President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
You don't accept the reality of smart, educated people who share at least in part liberal (classic liberal) values with you judging the current state of the democratic party as even more dangerous than republicans.
You dont have to agree with that sentiment, you have to understand it's not thinking trump is decent, it's thinking democrats are even worse.
What reality am I failing to accept? I obviously understand that there are a lot of people who claim to be holding their nose when they vote for Trump. And I'm sure a decent chunk of them are telling the truth.
When or where have I ever claimed that thinking Trump was the lesser of two evils was the same thing as loving Trump?
This is factually accurate. Also, a lot of people assume that anyone who wants to get a visa to enter the United States can do so. I don't believe that is the case. I remember several years ago talking to a working class guy in Domenica who had friends in the United States. I asked him whether he had ever visited his friends in the U.S. He laughed and said "You think I can
It is not accurate because the vast majority of illegals have to commit crimes to live in the USA, at a minimum they have to fraudulently claim they aren't illegals when looking for a job for example.
They often also have to lie to landlords and so on. Those are crimes.
JFC are you real? congress can vote anything on that topic, we are talking abusing the constitution, burning it to the ground, attempting to do it as the executive without congress !!!!!!!!
It was shot down by the supreme court, which is the standard check and balance that the Trump administration is actively trying to usurp
Per usual you are not only being incredibly hypocritical, but hysterically so
Maybe he and I are using the term differently then.
Whatever terminology one wants to employ, I think I've clarified my position.
Right but you specifically agreed with one of his statements endorsing unlimited force. So now that we have clarified your position are you going to retract the endorsement of unlimited force?
With unlimited force i mean exactly that: no limit to the violence allowed. Doesn't mean you have to / can go allin immediatly, but you are pre-cleared to be allowed to go allin without remorse if intermediate steps don't work.
Then you are also contradicting yourself now, because now you are placing limits on the unlimited force. So is this a motte and bailey situation where you say one position and then retreat back to a more reasonable position?
Right, so a group of people at a military base unfurled a pride flag in 2015 (before the 2020 determination banning non-official flags) and that is pervasive evidence of a corrupted DoD pushing pseudo religeon?
Sounds a tad hysterical
2015 was the VA i linked before, this was in 2017.
The DoD started pushing the LGBTQ cult (and later the BLM cult) after don't ask don't tell was repealed by Obama in 2011. To the point the radical left actually made this meme later on
The fact that when Trump banned pride flags from military installation, and Biden DoD confirmed the ban in 2021, there was "widespread complaining", meant a lot of military installations did actually display those flags.
Otherwise , what would they be complaining about?
Are you aware that bullets shot in the air can fall and still cause fatalities?
LGBTQ issues are controversial, and not only because of the T. It's one thing to claim that homosexuals aren't a controversial issue per se (anymore). But teaching about anal sex to 7y old is controversial for ex, see Florida curricular issues like 1 year ago.
Do they teach heterosexual education to seven year olds in school? If so why not teach about gays?
The pride flag isn't just about "homosexuals exist".
What do you think it is about so?
As for the "ceauscescu or Al assad style", the idea is that their style isn't wrong per se, that's the whole point. They were bad because they were dictators, not because they managed to keep society ordered.
I'm sorry what? They enforced order by being dictators as people were too scared to do anything that could be seen as dissent
The whole point is accepting some of the things bad people do are good things, if done for the proper reasons. Killing rioters and criminals in general is NOT what made Al Assad a monster (!!).
Refusing to do what is proper because "otherwise you look like a dictator" is how dictators get power.
Godwin's law et al, but keep in mind that if German authorities had behaved like i say here, Hitler and his fellows would have been brutally assassinated within the rule of law in 1923 because of the beer hall putsch.
And the army in Italy could have assassinated the top 20 fascists or whatever they were, during the march on Rome, same thing. Not only if would have been fully legal to do so, failing to do so allowed fascism to take power.
No. Doing bad things- and by that I mean the type of seriously hardline authoritarianism you apparently endorse- nullifies the proper reasons part.
Saddam initiated a huge literacy programme. The Nazis cared about environmental protection. Everyone had a job in Ceaucescu's Romania.
Do you really think that's how they're remembered?
Then you are also contradicting yourself now, because now you are placing limits on the unlimited force. So is this a motte and bailey situation where you say one position and then retreat back to a more reasonable position?
No it is not a contradiction. It's like Draghi "whatever it takes" commitment. It means it is unlimited in potential, doesn't mean you spend everything you have immediatly.
Which btw was clear when i listed how the interaction should go (order to disperse, warning shots and so on).
Leaving the onus of "reasonable" force to the enforcement arm just means that unlimited force is "reasonable"
there is no "libertarian collective".and no lack of principles either on my side.Hayek fled communist horrors and was always from day one in favor of the state existing almost solely to have a tool to kill violent criminal socialists before they got power.and it all works perfectly with NAP, that's the principle. Basic principle is don't touch other people body and property, if
Think about this a bit more ….
If it’s a crazy left regime killing its opponents is bad but a crazy right regime killing its opponents is good ?
Amazing you are .
Right but you specifically agreed with one of his statements endorsing unlimited force. So now that we have clarified your position are you going to retract the endorsement of unlimited force?
I hereby publicly retract my endorsement of "unlimited force" (except in the case of defending the lives of innocent people).
No it is not a contradiction. It's like Draghi "whatever it takes" commitment. It means it is unlimited in potential, doesn't mean you spend everything you have immediatly.
Which btw was clear when i listed how the interaction should go (order to disperse, warning shots and so on).
Can you clarify what you mean by unlimited potential?
I am very confused by this sentiment. You had no reason to expect anything other than exactly what you are getting from a second Trump term. If I stuck my dick in a bee hive two times, I'm sure that I'd have a strong reaction both times, but I don't think that my main reaction to the second encounter would be disappointment.
Now that's how you do analogies. Add this to your craigspeak skills and you may become something special around here!
Side note, around the age of 10 I stepped on a bee hive and of course was stung several dozen times, one of which was on my dick. Fortunately, it was on the shaft and not the tip.
There is so much irony in this, fantastic post.
With unlimited force i mean exactly that: no limit to the violence allowed. Doesn't mean you have to / can go allin immediatly, but you are pre-cleared to be allowed to go allin without remorse if intermediate steps don't work.
I'm quite perplexed that you claim to be libertarian, yet seem to wholeheartedly endorse a society with less freedom.
It was shot down by the supreme court, which is the standard check and balance that the Trump administration is actively trying to usurp
Per usual you are not only being incredibly hypocritical, but hysterically so
Trump isn't trying to usurp SCOTUS, trump is testing if SCOTUS is willing to rule reversing past egregious mistakes.
So if Biden attemtps the greatest theft of money by the executive in american history, that's ok because courts can stop him. Not a threat to the country.
If trump attempts much more sensible readings of the constitution that would, in case, finally go back to before the leftist era of legislation from the bench against the will of the people, that's a threat to democracy.
Trump attempts are a threat to a specific kind of leftist inspired liberal democracy we find abhorrent. Not to "democracy" as it was until the left usurped the very fabric of the rule of law and decided the federal government has insane powers because "the commerce clause"
Think about this a bit more ….
If it’s a crazy left regime killing its opponents is bad but a crazy right regime killing its opponents is good ?
Amazing you are .
Not crazy at all to want to kill everyone you accuse of being a communist.
Completely normal and very healthy.
I'm quite perplexed that you claim to be libertarian, yet seem to wholeheartedly endorse a society with less freedom.
There is no freedom to infringe on other people bodies or property in libertarianism. I keep not understanding these takes tbh. A libertarian doesn't want to take or destroy other people stuff without their permission. A libertarian doesn't want to tell other people what to do with their body.
When did i claim something incoherent with the above?
There is no freedom to infringe on other people bodies or property in libertarianism. I keep not understanding these takes tbh. A libertarian doesn't want to take or destroy other people stuff without their permission. A libertarian doesn't want to tell other people what to do with their body.
When did i claim something incoherent with the above?
Unlimited violence and basically killing everyone for things you dislike is infringing on other people's bodies and certainly a less free society. Not sure why you're not understanding this.
You spent the better part of a year arguing that a subset of the population shouldn’t be allowed to have autonomy over their body
No Karl he objectively didn't. He used deportation parole, TPS and other tricks to allow in "semi-legally" (not on normal status, yet not-deportable) several million people more than usual. From terrible countries, with no selection for their skillsets and so on (so even worse than illegals that at least have to find some job to survive). Many of them gained at least partial ac
A closer look seems to indicate a mixed bag. There was a 100-day pause on deportations upon Biden's inauguration in 2021, and he tried to increase (legal) immigration from Haiti, Nicaragua, and some other countries which I assume fit into your list of "terrible countries" (terribleness of which the U.S. itself played a significant role). On the other hand, ICE said they broke a 10-year record for most deportations for the year 2024, Biden invoked Trump's "Title 42" to throw Venezuelans back into Mexico, which all the pro-immigration groups complained about, etc. etc.
This is a complicated thing, and the above is just a small percentage of the known information on this issue which I can come up with via a combination of my memory and wikipedia, but it sure seems like Biden acted more-or-less like the same centrist he's always been.
If nothing else, surely the right can stop calling Biden's immigation policies "far left", or "Marxist", or whatever other nonsensical descriptive terms they can throw out. I mean, do you think Biden has the same views on immigration as somebody who could legitimately called far left, like... me?
