President Donald Trump

huh

This guy doesn't know how to count. He does know how to call people the "******" slur, which him and countless other libs gleefully rushed to start saying again after Trump won again. It's a really pathetic expression of petulance following the election. Although maybe this guy in particular is socially reactionary enough for that kinda **** beforehand, don't remember.

Edit: oh, that's why he types it with "ree", to evade the profanity filter. I thought it was because he was alluding to "reeee", the noise that groypers say that libs make when they're mad. Equally extremely cool either way!

I didn't toss anything of any value.

I didn't vote, therefore, according to various dog-brained right-wing Dems, I voted for Trump... even though if I were forced to voted it would have been for Cornel West or, I don't know, Homer Simpson. Trump still has the same number of votes before and after my action and so does the generic Democrat.

I get that you West Wing Democrats view a vote as some strategically valuable bit of political power to be carefully deployed by dispassionate patriots, or whatever...

The underlying problem here is that you moronically assume a huge majority of third party and/or non-voters would vote D as some kind of default against the obviously evil R. The same reason why it's very dumb when people look at the Jill Stein numbers and see that Harris would have won the state if you add every single one of Stein's votes to Harris, then BLAME JILL STEIN FOR HARRIS WINNING MICHIGAN. Can't make this **** up, folks.

Ah, but they DID vote! For Donald Trump. By... not voting.

But seriously, turning out your base is indeed valuable, like you allude to, and I guess you can get away with saying THOSE people voted for Trump, in this case, it's merely a very weird way of restating a very simple thing and not the pithy bit of sharp wisdom you think.

not voting, or voting for Homer Simpson, is a vote for Trump because people must feel morally and/or strategically obligated* to cast their vote for someone who has a chance to win and the only other person who can win is Kamala

I guess this is the essence of the cliche. Good ****. Very wise. Let's repeat it another 12 billion times.

*which is obvious nonsense given the incredibly weak power of any individual vote for state-wide electoral college votes

Well it actually doesn’t turn on a moral obligation. Someone can acknowledge that they helped Trump win while denying they were obligated to not help him win.

I think it really turns on whether they are convinced for the arguments that a Kamala presidency is preferable to a Trump presidency. It really wouldn’t help to convince people that Kamala is the only other* viable candidate if they don’t actually prefer Kamala.

This is delusional

Not only is it demonstrably false, it does not make much sense.

Due process are historically certain rights provided when you are faced with punishment, property seizure or exile. These days it is a broader term for rights and protections you have when government can or would harm you.

So saying someone "came into the country without due process" is a bit like saying someone "went swimming without a seatbelt".

Also, there is a point that can't be repeated enough: Due process is important because it serves as protection from a hostile government, it forces them to prove that their hostility is justified through law. When you make loopholes, government can exploit those. For example in this case it allows government to say you were here illegally and deport you, and you won't get your day in court to prove otherwise. They can, in essence, deport anyone. Now, perhaps some cases would get some traction in media, but that is a poor guarantee for your safety.

Basically, being happy that "your guys" are removing due process from someone else is poor planning for the future.

It also bears mention that people that are in the US illegally do have less protections. They are afforded due process by supreme court decision, but the government can still treat them in in certain manners it could not do to citizens.

Of course, the last paragraph is somewhat of a moot point because at this point we're seeing a government that treats even citizens as if they have no rights, and which even seems to be fabricating evidence and lying about people to justify their actions. To not be worried about that is to be extremely naive.

Trump consulting his 'What would an a evil comic villain do?' playbook.

Trump Administration to End Protections ...

Here we go again with the counting bullshit. There goes your "rhetorical" backpedal excuse.

Yes, which is why I'm not talking about you or people like you because you didn't have the qualifier I mentioned in my previous post. I'm talking about practical voters.

I'm not a Democrat.

But I understand that when it comes to a close race between candidate A and candidate B, a realist chooses A or B and idealists pick anything but A or B and then cries about politics.

Nope. You took a comment for a particular person and applied it to your nihilistic self and got butthurt. For example, I would never say the same thing to Victor because he's cut from the same nihilistic, apathetic cloth so it doesn't apply to him.

Hey, after venting for 2000 words he finally gets it. Now apply it to people who would vote for either candidate A or candidate B because they're not idealists.

*Only if they live in a very purple state, and even then not necessarily, if for example they talked badly against trump during the campaign and they ended up convincing even a single potential trump voter not to vote for example

How is being deported if you don't have a right to stay a punishment? do people get "due process" before being removed from your property if you call the police upon trespassers?

Due process is what happens after they get removed from your property (if it happens) to determine if any actual punishment (fine, jail time, other freedom limitations) is appropriate according to the law for the events that happened.

But they don't get a court hearing while staying in your house, nor they can "appeal" being taken by force out of it.

Yes. If they say that they have a right to be there, the police have to be convinced that they are trespassers before doing anything. Otherwise I could just call the police and have you removed from your own house if I felt like it.

This is interesting because it's identical to what happens to people that have encounters with ICE. You have to convince ICE you are a citizen (or a legal resident), not a judge.

Try call ICE on actual citizens (or legal residents) and see if they get arrested and deported. And no the fact that 1 over thousands gets deported wrongly doesn't change that.

So you are confirming that trespassers DO NOT GET TO ASK TO SEE A JUDGE BEFORE THEY ARE FORCIBLY REMOVED , they get at most to try to convince police they have an actual right to be where they are.

Which isn't due process.

If they get forcibly removed and they had a right that got infringed, they can ask for damages, later, *from outside the property*.

Unsurprinsingly , the head of Mamdani campaign loves Mangione

https://x.com/jpodhoretz/status/19374763...

The "stasis of nihilistic rejection" is not assassinating CEOs of companies that you think behave immorally btw.

Not sure what you mean. In sports it's not about "if only 1 suffers": biological men have an advantange so they should compete with other biological men. Every single woman who is forced to compete against biological men suffers.

For "trans youth" it's yet different again: minors in general shouldn't be allowed to make permanent irreversible modifications to their body that aren't necessary for actual medical reasons (yes for me it applies to tatoos and breat augmentations as well).

We reject the pseudo trash "medical science" that claims "trans youth care" is medically necessary. Nothing to do with a risk of failure: NO kid should be sterilized, 100% of those sterilizations are failures.

But nice complete derail as usual.

Now for law enforcement, a failure rate is inevitable, and unless you want to ban ALL activities by law enforcement, then you cannot use the existence of failure rates to claim law enforcement shouldn't act to apply the law.

Btw I find it weird people here asking if the mother should leave her kids or bring her with her after being deported.
Shouldn't the simple amswer be, do not deport parents of US citizens.
And if you don't agree with birthright or complain about anchors babies, then find a way to not make them citizens.

But once they are citizens, how on earth deporting one parent(or both) is something helpfull for the country?

How is that a derail lol?
This claim of '' if only 1 suffer '' is a pretty constant pattern in your rethorics, I just pointed at one of the many exemples possible.

I mean I am even favorable to the death penalty while acknowledging occasionally you might end up killing the wrong people so you simply have some other user in mind

no it shouldn't because it would mean that as an illegal you could automatically get permanent residence just by having a child.

and the way not to have birthright citizenship is to amend the constitution, so until that happens you cannot have a policy where parents of us citizens can't be deported, if you want any modicum of control on immigration.

which you don't want to have, I get it, but other people do

Or deporting the weedwacker guy. Geez, the guy was a model "citizen" with USMC sons.... I would rather have THAT guy as a neighbor than any of the people that support his removal from USA#1.

Yeah, there's plenty of situations like that. If you're renting your house to someone you can't just get the police to remove them even if they are late on rent.

This. Saying "they didn't use due process when they came in so they don't get it now" is just a soundbite for really dumb people. It literally as stupid as saying "criminals didn't use due process when they committed their crimes, so they're not entitled to it when we put them on trial". Umm, yes, they are, that's what due process means, dumbass.

"the law is the law"
"you probably drive 58 in a 55!!"

How do you do that? I don't think I could prove my citizenship on the spot to some random law enforcement clown. It's not like we are required to carry around proof.

Well, then I guess you're one of the thousand accidentally caught up in the net, tough titties for you. As Blackstone said - better to deport 100 citizens than let one illegal roam free.