American Politics

[shionoro]

Well, that's silly.

its not. It is silly to think there is that one strategy that everyone can and should do.

 

[ninjabot]

Well, sure, but then, what's the democratic path to getting rid of trump other than time? There's basically zero chance of his stooges using the 25th amendment. And if they do you're all trap with JD vance as president.

A simple democratic vote held by the people for the people. We vote on whether or not to impeach him from life.

Kinda? It's not like US the US walked out of the 2016 with it's reputation untouched. And it was followed by biden's term which didn't exactly look good from the outside. You guys were circus trying to squeeze meaning out of the incoherent babbling of a dementia patient. This term is basically trump's 2016 term except all adults in the room were catapulted away. All the career republican politicians that kept him in check back then were rewarded with being unceremoniously kicked out of the party. No one who failed to capitulate to trump remained and anyone who does has made an art of kissing his ass (say, marco rubio). As far as ukraine, come on, we were all thinking he had it in him to betray them. We were just waiting for the fear to materialize. Heck, who would even be surprised if trump "declassified" information to putin?

My point of the list was that all the biggest events of the past few months were all things no one voted for on the Republican side. If you're gonna say he's "doing what he said he'd do", you've gotta add the caveat "badly".

I mean, I could be misreading the room here but do you really think the AR15 crowd finds trump to be tyrannical?

I'll be honest: I'm being glib with that. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of these gun-toting pussies not standing up for what they claim they stand for. That said: the consensus among Republicans is the majority hate the tariffs but still trust Trump, though his approval rating fell 6 points since February and 7 since March. 53% think tariffs will hurt the economy while 47 think they'll help. 25% of Republicans have turned their back on Trump while 75% hasn't, so if you add that 25 to the 100% of Democrats that hate Trump that gives us the advantage. I like the odds of 125 to 75.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 22, 2025, Original Post Date: Apr 22, 2025 ---

Hmm, why? The stuff trump is doing with trade will take way longer than a few years to fix. china is clearly up to something, very probably at least trying to take advantage of the chaos trump unilaterally started to better position itself on the world stage. I suppose china could blink soon but right now they seem to be signaling that they will let trump continue to make thing worse. If "righteous fervor" cools down then that's on US folk, a random ass non resident alien me who thinks ending democracy is a bad idea.

I think ending democracy is a bad idea too. That's why I'm saying we democratically elect an assassin to give Trump a modified tracheotomy with razor wire.

 

[M3J]

To the extent I followed US elections (which is not a small amount) no one brought any legitimate accusations of fraud up. Democrats conceded, the election got certified and things moved on as they should have. None of the lawsuits raised at states on ballots got anywhere. It was all business as usual. And don't get me wrong, it's 100% the case that someone out there didn't think the election was fair or was stolen or something like that but that's just a factor of living in a world with 8 billion people, not real things that can be backed up with evidence.

They did not during the elections, other than pointing out Elon trying to buy votes. But after that, Elon said something that made some people think he did commit fraud.

Democrats conceding doesn't mean much when many of them seem content to work with Trump and praise him to some degree instead of remaining staunchly against him.

its not. It is silly to think there is that one strategy that everyone can and should do.

But that's one strategy more than you have.

 

[shionoro]

But that's one strategy more than you have.

Which strategy are you pursuing?

 

[kkck]

They did not during the elections, other than pointing out Elon trying to buy votes. But after that, Elon said something that made some people think he did commit fraud.

Democrats conceding doesn't mean much when many of them seem content to work with Trump and praise him to some degree instead of remaining staunchly against him.

I mean, either there's evidence that he did or there isn't. People saying/thinking stuff months after the fact... I mean, what does that matter?

Democrats conceding is pretty important, it legitimized the election and let things continue as business as usual. How they behave after that is a non issue.

 

[Newkerzy]

I think ending democracy is a bad idea too. That's why I'm saying we democratically elect an assassin to give Trump a modified tracheotomy with razor wire.

Preferably Luigi .

I think Akumetsu would be better though….

 

[M3J]

Which strategy are you pursuing?

I mean, I'm not sure what strategy to pursue other than organize and have constituents force their leaders to cockblock Trump or risk losing their political career. Other than violence, what else can anyone do?

I mean, either there's evidence that he did or there isn't. People saying/thinking stuff months after the fact... I mean, what does that matter?

Democrats conceding is pretty important, it legitimized the election and let things continue as business as usual. How they behave after that is a non issue.

What do you mean saying/thinking stuff? If Elon said or implied he did something fishy, of course people will say something.

 

[shionoro]

I mean, I'm not sure what strategy to pursue other than organize and have constituents force their leaders to cockblock Trump or risk losing their political career. Other than violence, what else can anyone do?

What exactly is the big difference between that and what I said? Organization is obviously key, but organizing takes many forms.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 23, 2025, Original Post Date: Apr 23, 2025 ---

4-year-old migrant girl, other kids go to court in NYC with no lawyer: 'The cruelty is apparent'

The Trump administration cut funding for lawyers aiding unaccompanied minors in court.

gothamist.com

Children are left to defend themselves in court against their deportation:

In shelters across New York, migrant children sit in front of computer and TV screens, appearing virtually in real court proceedings. They swivel in chairs, walk in circles and play with their hair — while immigration judges address them on the screens in front of them.

“The reason we’re here is because the government of the United States wants you to leave the United States,” Judge Ubaid ul-Haq, presiding from a courtroom on Varick Street, told a group of about a dozen children on a recent morning on Webex.

“It’s my job to figure out if you have to leave,” ul-Haq continued. “It’s also my job to figure out if you should stay.”

The parties included a 7-year-old boy, wearing a shirt emblazoned with a pizza cartoon, who spun a toy windmill while the judge spoke. There was an 8-year-old girl and her 4-year-old sister, in a tie-dye shirt, who squeezed a pink plushy toy and stuffed it into her sleeve. None of the children were accompanied by parents or attorneys, only shelter workers who helped them log on to the hearing.

Immigrant advocates and lawyers say an increasing number of migrant children are making immigration court appearances without the assistance of attorneys, which they say will lead to more children getting deported.

The Trump administration on March 21 terminated part of a $200 million contract that funds attorneys and other legal services for unaccompanied children, who arrived in the United States without parents or legal guardians. While that action is being challenged in court, immigrant advocates say the impact is already being felt, as lawyer groups pull back on services – leaving some children on their own.

 

[kkck]

Solving the situation with children is not too different from how the border situation was solved (for now). As far as I can tell the bulk of the reason unaccompanied children get to the US would be because their parents died on the way to the US or because parents send them knowing they won't get deported. Remove the incentives for this nonsense and you don't have to deal with it in the future. And you also have the very significant bonus that US empathy and compassion stops feeding children to gangs and cartels.

 

[xi0]

Solving the situation with children is not too different from how the border situation was solved (for now). As far as I can tell the bulk of the reason unaccompanied children get to the US would be because their parents died on the way to the US or because parents send them knowing they won't get deported. Remove the incentives for this nonsense and you don't have to deal with it in the future. And you also have the very significant bonus that US empathy and compassion stops feeding children to gangs and cartels.

Does "remove the incentives" not strike you as being an unhelpful thing to say? It's basically akin to saying "just do cold fusion". Like sure, there's a ton of reasons to do that if possible - curb malignant capitalism, pay people a living wage, stop meddling in the governments and criminal enterprises of the global south, remove the cause of desperation that someone would have to have to send their children alone to another place and risk never seeing them again, etc etc etc .....but how exactly is that accomplished and who that has any degree of influence or power in regards to policy changes that could address these issues actually gives a fuck? Donald Trump? Republicans? or even most Democrats? We will very likely cure cancer for real before fixing any of these things.

 

[shionoro]

If we agree that capitalism and the abuse of the global south is an incentive for refugees to flee, I absolutely agree we should change that. And until then, give every refugee a safe home.

 

[kkck]

Does "remove the incentives" not strike you as being an unhelpful thing to say? It's basically akin to saying "just do cold fusion". Like sure, there's a ton of reasons to do that if possible - curb malignant capitalism, pay people a living wage, stop meddling in the governments and criminal enterprises of the global south, remove the cause of desperation that someone would have to have to send their children alone to another place and risk never seeing them again, etc etc etc .....but how exactly is that accomplished and who that has any degree of influence or power in regards to policy changes that could address these issues actually gives a fuck? Donald Trump? Republicans? or even most Democrats? We will very likely cure cancer for real before fixing any of these things.

How is any position I have taken here any different from any position anyone else has taken in this regard? This is like me quoting your bill maher post and saying we will cure cancer before bill maher stops being an asshat. I know we won't solve immigration or cancer here but if we are having a conversation it's fair game to point out that well meaning US policy can have negative consequences elsewhere (and I would maintain my point, it 100% does when it comes to illegal immigration).

 

[shionoro]

The FBI jails a Wisconsin judge, accusing her of obstructing immigration officials:

FBI arrests Wisconsin judge and accuses her of obstructing immigratio…

archived 25 Apr 2025 16:49:43 UTC

archive.ph

The FBI on Friday arrested a judge whom the agency accused of obstruction after it said she helped a man evade US immigration authorities as they were seeking to arrest him at her courthouse.
The county circuit judge, Hannah Dugan, was apprehended in the courthouse where she works in Milwaukee, Wisconsin at 8.30am local time on Friday on charges of obstruction, a spokesperson for the US Marshals Service confirmed to the Guardian.

Kash Patel, the Trump-appointed FBI director, wrote mid-morning on X: “We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject – an illegal alien – to evade arrest.”
He said that agents were still able to arrest the target after he was “chased down” and that he is currently in custody. Patel added that “the judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public”. The FBI director deleted the post minutes later for unknown reasons, but the US marshals confirmed to multiple outlets that the arrest had occurred.

It was reported Tuesday that the FBI was investigating whether Dugan “tried to help an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest when that person was scheduled to appear in her courtroom last week”, per an email obtained by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Dugan told the Journal Sentinel: “Nearly every fact regarding the ‘tips’ in your email is inaccurate.”
The arrest of Dugan is the first publicly known instance of the Trump administration charging a local official for allegedly interfering with immigration enforcement.

 

[xi0]

How is any position I have taken here any different from any position anyone else has taken in this regard? This is like me quoting your bill maher post and saying we will cure cancer before bill maher stops being an asshat. I know we won't solve immigration or cancer here but if we are having a conversation it's fair game to point out that well meaning US policy can have negative consequences elsewhere (and I would maintain my point, it 100% does when it comes to illegal immigration).

I guess I took exception with the reductive way in which you talked about it. I think the very real increase in suffering, especially of children, can't even be remotely considered a temporary "solution" to the issue. The people that actually hold power and purchase over the governments in the western world know exactly why the situation is the way it is, and they are more than happy to let the blood-and-soil flavor of Trump and his ilk to take the spotlight and redirect from the actual compounding issues at hand.

What exactly do you refer to when talking about negative consequences elsewhere though?

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 26, 2025, Original Post Date: Apr 26, 2025 ---

That's why one shouldn't easily trust people who claim to be liberal or "on the left" but are "against wokeness". They all go down that path eventually.

Indeed, most of the time it strikes me as a major red flag. You're either just navel-gazing like one of these rich comedians or you're lying to yourself regarding what issues you believe actually matter.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 26, 2025 ---

The FBI jails a Wisconsin judge, accusing her of obstructing immigration officials:

FBI arrests Wisconsin judge and accuses her of obstructing immigratio…

archived 25 Apr 2025 16:49:43 UTC

archive.ph

Wait so when the FBI is actually acting like "gangsters" or "enemies" like he said, the shitstain and his toadies are silent or even endorse it? Funny how that works.

 

[Sanity Check]

That's why one shouldn't easily trust people who claim to be liberal or "on the left" but are "against wokeness". They all go down that path eventually.

What about atheists.

Who say they're.

"Agnostic."

Should I trust.

 

[shionoro]

Indeed, most of the time it strikes me as a major red flag. You're either just navel-gazing like one of these rich comedians or you're lying to yourself regarding what issues you believe actually matter.

I think this also goes back to a misconception about what wokeness even is. It has nothing to do with black people in TV shows (that is capitalism), it is about the notion that social injustice is often invisible and we should make a conscious effort to see and rectify injustice.

In that process, obviously sometimes people see or propose things that seem silly to others, which is why it is a continuous debate how to act so that we do not further injustice. There is nothing wrong with criticising some things that others see as a fight for social justice (for example, Bernie sanders was against reparations for Black people and gave his reasons for that). It is a different thing alltogether to be proud about being "antiwoke".

Being antiwoke means being against understanding injustice. It means that you, whenever someone speaks out because they want to explain an injustice they see, tell them they are just making it up because you do not see it and you do not want to see it.

Someone who does that cannot be on the left, not even if they have some economically leftist takes. They will slowly drift to the right until they are a nazi who likes minimum wage. The reason for that is that the foundation of being "left" is that you are in solidarity with everyone who is opressed and want equal rights for all, both nominally and factually.

You cannot honestly claim you are standing for equal rights if you think that it is fine to use the N word for a white person. Because very clearly, that word with its context plays into the idea of White people being superior.

Someone like Maher uses minority opinions among liberal activists or outright strawmen to render the mere thought of standing up for an opressed group as absurd. He enjoys hurting people by hiding behind antiwokeness so he doesn't get heat for being just outright right extremist.

 

[M3J]

What exactly is the big difference between that and what I said? Organization is obviously key, but organizing takes many forms.

I don't think anything short of violence will resolve anything. Politicians know they can get away with their shit because no one is willing to fight them, If politicians, ICE, etc knew they weren't safe, would they continue their fascism?

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 26, 2025, Original Post Date: Apr 26, 2025 ---

I think this also goes back to a misconception about what wokeness even is. It has nothing to do with black people in TV shows (that is capitalism), it is about the notion that social injustice is often invisible and we should make a conscious effort to see and rectify injustice.

In that process, obviously sometimes people see or propose things that seem silly to others, which is why it is a continuous debate how to act so that we do not further injustice. There is nothing wrong with criticising some things that others see as a fight for social justice (for example, Bernie sanders was against reparations for Black people and gave his reasons for that). It is a different thing alltogether to be proud about being "antiwoke".

Being antiwoke means being against understanding injustice. It means that you, whenever someone speaks out because they want to explain an injustice they see, tell them they are just making it up because you do not see it and you do not want to see it.

Someone who does that cannot be on the left, not even if they have some economically leftist takes. They will slowly drift to the right until they are a nazi who likes minimum wage. The reason for that is that the foundation of being "left" is that you are in solidarity with everyone who is opressed and want equal rights for all, both nominally and factually.

You cannot honestly claim you are standing for equal rights if you think that it is fine to use the N word for a white person. Because very clearly, that word with its context plays into the idea of White people being superior.

Someone like Maher uses minority opinions among liberal activists or outright strawmen to render the mere thought of standing up for an opressed group as absurd. He enjoys hurting people by hiding behind antiwokeness so he doesn't get heat for being just outright right extremist.

I don't think it's a misconception. The right, especially bigots, took that word and twisted it to mean anything they didn't like, when its original meaning was being aware of racism and the country's history of racism. At least, if I recall correctly. I think Black people coined "woke," and that was hijacked by the right to complain about anything that wouldn't let them say anything bigoted peacefully.

Criticize a conservative for being homophobic? They'll complain about people being woke. Mention a comedian is being racist? They'll victimize themselves and then claim to be cancelled because of woke people. All it is, honestly, is complaining that they can't say horrible stuff without criticism or consequences.

 

[ninjabot]

What about atheists.

Who say they're.

"Agnostic."

Should I trust.

As an Agnostic Atheist myself, I say yes. Because agnosticism, whether theistic or atheistic, is the only honest stance.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 26, 2025, Original Post Date: Apr 26, 2025 ---

Indeed, most of the time it strikes me as a major red flag. You're either just navel-gazing like one of these rich comedians or you're lying to yourself regarding what issues you believe actually matter.

As resident shit-lib I feel obligated to clarify that "anti-wokeness" is indeed a red flag... but that we shouldn't mistake moderate stances as anti-woke. Someone's not failing as an ally just because they're telling people not to wear their assless chaps in broad daylight during pride parades.

Not saying you're doing that, but someone might make the mistake of assuming that's your position.

Gotta remain palatable to the normies. Choose our battles. If you don't have 30 min. to explain gender dysphoria to a normie when they say "I don't have a problem with trans people. Just leave the kids alone", the correct response is just "I hear ya", and then moving on. I'll fight kckk on this all day, but that's only because we've got time to spend here doing it. It'd be different if he and I were at work waiting on the microwave during our lunch break and the conversation sprouted up outta nowhere.

 

[shionoro]

As an Agnostic Atheist myself, I say yes. Because agnosticism, whether theistic or atheistic, is the only honest stance.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 26, 2025, Original Post Date: Apr 26, 2025 ---

As resident shit-lib I feel obligated to clarify that "anti-wokeness" is indeed a red flag... but that we shouldn't mistake moderate stances as anti-woke. Someone's not failing as an ally just because they're telling people not to wear their assless chaps in broad daylight during pride parades.

Not saying you're doing that, but someone might make the mistake of assuming that's your position.

Gotta remain palatable to the normies. Choose our battles. If you don't have 30 min. to explain gender dysphoria to a normie when they say "I don't have a problem with trans people. Just leave the kids alone", the correct response is just "I hear ya", and then moving on. I'll fight kckk on this all day, but that's only because we've got time to spend here doing it. It'd be different if he and I were at work waiting on the microwave during our lunch break and the conversation sprouted up outta nowhere.

Well, tone and and stance are two different things. Nobody ever criticizes explaining leftwing ideas in a nice way (at least not on the left). That is great and important work.

But "I hear you" means agreement if you say nothing else. If you just don't want to deal with it - that is fine. I don't expect private persons to always act strategically and sometimes I think it is also fine to just tell people to fuck off.

But when a politician or pundit clearly act in agreement to rightwing talkingpoints (and antiwokeness is a rightwing talkingpoint), then a line is crossed.

I find people who wave with their hands instead of clapping absurdly ridiculous and I have no problem saying that out loud. But I also know that this is just a very minor thing and no harm is done with that. If I join the right and shout: "YEAH THESE LEFTIST MAKE US LOOK BAD BY BEING SO AWKWARD! THEY SHOULD STOP, I AGREE WITH YOU HAHAHA THESE COLLEGE KIDS HAHAHA" then I am a fucking traitor to my alleged ideals. Because I am the one who makes the general thought of empathy with others look absurd by taking my time to mock those who do it in a misguided way instead of fighting for our mutual cause.

The correct response would be "yeah, i also wouldnt wave with my hands instead clapping, like most people on the left. But honestly, it is a minor issue and let's talk about the actual leftwing agenda instead of optics".

 

[ninjabot]

Well, tone and and stance are two different things. Nobody ever criticizes explaining leftwing ideas in a nice way (at least not on the left). That is great and important work.

But "I hear you" means agreement if you say nothing else. If you just don't want to deal with it - that is fine. I don't expect private persons to always act strategically and sometimes I think it is also fine to just tell people to fuck off.

Well saying "I don't wanna talk about it" implies that you don't agree but are incapable of defending your position. I was trying to think of a response that lets you move on without putting yourself into a situation where you've rejected their beliefs but can't prove how they're wrong because you don't have the time.

But when a politician or pundit clearly act in agreement to rightwing talkingpoints (and antiwokeness is a rightwing talkingpoint), then a line is crossed.

Sure.

I find people who wave with their hands instead of clapping absurdly ridiculous and I have no problem saying that out loud. But I also know that this is just a very minor thing and no harm is done with that. If I join the right and shout: "YEAH THESE LEFTIST MAKE US LOOK BAD BY BEING SO AWKWARD! THEY SHOULD STOP, I AGREE WITH YOU HAHAHA THESE COLLEGE KIDS HAHAHA" then I am a fucking traitor to my alleged ideals. Because I am the one who makes the general thought of empathy with others look absurd by taking my time to mock those who do it in a misguided way instead of fighting for our mutual cause.

Right, and when it's strategically viable to go into a more direct confrontation that starts an entire debate, you should. But you won't always get the chance to. There's a such thing as a right and wrong time to pick a fight. We've gotta choose our battles is my only point.

The correct response would be "yeah, i also wouldnt wave with my hands instead clapping, like most people on the left. But honestly, it is a minor issue and let's talk about the actual leftwing agenda instead of optics".

Yeah, but that's provided you've got the time to get into stuff like that. It's why I brought up the idea of dysphoria and child gender affirming care. Something that can't be explained quickly. Especially when we've got tons of comedians and podcasters with quick responses they can lift to seem like they're educated on the topic.