 03:36 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 20:44 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 18:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 16:44 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 15:38 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
Isn't Trump promising to deport millions of people to clean up the blood of the nation? I know he didn't literally say it like that, before you nit pick me, but he did say that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our nation" and that he will deport tens of millions.
That sounds a bit hitlery to me.
I mean, how is that going to go? They are going to have to forcefully remove people from their homes, right? Considering how trigger-happy police are, how many are just going to get flat out killed for resisting? If ICE finds a lot of resistance, and Trump gets a bill authorizing them to shoot to kill any immigrant that resists, do you think he would not sign it? No matter how you dress it up, it's still systematic ethnic cleansing. Implying that if Trump gets reelected ICE might go around shooting immigrants only adds to my point. Is your point that Trump actually doing all the things he has said he'll do would be very very bad, but we have to trust him not to do all the things he says he'll do because he's just saying them to get elected? Because that's a pretty bad point to be making... Has Trump said he would sign a bill authorizing ICE to shoot immigrants that resist deportation? Are ICE police? Do police shoot people that resist arrest? Like conservatives like to say, I'm just asking questions. No, police don’t shoot people that resist arrest Trump is going to start world war 3. Who said that? This looks like a right-wing talking point that you are confusing. It's not that Trump will start world war 3. It's that he claims he's the one who will stop it (in other words: Biden/Harris will cause it): https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-issues-world-war-iii-warning-isnt-president-1931064https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-warns-us-approaching-world-war-iii-territory-under-biden-harris-admin-clownsThe actual criticism regarding war and Trump is that he will let Russia walk all over Ukraine, which seems to be his policy proposal, from his own words. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-praises-russias-military-record-argument-stop-funding-114048372 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/17/whats-donald-trumps-plan-to-end-russias-war-on-ukraineThe most I see regarding Trump causing WW3 is Zelenskyy's take on it. While I personally sympathize with that latter more than with Trump's own take, I wouldn't call Zelenskyy representative of "the left", let alone the people in this thread. https://www.foxnews.com/world/zelenskyy-warns-vances-plan-ukrainian-lands-seized-russia-result-global-showdown Here’s a quote from yourself you said in September 2016 pondering that a stupid Trump may lead us to WW3 Trump advocates actively bullying other countries to "get what he wants". Which tends not to be taken very well on the world stage. I not only think it won't achieve its goals, but will actually backfire quite badly. As long as Trump isn't completely stupid, that only means a tariff war. If he is, it means ww3. You’re right that it’s been dropped this go around after it turned out that Trump wasn’t as much of a chicken hawk as people thought he would be but it was definitely something that was said in the run up to the 2016 elections Ooooh, you sure got me! Quote mining a post of mine from 8 years ago really did an excellent job of proving the messaging on the left is disproportionate hyperbole in 2024. You should keep going. I'm sure you'll find some balance whining about WoL from 2011 proving conclusively that hyperbole is just my go-to strategy in internet debates. In that instance the quote mining was done just to disprove your claim that nobody in the left was implying Trump would lead us to WW3. I’m sure the search function will come in handy in the future when we learn nobody on the left defended Biden’s cognitive ability, wanted to defund the police, wanted to banish the unvaccinated, put Kamala in charge of the southern border, etc.
Mhm. And the best evidence was a conditional which turned out to be true. If I had said "if Trump isn't a complete moron this will lead to a tariff war. If he's a moron, then he will make the world explode with moon-mounted lasers" as evidence that Trump would build moon-mounted lasers? Especially 8 years later when you can see the tariff war actually happened?
But it doesn't even matter. I concede the point. Even then, the best evidence you could find of "the American left" posting hyperbolical accounts of how Trump would lead to WW3, leading up to the 2024 elections, was a Spaniard saying vaguely that in 2016. I rest my case. The hyperbole is in your head.
|
On September 26 2024 17:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 16:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 26 2024 09:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 26 2024 03:36 BlackJack wrote:Here’s a quote from yourself you said in September 2016 pondering that a stupid Trump may lead us to WW3 Trump advocates actively bullying other countries to "get what he wants". Which tends not to be taken very well on the world stage. I not only think it won't achieve its goals, but will actually backfire quite badly. As long as Trump isn't completely stupid, that only means a tariff war. If he is, it means ww3. You’re right that it’s been dropped this go around after it turned out that Trump wasn’t as much of a chicken hawk as people thought he would be but it was definitely something that was said in the run up to the 2016 elections Ooooh, you sure got me! Quote mining a post of mine from 8 years ago really did an excellent job of proving the messaging on the left is disproportionate hyperbole in 2024. You should keep going. I'm sure you'll find some balance whining about WoL from 2011 proving conclusively that hyperbole is just my go-to strategy in internet debates. In that instance the quote mining was done just to disprove your claim that nobody in the left was implying Trump would lead us to WW3. I’m sure the search function will come in handy in the future when we learn nobody on the left defended Biden’s cognitive ability, wanted to defund the police, wanted to banish the unvaccinated, put Kamala in charge of the southern border, etc. Mhm. And the best evidence was a conditional which turned out to be true. If I had said "if Trump isn't a complete moron this will lead to a tariff war. If he's a moron, then he will make the world explode with moon-mounted lasers" as evidence that Trump would build moon-mounted lasers? Especially 8 years later when you can see the tariff war actually happened? But it doesn't even matter. I concede the point. Even then, the best evidence you could find of "the American left" posting hyperbolical accounts of how Trump would lead to WW3, leading up to the 2024 elections, was a Spaniard saying vaguely that in 2016. I rest my case. The hyperbole is in your head.
Well I didn’t search for anyone else saying it. Maybe it’s a remarkable coincidence that the only person to mention it was you
|
It appears that nearly all of Mark Robinson's campaign staff has deserted him, given all the black Nazi / trans-porn / shit-posting that has come to light. I imagine his chances of becoming the governor of North Carolina have decreased dramatically, but Trump and Vance haven't really turned their back on him. Given Trump's high praise of Robinson - Trump said that Robinson is an even better man than MLK - do we think Robinson still has a decent chance at becoming NC's governor? Or alternatively, given how much of a Trump ally he is, do we think that Robinson's drama will lead to fewer NC Republicans voting in November, which in turn could jeopardize Trump's chances in that crucial swing state? If Trump were to lose NC to Harris, due to low voter turnout inspired by Robinson's catastrophe, then that would give Harris significantly better odds of winning the electoral college. Thoughts?
|
On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 03:22 oBlade wrote:On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:On September 25 2024 23:44 oBlade wrote:On September 25 2024 23:30 Billyboy wrote:
It is hard to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he uses terms like "reimigration", which only exist in white nationalist and other racists groups vernacular. No one who is not full of hate uses it, most wouldn't even know what it means without looking it up. Anyone familiar with English immediately knows and understands the concepts and distinctions covered by the words migration, emigration, immigration, and remigration. Same with expatriation and repatriation. The interesting part is when you google all the words you have listed except remigration you get definitions. With remigration you get either white nationalists tweets or articles explaining why white nationalists use the word. That shows nothing more than despicable ideological capture of media in the Anglosphere. It's imperative for them to head off at the pass any development that suggests leftist policy about immigration is wrong, and simply lambast any opposition to it by whatever pejorative means available. The reason you can find more white nationalists using it in Europe is European countries are also ethnicities, so first of all they have more of those movements (Europe is more racist than the US, although I don't want to get into the race realist details of whether those from Hispania count as white supremacists or whatever else is important in modern leftist discourse), but also it's more plausible to label any old sap who still believes in the idea of their country's border as a whatever-supremacist when they use the completely innocuous term "remigration." Which even the Swedish government has adopted, by offering money for people to return home. It's that special kind of white supremacist, you know, the one that pays money to "minorities" (I use scare quotes because immigrants always are, and always should be, a minority, in every single country ever, because that's what differentiates countries). However, when for example Koreans have been, and are, repatriated to the DPRK from China, it's not because China is white supremacist. It's not even because China is Chinese supremacist, which it is. It's because it's a country and that's a policy that exists. Could anyone update me whether the word "deport" is inherently racist or not. I want to know whether kicking someone out of a country by force is less racist than Sweden paying them to leave voluntarily. On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
I did find a Webster's definition but it talked about how it was used about the Irish and Jews, which given the time period also tells you something about it even when it was common. What something does that tell us? "Re" has two meanings, roughly "again" and "back." In the case of Jews, they had been analogous to gypsies, essentially wandering without a home for many years, so my guess is "remigration" in that context referred to repeated migration a la nomadism. As prior to 20th century Zionism there wasn't really a "home" to be sent back to? But please reveal your tacit conclusions, inquiring minds want to know. + Show Spoiler +I'll be honest, I don't think you were really told anything by the use of Irish and Jews in whatever definition you read, you just briefly glanced the mention of what can be categorized as groups that were persecuted at some point or other and thought that was an insight - although Irish are nearly uncontroversially white. But the other half of me is legitimately curious. Please edify us. On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
And then Kwark's post really takes all the guess work out, if you are reposting from nazis there is no mystery left. The 9 year old retweet of a made-up infographic about black crime looks to me like a red herring for Drumpf saying to return illegal immigrants to their homes. On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
I think people mistakenly think that this somehow means all Trump supporters are white nationalists, which it does not. What it means is that Trump is actively courting white nationalists. You can decide if that is OK with you or not but it simply fact.
Maybe it actually means that Drumpf is courting people who believe in borders, and it's embarrassing that even white nationalists manage to be smart enough to be in this group - which by opinion polling now reads as a majority of Americans, thanks to years of Drumpf using immigration as one of his flagship issues - while so many of our comrades regrettably fall outside of this seemingly obvious group. First of all, how do you measure Europe being more racist then the US? Is that your personal feeling from all the connections you have with people using remigration in normal conversation from Europe? Or are you just imposing 'Murica!' on the topic? You know, your argument suxx. The Swastika is a very normal symbol for luck and holyness, both in europe (roman) and asian societies . As words and symbols are just words and symbols, why don't you just decide that the politics associated to it by the people using it, are not relevant to you and just use the old meaning. Let's see how you do Remigration is the new idea of the alt-right (mostly in Austria and moving from there to every other right-wing movement in the continent) to magically get rid of people why are legally in the country but don't pass their definition of a good citizen. If you use that term now without providing context how your definition of the word differs from the other people using it, then maybe you just refer to what those other people use.
In general, I think it is very fair to say the US is more racist/race obsessed than Europe. I don't blame them, though, we did not have a significant part of our economy run by imported African slaves for a long time, and even a major civil war rooted in slavery. Even the left is pretty race obsessed, with things like "white privilige" being brought up all the time. Even polls tend to be presented in by race, which I think is sad to see. Age, gender, education, income... fair enough, but is race really that important?
There is obviously racism in Europe too, but it is just not the same. A black person in Europe never had any slaves among their ancestors, and a lot of them were born in Africa. I know of very few black Americans in Europe, but I think they would be pleasently surprised about our attitudes towards them. Skin color is just less important here, and major conflicts have been more centered around religion, Catholic vs. Protestant and Christian vs. Islam.
|
On September 26 2024 06:07 NewSunshine wrote:
It's great for you if you have the privilege to not take Trump seriously. It's just a fact that most Americans don't have that luxury. The Supreme Court is not a joke to most people.
Trump getting to nominate more SCOTUS justices is a good point, even if it’s unrelated to what was being discussed. Which is my point by the way. Why not attack him on eroding women’s rights instead of whether he will give ICE authority to carry out extrajudicial killings.
|
On September 26 2024 18:08 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:On September 26 2024 03:22 oBlade wrote:On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:On September 25 2024 23:44 oBlade wrote:On September 25 2024 23:30 Billyboy wrote:
It is hard to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he uses terms like "reimigration", which only exist in white nationalist and other racists groups vernacular. No one who is not full of hate uses it, most wouldn't even know what it means without looking it up. Anyone familiar with English immediately knows and understands the concepts and distinctions covered by the words migration, emigration, immigration, and remigration. Same with expatriation and repatriation. The interesting part is when you google all the words you have listed except remigration you get definitions. With remigration you get either white nationalists tweets or articles explaining why white nationalists use the word. That shows nothing more than despicable ideological capture of media in the Anglosphere. It's imperative for them to head off at the pass any development that suggests leftist policy about immigration is wrong, and simply lambast any opposition to it by whatever pejorative means available. The reason you can find more white nationalists using it in Europe is European countries are also ethnicities, so first of all they have more of those movements (Europe is more racist than the US, although I don't want to get into the race realist details of whether those from Hispania count as white supremacists or whatever else is important in modern leftist discourse), but also it's more plausible to label any old sap who still believes in the idea of their country's border as a whatever-supremacist when they use the completely innocuous term "remigration." Which even the Swedish government has adopted, by offering money for people to return home. It's that special kind of white supremacist, you know, the one that pays money to "minorities" (I use scare quotes because immigrants always are, and always should be, a minority, in every single country ever, because that's what differentiates countries). However, when for example Koreans have been, and are, repatriated to the DPRK from China, it's not because China is white supremacist. It's not even because China is Chinese supremacist, which it is. It's because it's a country and that's a policy that exists. Could anyone update me whether the word "deport" is inherently racist or not. I want to know whether kicking someone out of a country by force is less racist than Sweden paying them to leave voluntarily. On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
I did find a Webster's definition but it talked about how it was used about the Irish and Jews, which given the time period also tells you something about it even when it was common. What something does that tell us? "Re" has two meanings, roughly "again" and "back." In the case of Jews, they had been analogous to gypsies, essentially wandering without a home for many years, so my guess is "remigration" in that context referred to repeated migration a la nomadism. As prior to 20th century Zionism there wasn't really a "home" to be sent back to? But please reveal your tacit conclusions, inquiring minds want to know. + Show Spoiler +I'll be honest, I don't think you were really told anything by the use of Irish and Jews in whatever definition you read, you just briefly glanced the mention of what can be categorized as groups that were persecuted at some point or other and thought that was an insight - although Irish are nearly uncontroversially white. But the other half of me is legitimately curious. Please edify us. On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
And then Kwark's post really takes all the guess work out, if you are reposting from nazis there is no mystery left. The 9 year old retweet of a made-up infographic about black crime looks to me like a red herring for Drumpf saying to return illegal immigrants to their homes. On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
I think people mistakenly think that this somehow means all Trump supporters are white nationalists, which it does not. What it means is that Trump is actively courting white nationalists. You can decide if that is OK with you or not but it simply fact.
Maybe it actually means that Drumpf is courting people who believe in borders, and it's embarrassing that even white nationalists manage to be smart enough to be in this group - which by opinion polling now reads as a majority of Americans, thanks to years of Drumpf using immigration as one of his flagship issues - while so many of our comrades regrettably fall outside of this seemingly obvious group. First of all, how do you measure Europe being more racist then the US? Is that your personal feeling from all the connections you have with people using remigration in normal conversation from Europe? Or are you just imposing 'Murica!' on the topic? You know, your argument suxx. The Swastika is a very normal symbol for luck and holyness, both in europe (roman) and asian societies . As words and symbols are just words and symbols, why don't you just decide that the politics associated to it by the people using it, are not relevant to you and just use the old meaning. Let's see how you do Remigration is the new idea of the alt-right (mostly in Austria and moving from there to every other right-wing movement in the continent) to magically get rid of people why are legally in the country but don't pass their definition of a good citizen. If you use that term now without providing context how your definition of the word differs from the other people using it, then maybe you just refer to what those other people use. In general, I think it is very fair to say the US is more racist/race obsessed than Europe. I don't blame them, though, we did not have a significant part of our economy run by imported African slaves for a long time, and even a major civil war rooted in slavery. Even the left is pretty race obsessed, with things like "white privilige" being brought up all the time. Even polls tend to be presented in by race, which I think is sad to see. Age, gender, education, income... fair enough, but is race really that important? There is obviously racism in Europe too, but it is just not the same. A black person in Europe never had any slaves among their ancestors, and a lot of them were born in Africa. I know of very few black Americans in Europe, but I think they would be pleasently surprised about our attitudes towards them. Skin color is just less important here, and major conflicts have been more centered around religion, Catholic vs. Protestant and Christian vs. Islam.
I agree America is more race obsessed but I think the lion’s share of that happened recently with the rise of wokeness. Racism in general, I think not so much. I’ve brought up examples of racist insults being hurled at black footballers in Europe which is something that would be unheard of happening here, although perhaps we don’t have comparable levels of hooliganism.
|
On September 26 2024 18:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 18:08 Slydie wrote:On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:On September 26 2024 03:22 oBlade wrote:On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:On September 25 2024 23:44 oBlade wrote:On September 25 2024 23:30 Billyboy wrote:
It is hard to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he uses terms like "reimigration", which only exist in white nationalist and other racists groups vernacular. No one who is not full of hate uses it, most wouldn't even know what it means without looking it up. Anyone familiar with English immediately knows and understands the concepts and distinctions covered by the words migration, emigration, immigration, and remigration. Same with expatriation and repatriation. The interesting part is when you google all the words you have listed except remigration you get definitions. With remigration you get either white nationalists tweets or articles explaining why white nationalists use the word. That shows nothing more than despicable ideological capture of media in the Anglosphere. It's imperative for them to head off at the pass any development that suggests leftist policy about immigration is wrong, and simply lambast any opposition to it by whatever pejorative means available. The reason you can find more white nationalists using it in Europe is European countries are also ethnicities, so first of all they have more of those movements (Europe is more racist than the US, although I don't want to get into the race realist details of whether those from Hispania count as white supremacists or whatever else is important in modern leftist discourse), but also it's more plausible to label any old sap who still believes in the idea of their country's border as a whatever-supremacist when they use the completely innocuous term "remigration." Which even the Swedish government has adopted, by offering money for people to return home. It's that special kind of white supremacist, you know, the one that pays money to "minorities" (I use scare quotes because immigrants always are, and always should be, a minority, in every single country ever, because that's what differentiates countries). However, when for example Koreans have been, and are, repatriated to the DPRK from China, it's not because China is white supremacist. It's not even because China is Chinese supremacist, which it is. It's because it's a country and that's a policy that exists. Could anyone update me whether the word "deport" is inherently racist or not. I want to know whether kicking someone out of a country by force is less racist than Sweden paying them to leave voluntarily. On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
I did find a Webster's definition but it talked about how it was used about the Irish and Jews, which given the time period also tells you something about it even when it was common. What something does that tell us? "Re" has two meanings, roughly "again" and "back." In the case of Jews, they had been analogous to gypsies, essentially wandering without a home for many years, so my guess is "remigration" in that context referred to repeated migration a la nomadism. As prior to 20th century Zionism there wasn't really a "home" to be sent back to? But please reveal your tacit conclusions, inquiring minds want to know. + Show Spoiler +I'll be honest, I don't think you were really told anything by the use of Irish and Jews in whatever definition you read, you just briefly glanced the mention of what can be categorized as groups that were persecuted at some point or other and thought that was an insight - although Irish are nearly uncontroversially white. But the other half of me is legitimately curious. Please edify us. On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
And then Kwark's post really takes all the guess work out, if you are reposting from nazis there is no mystery left. The 9 year old retweet of a made-up infographic about black crime looks to me like a red herring for Drumpf saying to return illegal immigrants to their homes. On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
I think people mistakenly think that this somehow means all Trump supporters are white nationalists, which it does not. What it means is that Trump is actively courting white nationalists. You can decide if that is OK with you or not but it simply fact.
Maybe it actually means that Drumpf is courting people who believe in borders, and it's embarrassing that even white nationalists manage to be smart enough to be in this group - which by opinion polling now reads as a majority of Americans, thanks to years of Drumpf using immigration as one of his flagship issues - while so many of our comrades regrettably fall outside of this seemingly obvious group. First of all, how do you measure Europe being more racist then the US? Is that your personal feeling from all the connections you have with people using remigration in normal conversation from Europe? Or are you just imposing 'Murica!' on the topic? You know, your argument suxx. The Swastika is a very normal symbol for luck and holyness, both in europe (roman) and asian societies . As words and symbols are just words and symbols, why don't you just decide that the politics associated to it by the people using it, are not relevant to you and just use the old meaning. Let's see how you do Remigration is the new idea of the alt-right (mostly in Austria and moving from there to every other right-wing movement in the continent) to magically get rid of people why are legally in the country but don't pass their definition of a good citizen. If you use that term now without providing context how your definition of the word differs from the other people using it, then maybe you just refer to what those other people use. In general, I think it is very fair to say the US is more racist/race obsessed than Europe. I don't blame them, though, we did not have a significant part of our economy run by imported African slaves for a long time, and even a major civil war rooted in slavery. Even the left is pretty race obsessed, with things like "white privilige" being brought up all the time. Even polls tend to be presented in by race, which I think is sad to see. Age, gender, education, income... fair enough, but is race really that important? There is obviously racism in Europe too, but it is just not the same. A black person in Europe never had any slaves among their ancestors, and a lot of them were born in Africa. I know of very few black Americans in Europe, but I think they would be pleasently surprised about our attitudes towards them. Skin color is just less important here, and major conflicts have been more centered around religion, Catholic vs. Protestant and Christian vs. Islam. I agree America is more race obsessed but I think the lion’s share of that happened recently with the rise of wokeness. Racism in general, I think not so much. I’ve brought up examples of racist insults being hurled at black footballers in Europe which is something that would be unheard of happening here, although perhaps we don’t have comparable levels of hooliganism.
What? That's a really shitty example. Racism in European football fanship/hooliganism was way WAY worse 1-2 decades ago. Source: I've been there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
