Post New

If it wasn’t clear that the fascists you’re politely engaging with were in fact fascists, the apologia for the ICE executions of Goode and Pretti has made it abundantly clear. These a$$hats are celebrating and justifying state sponsored terrorism, and many of you continue to give legitimacy to their fascism by engaging them. Block the muthereffers and purge them from this board until the day we win back democracy and purge fascists from society.

By quoting and responding to fascist discourse you force me to read these hateful words.

If you can stand to watch any of the FOX 'news' et al 'reporting' on these murders, then you will understand where these low information, propaganda swilling righties get their views and inform their opinions.

If it wasn’t clear that the fascists you’re politely engaging with were in fact fascists, the apologia for the ICE executions of Goode and Pretti has made it abundantly clear. These a$$hats are celebrating and justifying state sponsored terrorism, and many of you continue to give legitimacy to their fascism by engaging them. Block the muthereffers and purge them from this board until the day we win back democracy and purge fascists from society.

Block the muthereffers and purge them from this board until the day we win back democracy and purge fascists from society.

I confess to a certain pleasure in seeing their illogic and misinformation indefatigably swatted down here, and I have blocked most of the OPs so I only see their posts when quoted.

But, it does get tiring reading the all the pleas to "do better" and "get better sources of info" that always seem to fall on deaf ears.

Without the dissenting voices however, we'd be in an echo chamber ourselves.

These a$$hats are celebrating and justifying state sponsored terrorism, and many of you continue to give legitimacy to their fascism by engaging them.

Engaging with someone doesn't give them legitimacy. Indeed, in a democratic society the only way to defeat ideas you detest is to engage with them.

By quoting and responding to fascist discourse you force me to read these hateful words.

No one ever defeated fascism by shutting their eyes to it. You might dislike reading their words, but it's much harder to fight ideas you detest if you don't understand them in their particulars. You're never going to change the minds of the folks that you detest, but you're not going to be effective at convincing people who aren't fascist of the dangers and extremes of their belief system if you don't understand them in their particulars and how they are currently being expressed and promulgated.

quoting and responding to fascist discourse you force me to read these hateful words.

Just block those of us who engage with them. That way, you won’t have to see their quoted words.

and many of you continue to give legitimacy to their fascism by engaging them.

Sorry, this just isn't true. Plenty of people did not engage with fascism when it was real in Germany in the 30s and 40s. They didn't gain power by people not engaging them, and Albaby has been showing Dope the anti-commandeering structure of the Constitution.

By quoting and responding to fascist discourse you force me to read these hateful words.

Slow down, stop. Breath in and out slowly, move away from the emotion and turn analytical. We all full well understand your reaction, but don't let the inflammatory wording of their posts have their intended effect. Move away from that feeling that you have to respond, and don't read - you can block people for periods and fix that dripping faucet, or read that history book.

Nazi trying to tell people who to talk to and who not to.

Typical 401K Nazi

Typical 401K Nazi

Obviously, by the responses he received on the board, he is an outlier.

But he confirms your bias and prejudice, so you call him “typical”.

A common distortion.

FOXNews even has an entire business model built to exploit this peculiarity of human perception.

No one ever defeated fascism by shutting their eyes to it.

Fascism was defeated the only way it can be, by force of arms and then by the justice system imposing the appropriate punishment and, in the case of Germany, by banning the hateful ideology.

You do give fascism legitimacy by engaging its advocates in debate. Fascist ideas just become one of many ideas sold in the marketplace of ideas. Fascism is a violent and hateful ideology bent on the total subordination and domination of the ever shifting “enemy”.

This board should become a forum not for debating fascists but for debating the strategy and tactics of taking direct action against the fascists. The ICE gestapo isn’t just in Minneapolis, it’s in my community now too.

If you love America, get a whistle, join a signal chat, and be prepared to defend your freedoms and the freedoms of your neighbors. Your constitutional rights only exist, unfortunately, if you are prepared to positively assert them in the face of state force.

Rather than debating fascists, why don’t you use your lawyerly skills to share with freedom loving Americans the best tactics for defending our freedoms safely in the face of ICE violence in our communities?

Fascism was defeated the only way it can be, by force of arms and then by the justice system imposing the appropriate punishment and, in the case of Germany, by banning the hateful ideology.

You do give fascism legitimacy by engaging its advocates in debate. Fascist ideas just become one of many ideas sold in the marketplace of ideas. Fascism is a violent and hateful ideology bent on the total subordination and domination of the ever shifting “enemy”.

But here in America, you can't ban the hateful ideology. You can't take it out of the marketplace of ideas. You have to engage its advocates in debate. As much as you devoutly wish it to be the case, you are not going to reach a point where the ideas that you label "fascist" will be treated the way the most obvious and odious forms of overt racism are. However much you detest the ideas that are being voiced by conservatives on this message board, we will never reach a point where advocating them will result in the same barring from public discourse as incontrovertible over racism would.

Other participants in the marketplace of ideas - the people that the fascists are trying to get to adopt their viewpoints - will get to encounter fascist ideas. And if you don't have a good understanding of what modern ideas and arguments are being put forward, and how they're being framed, you're going to fail in the battle in that marketplace.

Rather than debating fascists, why don’t you use your lawyerly skills to share with freedom loving Americans the best tactics for defending our freedoms safely in the face of ICE violence in our communities?

Because I can do two things. I'm not debating people on this message board because I have any expectation that they will change their priors or come around to my way of thinking. I do it so that I understand their arguments and learn what they believe. That helps me in my conversations with people in my community that aren't already completely convinced of the ideas that I have, but who aren't fascists either, and are open to genuine conversations about why conservative arguments around immigration (for example) are wrong. Because I'll know what the arguments actually are, and how they're actually being presented, rather than walking around with my own strawman caricature of what modern fascists are like.

I normally dislike meta-conversations, but I think this is important. If you refuse to engage with fascists, you're not denying them legitimacy in the marketplace of ideas. You're ceding the marketplace of ideas to them. They won't go away just because you refuse to talk to them, you can't deplatform them the way they were in Germany (or in certain specific institutions here in the U.S.). You have to engage - and do so in a way that's more nuanced than blowing a whistle at them....

Without the dissenting voices however, we'd be in an echo chamber ourselves

You’re pretty much in an echo chamber already.
Those not faint of heart hang in there, others with an opposing pov
just don’t bother and stay away from the insults and etc.

Love how the default assumption (which no one has challenged) is that the right wing posters here are all fascists. It's better than having your idea challenged, I suppose.

Awesome.

Snowflakes gonna snowflake.

https://youtu.be/vGAqYNFQdZ4?si=IpGtPTGB5pOl0aU1

This is what liberal discourse looks like:

(Language warning)

https://x.com/RCMaxw3ll/status/2015975501056377014...

All those girls did was take a selfie with an ICE agent and the little Maoists chased them and harassed them.

I especially love the old dude using the c-word. Too bad one of those girls didn't lay his a$$ out on the street for it.

This is the modern left in all their glory: angry. Unhinged. Violent. Mentally ill.

liberalism is a mental disorder.

This is the modern left in all their glory: angry. Unhinged. Violent. Mentally ill.

liberalism is a mental disorder.

Such a blanket condemnation is itself proof of a disordered mind.

Such a blanket condemnation is itself proof of a disordered mind.

Those are your fellow travelers, not mine.

Dude, you're a strange combination of absolute far left lunatic, and immature middle school mean girl.

Get a grip.

The Leftists here are mentally ill.

They are paranoid and schizotypal.

They (like many other Leftists) HAVE TO agree with each other.

It provides them with an identity.

The proof of that is their insistence that the shootings of Pretti and Good were "executions."

"Murders."

Not: criminally negligent homicide, not accidental discharge, not a chance that either might be a justified shooting, and aside from whatever the ultimate legal outcome on what criminal charges are filed, if any, as to either shooting, the absolute refusal to acknowledge that both Good and Pretti were activists who deliberately were interfering with law enforcement operations and affirmatively ignored directions given to them by the LEOs, thus escalating the situation on both occasions.

You wouldn't know that from reading the NY Times, the Atlantic, Politico, or Heather Cox Richardson, however.

Dope1,

Even more illuminating, is FoolishPhillipsHead's apparent fear of actually being able to prevail in a debate/discussion/argument/exchange of opinions and ideas with the so-called "fascists."

And not even to "prevail," that's not exactly the right word.

He is so terrified that his perceptions and delusions and versions of reality are such fragile things, that he cannot risk any challenge to them.

He is so terrified that the warped mirror that he sees the world in will shatter if he listens to the wrong person stating the wrong words or ideas or opinions or speculations, just from hearing those words, that he wants to isolate OTHERS, not just himself, from those evil awful things--the words that scare him so much.

Only a true cultist tries to forbid OTHERS in his cult from interactions with people who see things differently.

People like Foolish PHillip are dangerous and totalitarian, and ironically, it is Phillip himself who is playing the role of "fascist."

angry. Unhinged. Violent. Mentally ill.

https://missouriindependent.com/2022/07/22/trump-c...

albaby1: I do it so that I understand their arguments and learn what they believe.

So, it didn't take you a couple of discussions to learn what they believe?

I've read most of your arguments with Dope1 and have learned he never admits he's wrong, despite being presented with clear and exacting facts and data. I mean, there is some entertainment value in watching him get his ass handed to him over and over again, but not much.

And it was immediately obvious that Marco100 and Jedi and his dopples were trolls. And LurkerMom has become a troll. I don't learn anything from any of them. So they're all p-boxed now.

I haven't p-boxed Dope1 (but, c'mon, the guy's main source of information is random knuckleheads on Xshitter) or bighairymike (because he rarely posts anymore). Neither of these guys ever include links or point to facts of any kind. Ever.

So I kind of agree with PhoolishPhilip. Lately, engaging these folks has become wrestling in the mud with pigs.

But, sure, go ahead and keep wrestling.

This is the modern left in all their glory...Mentally ill. liberalism is a mental disorder. ~Dope

Truly inspiring how the "level‑headed MAGA patriots" continue proving their superior mental fitness — by killing themselves at much higher rates than the "mentally ill liberals" they keep diagnosing....

"Studies comparing suicide rates between red and blue states consistently find that red states (MAGA) have much higher suicide rates."

"Suicide rates are higher in red states compared to blue states. This pattern is consistent across recent years and is supported by both state and county-level data.
Contributing Factors:
Higher rates of gun ownership in red states, which is strongly linked to increased suicide risk.
Reduced access to mental health services and a weaker social safety net, which are more prevalent in states with Republican policy orientations.
Geographic Patterns: The "suicide belt" a region with some of the highest suicide rates in the country—runs through several rural, predominantly MAGA states."

"Overall, our finding that Democratic counties have experienced steeper declines in mortality than Republican counties over the past two decades builds upon previous evidence
suggesting that more liberal policies, laws, and regulations may be associated with better health outcomes."

Remember MAGA: Should these facts cause discomfort, you have my full permission to deny their existence.

https://bmjgroup.com/widening-gap-in-death-rates-b...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/state-stats/deaths/suicid...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2912290/

Obviously, by the responses he received on the board, he is an outlier.

But he confirms your bias and prejudice, so you call him “typical”.

A common distortion.

FOXNews even has an entire business model built to exploit this peculiarity of human perception.
*****

I've always been open about bias and prejudice.

please be same about yours.

Paternalistic ones especially ;)

I'm not the one telling others who NOT to talk to.

The Typical 401K'er - IS.

So, it didn't take you a couple of discussions to learn what they believe?

Again, it's all about the particulars.

Most of us carry around a heuristic of what we think conservatives believe, just as they have one about what progressives believe. But that heuristic is just an overly generalized model and is probably going to be wrong (or incomplete) on lots of details. And you can't really make sense of what a group of folks might be thinking about any specific situation or dispute without finding out more stuff about that particular issue.

To summarize that in this context, I would refer folks to Van Jones' excellent summary of the two very different ways that conservatives and progressives view ICE enforcement. What Jones thinks is the conservative perspective is below. I've edited a little for length (so warning - some of his text is missing), but it is a nutshell.

The point is, if you're going to have any chance of trying to persuade people who aren't rabid MAGA, but are still conservative leaning, you have to understand this perspective about the specifics of Minnesota. You know how off-base you think a conservative poster might sound when he tries to describe to liberals what liberals think? Because he doesn't understand what liberals think and instead operates off of his heuristic of what he thinks liberals think without trying to understand where his heuristic might be wrong, it's impossible for him to make a compelling argument.

It's also why labelling conservatives as FASCIST doesn't work. Because none of the below beliefs scans as "fascist" to them, and when they present these beliefs to potentially persuadable third parties they won't necessarily scan as "fascist" to those third parties either. These are all contestable claims (and Jones goes on to contest them in the discussion of progressive perspectives), but they aren't inherently fascist claims.

If you don't bother to understand the conservative lens and how they frame these things, you can't be effective in the "marketplace of ideas." And since you can't force conservatives out of the marketplace by not engaging with them (and probably shouldn't be able to), that means you have to engage.

When many conservatives look at Minneapolis, they see a clear story.

ICE is law enforcement. Period.
For conservative commentators, there’s no meaningful distinction between ICE and your local police department. A badge is a badge. An order is an order. Disobeying “law enforcement” is a serious violation – full stop.

These arrests are needed for public safety.
The emphasis in right-wing information ecosystems is on violent criminals and drug traffickers. They also fear terrorism and radicalism; they worry that the United States will become like Europe, which they see as a land overrun with Muslim extremists.

The protests aren’t an act of conscience. They’re an act of obstruction.
The analogy is “you wouldn’t block police officers.” They see people physically interfering with legitimate law enforcement and escalating danger for agents on the scene.

The shooting of Renee Good was self-defense.
A vehicle advancing head-on towards an agent is a weapon. If your social media feed shows only the video angles that show danger to the ICE agent, the Left’s outrage looks phony and unhinged.

Democratic leaders are politicizing public safety.
The Right sees lawsuits against ICE as the Left choosing chaos over order. When liberal officials align with protesters, conservatives see Democratic office-holders as undermining the security of our nation and jeopardizing our freedom. Why? Just to score political points.

Now here’s the key: conservatives are not pretending.

Based on what they’re seeing, conservatives genuinely believe that if we don’t support immigration enforcement, we won’t have a country. And they believe progressive protestors are trying to make legitimate law enforcement impossible.

From inside that reality, abolishing ICE sounds as insane as abolishing the fire department.

https://vanjones.substack.com/p/america-isnt-divid...

All those girls did was take a selfie with an ICE agent and the little Maoists chased them and harassed them.

And guess who he was....

“The man who incited a mob to surround teenage girls simply for taking a photo with ICE, while threatening them and attempting to doxx them, has been identified as Mark Holodnak, the Democrat Committee Treasurer for Arizona District 12.”

https://x.com/rightanglenews/status/20161790578896...

“The man who incited a mob to surround teenage girls simply for taking a photo with ICE, while threatening them and attempting to doxx them, has been identified as Mark Holodnak, the Democrat Committee Treasurer for Arizona District 12.”

Figures.

albaby1: The point is, if you're going to have any chance of trying to persuade people who aren't rabid MAGA...

Ah, well, there's the flaw in your reasoning with regard to the posters here.

Ah, well, there's the flaw in your reasoning with regard to the posters here.

As I've said many times, I'm not trying to push Dope1 (or others) off of their beliefs. You almost never can change people's beliefs on the internet, and you certainly can't change people's beliefs about very strongly held ideas on "should" questions.

I'm trying to understand where they're coming from. What is it that they believe, and why they believe that. The same exercise that Jones did in preparing that very cogent summary of what he thinks conservatives believe is happening when they look at Minnesota.

Not because I think that will be useful in convincing posters here of anything, but because it helps me have conversations with other people - IRL, in my community. People who aren't rabid MAGA, but who are generally very sympathetic to many of the points that Jones articulates. Those folks aren't going to be persuaded just by calling the MAGA people FASCIST, because they generally agree with some of the things that those MAGA folks believe and won't just dismiss those points as "fascist" just because people label them as such. Positions like "ICE is law enforcement, and disobeying law enforcement is a serious social violation" and "the protests aren’t an act of conscience, they’re an act of obstruction" and "Democratic leaders are politicizing public safety" absolutely are contestable claims, but they're not necessarily (or self-evidently) "fascist."

So if you just walk in and say, "I'm not going to engage with fascists" when talking about ICE in Minnesota with these folks, you're not going to persuade anyone. If you have a discussion about the pros and cons of ICE enforcement with anyone who isn't on your side already and is persuadable without knowing what conservatives think on these things, you're going to be ineffective.

...but they're not necessarily (or self-evidently) "fascist."

Sure. We can learn from history. Most Germans were "fascist", but something in the fascist message resonated with them, and ~33% voted for them (which was enough in their parliamentary system). I think very few actually supported extermination.

BTW, I agree with you. If you stick your head in the sand, the fascists don't magically go away. You have to engage them. Even if you don't convince them (which is rare), someone else hearing/seeing that conversation might be swayed. And, as you say, it benefits your understanding. As long as they're civil, I'm willing to discuss with them. It can be infuriating sometimes. I'm sure they feel the same sometimes.

"Studies comparing suicide rates between red and blue states consistently find that red states (MAGA) have much higher suicide rates."

The Mountain West "Suicide Belt": Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada.

Higher altitude with thinner air is thought to be one cause.

Emerging Rural "Belt": Researchers have identified a broader "suicide belt" stretching across the mid-section of the country, including Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, West Virginia, and Virginia. (Alaska has a high rate too)

High suicide rates in these areas are often attributed to the "bootstraps" mentality, greater social isolation, limited access to mental health care, higher poverty rates, and easy access to firearms.

A bootstrap mentality is the belief that individuals can achieve success and overcome hardship solely through their own hard work, determination, and self-reliance, without needing external aid.

"ICE is law enforcement. Period. There's no meaningful distinction between ICE and your local police department."

Not quite. (You seem to share the progressive habit of interpreting what conservatives believe by incomplete if not totally false attribution, although not always to the extent of the utter leftist nut jobs who post here.)

Many conservatives believe that there IS a distinction between federal law enforcement and local police departments. Because of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, federal law takes precedence over local law in many instances. One example would be that possession of marijuana remains a federal crime, although local authorities in many states no longer enforce federal marijuana laws. Nevertheless, if caught with marijuana on federal property within a state's boundaries, technically you will be subject to federal law, not state law.

Further, is completely irresponsible and probably illegal for state officials such as Frey, Walz, and others in Minnesota to advocate for residents of the state to interfere with federal law enforcement officers attempting to enforce federal laws in those states.

"These arrests are need for public safety." First, you don't specify "which" arrests? In any event, it is not just a subjective issue of what they are "needed" for because that's just a matter of opinion. It's whether or not the arrests are PERMITTED by law. If PERMITTED by law then it is up to the LEO's discretionary execution of the policy of his or her department.

Citizens and non-citizens who interfere with ICE operations are subject to detention and possibly arrest. Which is exactly the same principle that applies when citizens or non-citizens interfere with local LEOs. There is NO requirement that said detention/arrest be necessary for "public safety." If the person being detained or arrested is interfering with the LEO's performance of duty, even if there is no "public safety" issue involved, then it is a proper use of LEO powers to detain and/or arrest said person.

Illegal aliens are subject to detention and/or arrest. Again, this does not require an issue of "public safety" to justify the detention/arrest.

For the most part if crowds of rioting people are interfering with ICE or ANY LEO operation, state, local, or federal, most conservatives will understand that detention and/or arrest is fully within the discretionary authorities of LEOs on the scene. Conservatives will also generally agree that a U.S. citizen who believes they were improperly arrested or detained would be entitled to their day in court. Different standards apply to illegal aliens especially those with existing deportation orders.

"The protests aren't an act of conscience. They're an act of obstruction." Again you sort of create a straw man by mashing everything together. Is this habit of yours deliberate, i.e., you wish to seem reasonable but by misstating your adversaries true opinions, you really aren't? In any event, no conservative denies the right of U.S. citizens to peacefully protest in a manner which does not interfere with the LEOs. I am sure most of the protestors were peaceful. The problem is not the peaceful protestors, it is those who ARE obstructing, like Renee Good or Alex Pretti.

Have you heard any conservative complain about the many thousands of peaceful protestors in Minneapolis who SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, made their view heard WITHOUT INTERFERING with ICE; WITHOUT DRIVING THEIR SUV at an officer; WITHOUT getting into a street brawl with several ICE officers?

No, you haven't.

Just like conservatives don't object to politicians voicing opposition to Trump's immigration policies, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T actively encourage the residents of their state, both legal and illegal, to actively interfere with ICE operations. Peacefully voicing opposition to Trump's immigration policies is JUST FINE. YOU WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE ELECTIONS, or WIN them, based on whether the electorate agrees or disagrees with those positions.

"The shooting of Renee Good was self-defense." Not quite. Conservatives believe that it was plausibly a justifiable use of deadly physical force; but that Ms. Good (and her lesbian lover Becca DRIVE BABY DRIVE) certainly instigated the entire situation, unnecessarily. Conservatives believe that if you are foolish enough to rev your SUV up and drive it at an LEO who is standing directly in front of it, or close enough to be at hazard depending upon your immediate actions with the vehicle, you are placing yourself at unnecessary risk. Conservatives believe the Minnesota populace was deliberately stirred up to interfere with ICE operations and that if you are going to encourage thousands of similar confrontations then you as the Dem politicians who are encouraging this bear both moral and legal responsibility for any unfortunate or unforeseen consequences of your actions.

As I have said repeatedly here, this really has nothing to do with ICE. It has to do with basic common sense, which many of you on the Left seem to be totally lacking in.

I will repeat my challenge: Try it. Run a red light, drive above the speed limit, speed through a work zone where a police officer is directing traffic. When the officer signals you to pull over and get out of your car, refuse to cooperate. If the officer should happen to position himself in front of your vehicle, gun your engine and attempt to drive away, after striking the officer.

Doesn't need to be Minnesota, doesn't need to be federal LEO, you can try this in your local community. You will definitely end up in jail and you may wind up dead.

Further, the ICE officer who shot Good hasn't been charged with a crime yet. Assuming that ever happens, that officer is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the Rule of Law which the Left claims to care about, that officer is PRESUMED INNOCENT.

I think most conservatives would agree with that presumption of innocence, at a minimum. Additionally, even if the officer in question acted illegally, it was not an "execution" nor was it "murder." Most likely if guilty of anything it would criminally negligent homicide or reckless endangerment. Again however for now the officer is innocent of any crime at all.

"Democratic leaders are politicizing public safety." No, on the contrary, Democratic leaders are deliberately endangering public safety, and trying to take political advantage of the chaos they are advocating.

"Conservatives are not pretending." WTF does that even mean? No, the country won't end if immigration laws are not enforced. But we have those laws for a reason, and elected a president because of his promise to enforce those law. So why would we be in agreement that state officials and radical leftists should defy DEMOCRACY, especially when they claim to believe in the Rule of Law? This b.s. doesn't make much sense to Conservatives and it's just one of the reasons we think you guys are cynical liars and/or batshit crazy and/or both.

STOP characterizing everything in the stupid Manichaen way that delusional leftists insist on doing. You're an angel or a Nazi.

We get it. You have to do that because you're psychologically impaired and have borderline personality disorder or something.

I mean why else would someone drive an SUV at an LEO? Why else would someone try to pick up a flash bang with their bare hands?

You guys are disconnected from reality.

That's what Conservatives think.

share with freedom loving Americans the best tactics for defending our freedoms safely in the face of ICE violence in our communities?

Your request is rationally impossible.

Fascism (etc) requires the use of force to compel people to comply. Otherwise, it DIES *because* it is not credible to the public. En masse, the govt can NOT do so if there is a large population opposed to the compulsory beliefs imposed by fascism. Good and Pretti were publicly executed--and those murders were recorded, broadcast, and analyzed. Spankee and his followers are NOW in "oh shit" mode due to their STATEMENT "not allowed to carry guns".

They LOST their biggest supporters, because SPANKEE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY THEIR GUNS.

Spankee and the GOP are now burnt toast.

The ads just write themselves for ANYONE opposing them. Wanna keep your guns? Vote Dem. Or let Spankee and the GOP take them away from you. THEY SAID SO: (Play the recording)

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/27/trump-pre...

“certainly he shouldn’t have been carrying a gun.”

Uh, SECOND AMENDMENT? Pretti had the permit and legal authority to CCW. OOPS !!

Or is that just for "the select FEW"? And who would THAT be? LOL !!!

Pretti wasn't a peaceful protestor.

He came armed for a gun fight and he got exactly what he came for.

conservatives genuinely believe that if we don’t support immigration enforcement, we won’t have a country.

True. Look at the American Indians--who did NOT have immigration enforcement.

Therefore, to enforce American Indian immigration law, all conservatives are required to the ALL of the Americas--because LAW ENFORCEMENT IS WHAT THEY WANT, and THEY OBEY.

Let's now watch the right go whacko claiming THEY ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS. I don't see any of their "American Indian" documentation to show they LEGALLY entered the Americas. So, BYE !!

I'm trying to understand where they're coming from. What is it that they believe, and why they believe that.

Where they are coming from is an irrationally-held POV they can not comprehend.

If it was rational, then they--by definition--could not have that POV.

What/why they believe is irrational, so you end up with an Escher Staircase:

'Escher's staircase refers to impossible, continuous loops of stairs seen in < M.C. Escher's lithographs like "Ascending and Descending" (1960) and "Relativity" (1953), based on the Penrose stairs idea by Lionel and Roger Penrose, where figures walk forever without changing elevation. These optical illusions defy 3D reality, creating a paradoxical sense of endless ascent or descent through clever perspective and impossible connections, often symbolizing life's circular journeys or logical puzzles.'

Search for "Escher Staircase" and you will find a number of them displayed.

This video shows how a real-life Escherian staircase works in a different geometry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEVzdd4O_Uk (warning: ad intro to Youtube)

This post is very very stupid even taking into account your sub-primate level of brain power.

Amazing work, keep up the humor.

To a crazed leftist who doesn't believe in democracy and doesn't believe in the rule of law,

a President who was elected to enforce immigration laws, actually keeping his promise to do just that,

wouldn't make any sense at all.

I will repeat my challenge: Try it. Run a red light, drive above the speed limit, speed through a work zone where a police officer is directing traffic.

ICE/CBP does none of the above (quoted from YOU). Therefore, PER YOU, ICE/CBP are NOT LEO.

Guess what? They have ZERO legal authority over US citizens (natural born OR naturalized).

Let us know when ICE/CBP/ETC are directing traffic, enforcing speed limit of ANY TYPE, etc. LOVE to see them doing the parking meter ticketing--the guys in those short skirts (as any REAL meter maiden would be dressed), and so on.

You are such a joke. LOL !!!

Pretti wasn't a peaceful protestor.

He came armed for a gun fight and he got exactly what he came for.

NRA is "armed for a gun fight". So, kill them all--RIGHT?

Your logic, your outcome.

WHAT DOES THE NRA SAY ???

Pretti wasn't a peaceful protestor.

He came armed for a gun fight and he got exactly what he came for.

NRA is "armed for a gun fight". So, kill them all--RIGHT?

Your logic, your outcome.

WHAT DOES THE NRA SAY ???

Really quite surprising--but then NOT.

I went to the NRA site to submit the question to get THEIR response. Guess what?

THEY DO NOT PERMIT QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED.

NOWHERE on their site do they allow questions OR have posted replies to questions.

All they have are their prepared articles/postings, etc.

It DOES explain why they replicate fascist ideology and public contact so tightly. They KNOW their position(s) are not rationally tenable. So, NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED.

Anyone who is an NRA member (or considering it) needs to seriously reconsider what the NRA really IS--and WHY. A "free society" permits discussion with questions and replies. The NRA is NOT in favor of a "free society"--by their CHOICE about NOT allowing discussion, not by an arbitrary decision made without facts.

albaby was right to TRY to determine the source of being a RWNJ, but it is impossible to figure out a source when the RWNJs ignore questions because they can not RATIONALLY answer them. "Because I say so" is NOT a rational reply.

Such a blanket condemnation is itself proof of a disordered mind.

In my experience, quite a few folks I’ve known who are on the right do not understand that liberalism for many of us has as its source an empathy and a compassion for the types of people they really really do not trust or like… Minorities, outsiders, asylum seekers, people with darker skin, LGBTQ people, people who are in our country looking for a better life for themselves and their children (even if they entered illegally).

In my view, empathy and compassion are not symptoms of a disordered mind, but are closely intertwined with wisdom. We humans are not AI bots. We have both a cerebral cortex and a limbic system. I believe we have to find ways of integrating the two in a healthy, mature way — both on a personal and a social/government level — if we are to survive and, hopefully, thrive.

And we just had my favorite comment in the entire thread, how liberals have emmmmpathy for all the people the evilracistright hate.

You can't make this stuff up.

liberalism is a mental disorder.

If it's a mental disorder, then long live that mental disorder. Wanna storm the Bastile with us, Dopushka?

Wanna storm the Bastile with us, Dopushka?

No thanks, Lán bó. I'll leave that to you and the rest of the butterfly net and rubber room crew.

albaby1,

Have you found that in your discussions IRL with people towards the other end of the political spectrum that you’ve been able to persuade at all, or change a viewpoint about a particular issue? If so, what issue(s), and what were the arguments you have found possibly more effective than others?

Have you found that in your discussions IRL with people towards the other end of the political spectrum that you’ve been able to persuade at all, or change a viewpoint about a particular issue? If so, what issue(s), and what were the arguments you have found possibly more effective than others?

Sure! Ignoring legal questions, I've had persuasive discussions with IRL people on all sorts of matters: the necessity of a strong social safety net (like welfare and Medicaid), the benefits of gun control, pollution regulation, and a bunch of other matters.

The most effective approach consists of two prongs: i) distinguish between "is" questions and "should" questions; and ii) recognize that the person you're talking to has a different set of value priorities than you do, and you're not going to change that.

To illustrate with an example from this board, everyone's been bashing their heads against a wall arguing with LurkerMom on immigration enforcement. But if you were going to try to do that effectively, you'd want to recognize that LM has a different set of "rankings" for legitimate values, and take that into account. Wanting existing laws to be followed, law enforcement to be able to do their jobs safely and efficiently, and maintaining order and stability are not bad things to want. Where LM differs from posters on this board (and where conservatives frequently differ from progressives) is valuing those goals vastly higher than other goals that will often conflict with rigid enforcement of legal rules. Goals like compassion, mercy, and proportionate justice.

Within that value system, though, there's an argument against what the Administration is doing. Namely, that even if your main goal - above all others - is to enforce safety and law-abiding and security, the current approach is a bad way of doing that. If you're worried about the dangers posed by people here illegally, going after targets indiscriminately is a waste of resources. Or at least a misallocation of them. If you're genuinely concerned about people being killed by illegal alien gang members, it's a poor allocation of resources to send ICE agents to the courthouse to collar some middle-aged mom who has no connection to criminal activity whatsoever. Those agents should be spending time finding and catching people who are more dangerous.

Similarly, it's a bad idea within this value framework to send Border Patrol into the middle of the country. Border Patrol are law enforcement, but they are not cops. They don't have a lot of experience or training dealing with United States citizens. Their primary role is dealing with foreign nationals who are here to meekly beg for something from the U.S. government, usually at the border and far away from ordinary civilian residents. Not being in the middle of a suburb with "Don't Tread On Me!" U.S. citizens who are loudly protesting and insisting on their right to do so. CBP agents aren't prepared for that, and it's going to go badly.

Now, that's not going to work with LM here on this board - there's years of acrimonious interactions that make it impossible for anyone to change anyone's minds here. But IRL, I have found that even fairly conservative folks will respond to arguments if you understand that they have a different point of view on what's important, that these value judgements are "should" questions that won't be changed by calling them names, and try to point out within their value system why these are still bad policies.

Plus, one major metaphor. I've found that IRL, one point that seems to get a lot of traction is the "Javert Is Not The Hero" observation. Granted, I'm old. An "unk," as my daughter puts it. So a lot of my age cohort is very familiar with Les Mis. So when they point out that all illegal immigrants are criminals, I don't usually push back by arguing that's not true (close to a majority of them entered the country without committing a crime). I just point to Les Mis as an effective illustration that just because someone has done something wrong, that doesn't mean maximally punishing them is just. There has to be proportionality. The central theme of the whole Javert arc in Les Mis is Javert coming to realize that even though Valjean was a criminal, the way he was being treated by the law was unjust, because Valjean was a good person who had done something wrong, rather than a bad person. No one roots for Javert in Les Mis - so I invite the other person to think about why that is, in the context of immigration (and other criminal justice issues).

Anyway, that's way too long - but I hope it answered your question.

albaby1, I appreciate your thoughtful and thorough reply. I’m left of center but pretty moderate temperamentally. Some folks on the right, incl some on this board, truly raise my hackles, but many others in my life are friends and family members that I’d like to learn to communicate with more effectively about important matters. Thank you.

Some folks on the right, incl some on this board, truly raise my hackles, but many others in my life are friends and family members that I’d like to learn to communicate with more effectively about important matters. Thank you.

Again, my pleasure. And since people rarely talk to other folks IRL the way they will on a message board, there's far more fruitful opportunities for actual conversation.

As long as I'm pontificating on how to effectively argue these points, I'll throw out one other belief that I have. Namely:

Almost all discussions about law enforcement are actually at heart a debate about Blackstone's ratio.

Blackstone's ratio, for all the normal people who didn't go to law school and get forced to learn who Blackstone was, is the famous aphorism that:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

When this gets discussed, it's often raised as something that everyone believes. But it's actually a very contested proposition. Not necessarily that there's a balancing between protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty, but where that balance should be struck. Is it really ten? I've often seen it quoted as one hundred, and not ten. Should it perhaps be higher? Maybe lower?

And there's not only the general principle of where we should strike the balance between protecting innocence and punishing guilt, but also the fact that we're dealing with different populations with different interests. To quote from the Wikipedia page:

The story is told of a Chinese law professor, who listened as a British lawyer explained that Britons were so enlightened that they believed it was better that ninety-nine guilty men go free than that one innocent man be executed. The Chinese professor thought for a second and asked, "Better for whom?"

Almost all of the current debates over ICE enforcement map pretty neatly onto this framework. Let's restate the Ratio:

It is better that ____ criminal undocumented aliens remain at large than _____ otherwise law-abiding undocumented aliens have their lives upended by deportation.

Conservatives will have different numbers than progressives! Conservatives (generally) believe it is very bad to have any criminal undocumented aliens remain at large. They also place a very low value on letting otherwise law-abiding undocumented aliens avoid deportation. They think those people are cheaters and lawbreakers, and while conservatives might not care too much about prioritizing them for deportation, they certainly don't feel that their interests deserve much protection. So they think the right policy places a lot of emphasis on getting the criminals vs. minimizing disruption to the non-criminals. Meanwhile, progressives tend to reach the opposite conclusion. Not because they have any particular desire to benefit the criminal undocumented, but because they care a lot about the people that they think are fundamentally good and sympathetic (despite being undocumented) suffering the trauma of having their lives essentially destroyed.

These beliefs play out all over the immigration issue. Should ICE agents just grab whoever they can, or target known criminals? Well, it depends on how you view that ratio. Grabbing people even at random among the undocumented population can result in even a single additional criminal being removed from the country, so people will differ about how many non-criminals they're willing to damage in order to get them.

Recognizing that's what's going on with many conservative vs. progressive disputes about many law enforcement issues can help you figure out where your interlocutor is and what might persuade them.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

Once again, albaby1 spends quite a lot of effort setting up a whole nest of straw men to knock down.

"Conservatives want this or that," they don't seem to care about "compassion and mercy," and so forth.

By the way, this has nothing at all to do with Lurker Mom. Her opinions make perfect sense are are logically consistent, even if you disagree with them. Now, in my opinion, she's a little strong on the religious stuff, but you know what? Just because she's a god fearing person doesn't mean she's wrong about immigration policy.

What a crock.

Do you have fucking lock on the front door of your house, albaby?

I assume you do because you're not a complete idiot.

Assuming you do, why?

Why don't you leave your home open and accessible to anyone passing by who might be in need of a drink of water; grabbing that leftover turkey leg from your fridge; playing with your Star Wars action figures collection that you keep in its cherished spot of honor in your man cave; or maybe they are tired and want to snuggle into your bed in those nice clean 400 thread count egyptian cotton sheets.

They probably don't have ready access to clean toilet facilities, so while they're at it, the homeless and/or illegal immigrant dude or dudette is going to be more than happy to poop in comfort on the very comfortable (and most likely, heated) throne in your master bath.

Of course if they really let loose because they just ate some Taco Bell they found in the dumpster behind the local 7-11, you certainly won't begrudge them paying your friendly neighborhood plumber emergency call rates to unclear the clog left behind.

Now, you might rejoinder by stating something like: "Hey it's ok with me if illegal immigrants come and go as they please in my home, use my facilities, eat my food, sleep in my bed--even if I really have no idea who the hell they are--but if I left my door unlocked that means some heterosexual white male MAGA folks might try to do the same, and those folks are definitely not welcome in my home."

O.K. so you lamely insist you should keep your front door locked.

Have you ever housed an illegal immigrant (or even a legal one) for so much as a single hour?

Have you ever fed one so much as a single Taco Bell?

Where's your "mercy"? Where's your "compassion"?

No no no says albaby1, actually taking care of these people is THE GOVERNMENT's job.

Right albaby. The government's job.

We elected on of those in 2024, and the are trying to do their job(s).


You disagree with the policies and hence what the electorate said it wanted when it voted Trump back into office in 2024.

You don't believe in democracy, that's perfectly clear.

But remarkably, you're never wrong.

If there is a policy disagreement it's IMPOSSIBLE that it's because YOU. ARE. WRONG.

No, the asshole Trumpers have no "mercy" and no "compassion."

You fucking hypocrite.

albaby1, suppose I’m speaking with someone who would plug very different numbers into the Ratio than I would. How would I use this information and/or act on it in order to be more persuasive?

albaby1, suppose I’m speaking with someone who would plug very different numbers into the Ratio than I would. How would I use this information and/or act on it in order to be more persuasive?

I would argue that having a more humane system means more criminal deportees get caught.

Don't argue about the effects it has on the "good" unauthorized immigrants - the ones who are like Valjean, who have done something wrong but are still good people. Rather, point out that being indiscriminate in who gets put into the system is a terrible misallocation of resources. The more "good guys" get targeted the fewer resources are available for the "bad guys."

It's not just material resources either, like money or agents or detention facility space. It burns up intangible resources. For example, the federal judiciary is absolutely bonkers livid at ICE right now, because their docket has suffered under an avalanche of habeas petitions and emergency injunction requests and all sorts of proceedings because ICE is acting so heedlessly:

“The Court’s patience is at an end,” Patrick Schiltz, the chief judge of Minnesota’s federal district court, wrote Monday.

* * *

Schiltz said the court has been “extremely patient” with the administration, even as thousands of agents descended on Minnesota to detain noncitizens without a plan for the hundreds of legal challenges that were “sure to result.”

Roughly 3,000 ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel are on the ground in the Minneapolis area conducting enforcement, the government disclosed in a court filing this week.

“Respondents have continually assured the Court that they recognize their obligation to comply with Court orders, and that they have taken steps to ensure that those orders will be honored going forward,” the chief judge wrote.

“Unfortunately, though, the violations continue,” he said.

https://thehill.com/newsletters/the-gavel/5708925-...

Now when ICE agents show up with legitimate requests for those courts for matters dealing with the real bad guys in order to get the real bad guys out - requests for warrants or unusual procedural moves or what have you - they're now at a huge disadvantage. Because the judges are not going to be inclined to take them at their word that they need something, or that they'll comply with conditions of an order or warrant, or whatever. They've used up all the goodwill and deference that normally attends the federal government.

Public cooperation (or at least no protests), local government coordination, funding requests, being dragged to oversight hearings - if you act like an agency that pays some attention to whether it's acting reasonably or not, you will have an easier time going after the real baddies than if you act like an agency that doesn't give a short about anything.

So, this kind of hardball immigration operation that operates with absolutely no consideration for the mostly good people who are getting swept up in it is ultimately self-defeating. It hurts the goal of getting as many bad guys locked up or deported, rather than helps.

I would argue that having a more humane system means more criminal deportees get caught.

You mean like in non-sanctuary cities and states, where the local authorities just hand the criminals over in the hallway and there's zero need to roll into neighborhoods at all?

ab1, I like very much the way you argue that humaneness and rationality can work in synergy. It was a point I was trying to get at in a post a couple of nights ago, but much less artfully.

You mean like in non-sanctuary cities and states, where the local authorities just hand the criminals over in the hallway and there's zero need to roll into neighborhoods at all?

Ah, let's use that counterargument as an illustration of how a conservative can use this approach to try to argue within the frame of their interlocutor, who has indicated that he has a priority system that emphasizes the impact on the "good" unauthorized.

One can argue that "sanctuary policies" are also self-defeating, because local government cooperation with detainers can help ICE more effectively target just the "bad" unauthorized while not going after the "good" unauthorized.

But the flip side to that is that it also depends on how ICE uses their detainer requests. Are they using it to go after the "bad guys" in the hallway? The short answer is, "not especially":

In general, individuals with a criminal conviction made up a surprisingly small number of those targeted by a detainer. Out of 17,972 detainers issued between January 20 and February 17, just 28 percent had any prior conviction. Of these, despite this administration’s rhetoric, only 30 detainers were targeted at convicted rapists and just 65 at murderers.

In general, where a conviction was recorded, it tended to be for a less serious offense. The most frequent conviction was for drunk driving, followed by “other traffic offenses.” The category of “miscellaneous assaults” which excluded serious assaults was in third place. Convictions for illegal entry followed by convictions for illegal reentry were in fourth and fifth place. Together these five offenses were classified by ICE as the most serious criminal conviction recorded and made up one third or 34 percent of recorded convictions.

https://tracreports.org/reports/758/

Now we're back in discussing the Ratio. Even the detainer process ends up bringing in a very high number of people that are either not criminals (72% have no criminal convictions, and the majority of people arrested don't get charged or convicted), or are people whose convictions are for traffic offenses or border entry crimes.

That puts us back on ICE's behavior. If ICE were more discriminate in how they used detainers, then they might possibly get better responses from local authorities who have different views on the right Ratio level. If ICE was mostly sending detainer requests for people like murderers and rapists, and not people with no criminal convictions, then local governments might respond differently than they do.

But the flip side to that is that it also depends on how ICE uses their detainer requests. Are they using it to go after the "bad guys" in the hallway? The short answer is, "not especially":

But then the link says:
In general, where a conviction was recorded, it tended to be for a less serious offense. The most frequent conviction was for drunk driving, followed by “other traffic offenses.” The category of “miscellaneous assaults” which excluded serious assaults was in third place.

And...so? Are we drawing the line that only certain criminals are to be detained now?

Bear in mind that Every. Single. Illegal. Immigrant. is a criminal by definition. Not just the rapists and murderers. Why would we diminish all these other offenses? These folks are here illegally, were arrested for additional crimes, and convicted. They should be gone.

If ICE were more discriminate in how they used detainers, then they might possibly get better responses from local authorities who have different views on the right Ratio level.

Tim Walz and Jacob Frey are releasing criminals into the wild because of their sanctuary laws. Those are choices that *they* made that are making ICE's job that much harder.

ICE is tasked with removing people who shouldn't be here. There's no ambiguity about that.

Now we're back in discussing the Ratio. Even the detainer process ends up bringing in a very high number of people that are either not criminals (72% have no criminal convictions, and the majority of people arrested don't get charged or convicted), or are people whose convictions are for traffic offenses or border entry crimes.


Okay, so according to this the 72% number is completely bogus - drunk driving for one is a serious offense that often results in somebody getting seriously hurt or dying. So this is literally a meaningless statistic.

The fact of the matter is that for every criminal illegal alien who makes an appearance in front of a judge for something they did - ICE should be getting a call proactively from these sanctuary locales so they can quickly, easily and safely pick these people up.

The reason they have to go into these neighborhoods is because they have to chase after these folks. Take that off the board, the temperature goes way down.

Your framework doesn't fly because it is the deliberate choices of certain jurisdictions to hinder the feds.

Just because she's a god fearing person doesn't mean she's wrong about immigration policy.

The only one claiming to be a "god fearing person" is someone NOT fearing god. So, what exastly IS she fearing (because it is NOT "god").

The rest of your silly spiel is properly flushed.

You mean like in non-sanctuary cities and states

There aren't any. The "non-sanctuary" cities and states give sanctuary to criminals. They DO NOT turn them over to the police/law enforcement.

We know from first-hand experience. Let's see if YOU can figure out HOW WE KNOW.

Bear in mind that Every. Single. Illegal. Immigrant. is a criminal by definition.

You are in illegal immigrant criminal. Leave now.

And...so? Are we drawing the line that only certain criminals are to be detained now?

It's not drawing lines. We're engaging in an effort to talk about the issue that recognizes the value frame of the other side.

I go back to the metaphor of "Javert Is Not The Hero". In Les Mis, the actual hero of the story - Jean Valjean - is a criminal. He stole a loaf of bread in order to save a relative from starving. The idea here is that not all people that have committed a crime deserve the same treatment, and that some people who have committed a crime can still be - or are - good people. The lesson that Javert learned, and committed suicide over, is that justice requires proportionality.

Bear in mind that Every. Single. Illegal. Immigrant. is a criminal by definition.

That is not true. Many, if not most, people who are here illegally have not committed crimes. Either because they entered the country legally and had their status changed after they got here (asylum applicants, overstays, people here under TPS status that was later revoked), or they were brought in as minors.

Why would we diminish all these other offenses? These folks are here illegally, were arrested for additional crimes, and convicted.

No, they weren't convicted. Again, 72% of the detainers were issued to people without convictions. These are people that have been arrested, not being released from prison.

We don't "diminish" these other offenses by treating them differently than, say, murder or rape. You'll get a different sentence for a minor assault charge than murder, because the crimes are different - we recognize that there's different levels of culpability for a bar fight than an actual killing. Justice requires treating many offenses differently from each other because they are of different magnitude. A criminal justice system that treated deliberate murder and simple assault identically would be an unjust system, and that same concern can underly a deportation system as well.

I think you're missing the point of the conversation, here. The premise is that people place a different priority on the deportation of people who are genuinely violent criminals (the murderers) and the people who have done something wrong but are otherwise generally decent folks. The folks that Newt Gingrich wants to have a "national conversation" about (see below link). You might place very little value on trying not to completely disrupt the lives of the people who are otherwise generally decent folks - the exercise we're engaging in is to try to acknowledge that not everyone shares that perspective on how much to weigh that, and try to articulate your arguments within the balancing framework that they have.


https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/571362...

I think you're missing the point of the conversation, here. The premise is that people place a different priority on the deportation of people who are genuinely violent criminals (the murderers) and the people who have done something wrong but are otherwise generally decent folks. The folks that Newt Gingrich wants to have a "national conversation" about (see below link). You might place very little value on trying not to completely disrupt the lives of the people who are otherwise generally decent folks - the exercise we're engaging in is to try to acknowledge that not everyone shares that perspective on how much to weigh that, and try to articulate your arguments within the balancing framework that they have.

No, I fully understand the point of the conversation. It's just that your framing starts from a position that assumes wrongdoing on one side of the equation while completely absolving the other side of any responsibility. I'm not willing to grant that room.

If the democrats and folks on this board want Dreamers dealt with a certain way or want some kind of expanded work permits or even a general amnesty, then fine, that can be debated. But this 'framework' idea neglects the fact(s) that

A) For 4 years the border was wide open and Biden let in millions of people who shouldn't be here, and
B) We have laws on the books that ICE is out there enforcing...as is their responsibility.

B) requires that the mess introduced by A) be cleaned up. Sanctuary jurisdictions - who always magically escape any blame or root causality in these debates - are the proximal cause of the riots and violence. For some reason democrats want to wave their hands at their inability to come to grips with their collective responsibility for creating the conditions we're living in now (actually, the reason is quite clear).

It's just that your framing starts from a position that assumes wrongdoing on one side of the equation while completely absolving the other side of any responsibility. I'm not willing to grant that room.

No, it doesn't. We're not talking about "wrongdoing" or "absolving responsibility."

People have differing opinions about the relative value of removing violent criminal illegal immigrants from the U.S. at the cost of removing otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants from the country.

It's another instantiation of the belief that it's better to let 10 guilty men escape than convict an innocent man. That in no way "absolves" the guilty men of responsibility. It doesn't say that the people who hold a different opinion on that ratio are engaged in "wrongdoing." It simply is a way of conceptualizing the two perfectly valid goals that are in tension in a criminal justice system - consequences for the guilty vs. protection for the innocent.

ICE detainers increase the number of violent criminal illegal immigrants that get removed from the U.S., but also increase the number of otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants that get their lives upended. Different people will have different viewpoints on whether that is a good, or bad, outcome. The people who support sanctuary policies will generally prioritize protecting the otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants from the damage caused by their deportation; the people who oppose sanctuary policies will generally prioritize the reverse.

If someone who opposes sanctuary policies - like yourself - wanted to try to argue their point within the framework of their opponent, you could argue (as you did) that sanctuary policies actually hurt the otherwise law-abiding immigrants more than they help. But that argument only works if it's true - if things like detainers do end up mostly affecting the violent criminal illegal immigrants, and not the ones who are otherwise law-abiding.

That is a useful exercise in trying to make an argument within your opponent's values framework, rather than just yelling at them that their values are wrong. Your values (like those of many conservatives) are that enforcing laws on the books is a very high priority relative to looking at whether such enforcement has a negative consequence for people who don't deserve so harsh a negative consequence. It's important to prevent the guilty going free, even if it means very severe punishments for people who didn't do anything more wrong than a civil violation. Your arguments make perfect sense within your values system, but they're not going to be persuasive to people who don't share that particular ratio of priorities.

People have differing opinions about the relative value of removing violent criminal illegal immigrants from the U.S. at the cost of removing otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants from the country.

Sure they do. But this framing ignores why some of the ""otherwise law-abiding"" ones are being swept up: It's the law.
If a cop witnesses a bank robbery, the cop is morally and legally obligated to give chase and arrest the perp (or pick them up later). ICE is no different: If they're in some neighborhood trying to pick up 'German Llangari Inga', say, and during the course of running him down they encounter some dude who's been here for 20 years illegally but didn't do anything else...

...they have no choice but to grab him also.

They don't have the moral ambiguity to pick and choose.

ICE detainers increase the number of violent criminal illegal immigrants that get removed from the U.S., but also increase the number of otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants that get their lives upended.

Again, why is this? Your entire framework is predicated on the bad behavior of blue sanctuary jurisdictions. I picked the name German Llangari Inga deliberately. Here's his story:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/illegal-alien...

German Llangari Inga, an illegal immigrant from Ecuador, has been charged with vehicular homicide in connection with the August 2024 death of Victoria Eileen Harwell, a mother from Minnesota.



The case has drawn attention due to allegations that local authorities twice failed to honor immigration detainers for Llangari Inga, allowing his release before his eventual re-arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

According to court documents, a preliminary breathalyzer test administered to Llangari Inga following the August 4, 2024, incident indicated a blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeding twice the legal limit in Minnesota. A subsequent blood sample taken approximately two and a half hours later registered a BAC of 0.141%, still significantly above the legal threshold.

Immediately after his initial arrest for criminal vehicular homicide on August 4, 2024, ICE placed a detainer on Llangari Inga. However, the Hennepin County Jail allegedly refused to honor the detainer, and he was released on August 6, 2024, without any notification to ICE.

So this drunken loser got behind the wheel of a car, killed someone, and then the geniuses in Hennepin County, MN. let him go - twice - rather than turn him over to ICE. ICE thus has to go find this guy and pick him up themselves, thus triggering the scenario where your Framework begins.

But it never had to be that way. It's only this way because

A) For 4 years the border was wide open and Biden let in millions of people who shouldn't be here;
B) We have laws on the books that ICE is out there enforcing...as is their responsibility; and also

C) democrat-run sanctuary cities release criminals into the wild, reducing safety for everyone.

Your arguments make perfect sense within your values system, but they're not going to be persuasive to people who don't share that particular ratio of priorities.

I prefer arguing solutions. Again, if the left wants a general amnesty so that somebody who's been here for a long time can 'come in out of the shadows', that's fine. But even arriving at a compromise involves recognizing the long and storied history of Republicans agreeing to amnesty today in exchange for border security tomorrow...and never getting it.

Frameworks are great. It just doesn't really fit here.

A) For 4 years the border was wide open and Biden let in millions of people who shouldn't be here,

R) Border was open a LOT longer than four years--and Raygun gave ALL amnesty.

So, Raygun was a Dem?

You are ignoring facts because they do NOT fit your DESIRED narrative.

Thus, they ALL get amnesty--same as under Raygun. Works for me.

They don't have the moral ambiguity to pick and choose.

I'm not sure why you say that. Prosecutors have the discretion all the time to not charge someone with a crime. Highway patrol have the discretion to not pull you over if you're speeding (but below the "real" speed limit). Police can let you off with a warning, or not bring you in even if they witness you committing a crime (especially if the other person won't bring charges).

There's nothing prohibiting ICE from having a detainer policy where they only ask for local governments to hold people that have had criminal convictions. They don't have to ask for everyone. And they don't even bother taking into custody all of the people that they issue detainers for today.

Again, why is this? Your entire framework is predicated on the bad behavior of blue sanctuary jurisdictions.

Again, it is only under your value system that this behavior is "bad behavior." Again, it's useful to think of the Blackstone Ratio. If you have a criminal justice system that is structured on the idea that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than convict an innocent man, then someone could come in and say, "That's bad behavior. I think it's wrong to allow ten guilty men go free just to avoid convicting a single innocent man. I think it would be better to convict ten innocent men than to let a single guilty man go free." There are people that have that system of values, and it's an internally consistent and probably defensible one.

So WRT sanctuary systems, supporters believe it is better to let ___ illegal aliens who have criminal records avoid easy detention by ICE than to have _____ otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens end up getting their lives upended, for whatever values of those blanks. You don't have to agree! You can believe that they're wrong! The point is that you will have more success in trying to persuade someone like that if you try to take into consideration that they value protecting the otherwise law-abiding more than you do. Again, you don't have to think they're right! But if you yell at them for having the wrong values, rather than try to come up with a justification for detainers that is consistent with their values - or even acknowledges that their values are what they are - then you're not going to be very persuasive with them.

someone could come in and say, "That's bad behavior. I think it's wrong to allow ten guilty men go free just to avoid convicting a single innocent man. I think it would be better to convict ten innocent men than to let a single guilty man go free." There are people that have that system of values, and it's an internally consistent and probably defensible one.

There is "I think this is what is good policy" and then there is "I DIDN'T DO IT !!" belief. Especially as they are being taken to the gallows....

Again, it is only under your value system that this behavior is "bad behavior."

Sure. If someone wants to have a values system where they believe that incarcerating criminals is wrong, they're welcome to that.

So WRT sanctuary systems, supporters believe it is better to let ___ illegal aliens who have criminal records avoid easy detention by ICE than to have _____ otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens end up getting their lives upended, for whatever values of those blanks.

Which, again, basically ignores the entirety of immigration laws we have in this country. The framework conveniently skips over that.

If the left wants amnesty, let the left come out and argue for amnesty. But it can't hide behind this you know, some of those illegals are ""innocent"" because they, regardless of your position on them, are in a sticky place in the law as it is written today.

So for the framework, you have to start with a definition of "guilty" vs. "innocent". Because *all* illegals are on the wrong side of the law (as written today).

Sure. If someone wants to have a values system where they believe that incarcerating criminals is wrong, they're welcome to that.

NO! Again, that is exactly the wrong thing.

It is not a values system where they believe incarcerating criminals is wrong - it is a values system where they reach a different conclusion on balancing incarcerating criminals with protecting the innocent. That's entirely the point. If you don't bother to understand what their position is and why they believe that, even if you think they're wrong, you can't have a meaningful conversation. So if you reduce:

"It's better to let ten guilty men escape than one innocent man be convicted"

to only

"It's good to let ten guilty men escape"

...you will not have any constructive dialogue. Because the latter is not their position.

Because *all* illegals are on the wrong side of the law (as written today).

True. And Jean Valjean was guilty of burglary. And someone who commits minor assault is guilty of a crime. And a criminal justice system that sentenced either of them to twenty-five years of hard labor would be unjust.

No one disputes that people who are here illegally are on the wrong side of the law. They disagree with balancing the costs and consequences of deporting the people who are here unlawfully but are otherwise law-abiding with the costs and consequences of some aliens with serious criminal convictions avoiding detention.

Again, if you want to have a constructive and possibly persuasive argument, it is helpful to have an accurate understanding of what the other person actually believes and engage with those beliefs.

Because *all* illegals are on the wrong side of the law (as written today).

You are an illegal--per you. Why are you living anywhere in the Americas?

No one disputes that people who are here illegally are on the wrong side of the law. They disagree with balancing the costs and consequences of deporting the people who are here unlawfully but are otherwise law-abiding with the costs and consequences of some aliens with serious criminal convictions avoiding detention.

So they...want to change the law.

That's great, make a proposal to change the law.

Again, if you want to have a constructive and possibly persuasive argument, it is helpful to have an accurate understanding of what the other person actually believes and engage with those beliefs.

I get that. left wingers routinely claim the right "doesn't understand them" 24/7 on this board.
You're highlighting the differences between liberals and conservatives, but not in the way that you intend.

So liberals think the Punishment Should Fit the Crime and that true justice should prevail. Great! Who argues otherwise? What "punishment", if any? And then what? That's the basis for discussion right there: Many liberals balk at the notion of what "crime" was actually committed by an illegal alien in the first place (as in the case of the person here 20 years with the otherwise clean record).

We're not Singapore where you can cane somebody for spitting on the sidewalk. That's accepted. That takes care of your Jean Valjean point because literally no one wants to see someone serve a punishment they do not deserve (although many of your running mates here routinely chant "The cruelty is the point" with respect to immigration policy). That's not "Justice" as believed by the vast majority of folks in this country. "Justice" has as its core principle a restoration of balance, in redressing the harm caused by the offender towards the victim. This is where liberals and conservatives also generally diverge as conservatives favor retribution (i.e. jail) and liberals favor rehabilitation.

And this statement
No one disputes that people who are here illegally are on the wrong side of the law. They disagree with balancing the costs and consequences of deporting the people who are here unlawfully but are otherwise law-abiding with the costs and consequences of some aliens with serious criminal convictions avoiding detention.

..accepts the premise that even otherwise Solid Citizen illegal aliens have tipped the scales in the wrong direction but frames it as a resourcing problem instead of a legal one. Okay, fine: Any conservative would say that it's better to go get all the violent criminals first as a matter of priority because conservatives tend to value public safety quite highly. But what to do when they catch others that you yourself say are on the wrong side of the law? Forget about it? Or just apply enough "discretion"? And what's stopping this prioritization exercise from happening?

Or why not...change the law? And just debate that?

Anyway. My favorite comment in this thread is this one because it sums up so many on this board so very well:

In my experience, quite a few folks I’ve known who are on the right do not understand that liberalism for many of us has as its source an empathy and a compassion for the types of people they really really do not trust or like… Minorities, outsiders, asylum seekers, people with darker skin, LGBTQ people, people who are in our country looking for a better life for themselves and their children (even if they entered illegally).

...because right wingers are racist, sociopathic morons who can't possibly have any empathy for them thar brown and quarrr folks, amirite? And then proceeds to ask you how to "convince" these presumably hate-filled morons that they're wrong. All the while standing on the highest Virtue-Signaling Mountaintop digitally available, lol.

Conversations are difficult - and even more so in this country today - because of competing goals, loaded premises, and biased judgements (see above) going in. Casual slurs of this sort are exactly why both sides talk past one another. I don't care to hear about how much empathy so and so has on any topic when their first impulse is to issue bigoted insults in an almost Tourette's-like manner (and thus decline to show empathy to anyone they're debating with) - just get to the point of what is wanted. Thus: If one wants the laws to be different, then discuss how the laws should be different.

So they...want to change the law.

No, they don't. Or at least, not the substantive law. The person who says that it's better to let ten guilty people go free than convict an innocent person be convicted isn't arguing that the law needs to be changed to make legal the things the person is guilty of. They're saying that the process for enforcing the existing law needs to balance two competing goals - punishment of the guilty and protection of the innocent.

People who advocate against draconian immigration enforcement are making the same balancing of enforcement argument. That we should balance the competing benefits of improved location of aliens with a criminal conviction against the damage caused to the families and communities by deporting people who are otherwise law-abiding.

That takes care of your Jean Valjean point because literally no one wants to see someone serve a punishment they do not deserve...

But people differ greatly about what punishment people actually deserve. If two guys get into a drunken bar fight over the football game, the local prosecutor can either just lock them in the drunk tank and let them go in the morning without charges - or prosecute them both for a litany of assault and battery charges and put them in jail for five years. What's appropriate - what's just - isn't always black and white.

So when an ordinary hardworking guy who's got a citizen wife and kids, but was brought to this country when he was eight illegally, doesn't have authorization to be in the country....what's the just punishment? Banishment and permanent separation from his family? People who place a higher priority on the other side of the balance than you do would say, "absolutely not" - that's too severe a consequence. You might disagree. But unless you acknowledge that their positions on various aspects of enforcement policy stem from prioritizing the impacts on the folks like that guy (just like your position stems from prioritizing the potential apprehension of aliens with a criminal record), you're not going

If one wants the laws to be different, then discuss how the laws should be different.

They don't only want the laws to be different - they want the enforcement policy to be different. They want the enforcement policy to differentiate between aliens with violent criminal convictions and aliens who don't have those. They want the procedures to make sure that aliens without violent criminal convictions don't get sucked into the enforcement process. They want the administration of the laws to strike a balance between enforcement and mercy that is different than what we see today.

In many instances, the process of applying the law is often as important (and sometimes more important) than the words that are written in the statute books. Nearly all law enforcement bodies have extraordinary amounts of discretion on how to handle people that aren't that bad. The real baddies have to be handled a certain way - but justice for the people that are basically good people but have done something wrong that isn't a major crime usually depends on the application of discretion, not the language in the law.

...because right wingers are racist, sociopathic morons who can't possibly have any empathy for them thar brown and quarrr folks, amirite? And then proceeds to ask you how to "convince" these presumably hate-filled morons that they're wrong. All the while standing on the highest Virtue-Signaling Mountaintop digitally available, lol.

And I think you would agree that this is not an effective way of arguing their point? That you don't find it to be a constructive basis for conversation and dialog? That you don't regard it as persuasive when someone doesn't make an effort to try to make arguments that at least acknowledge your value system?

No one's ever going to be able to have a constructive dialog with you (or conservatives on this issue generally) unless they acknowledge that conservative beliefs on immigration enforcement involve placing a very high value on enforcing rules, punishing violation of laws, and maintaining order. But the converse to that is that you're never going to be able to have a constructive dialog with progressives unless you acknowledge that progressives place a very high value on proportionality of impact and on minimizing harm to people who have committed wrongs that are not serious crimes, especially when those folks lack resources to protect themselves.

...because right wingers are racist, sociopathic morons who can't possibly have any empathy for them thar brown and quarrr folks, amirite? And then proceeds to ask you how to "convince" these presumably hate-filled morons that they're wrong. All the while standing on the highest Virtue-Signaling Mountaintop digitally available, lol.

Oooooh, despite the fact the distinguished author of the above is on mute for me, I resemble this remark. 👍. It seems I touched a nerve. And it seems to me ‘the lady doth protest too much’.

"Humaneness and rationality".

Yes, you idiots on the left need to try some of that.

As I challenged you, albaby1, open your OWN HOME to illegal immigrants and make your home a sanctuary for them.

That's what you're advocating society should do.

Fucking hypocrite.

"Otherwise law abiding"

means:

They are NOT LAW ABIDING.

What kind of cockamamie b.s. is this from the Left?

Ignore the law.

O.K. can I punch a leftist in the face?

I mean I promise to be "otherwise law abiding."

Dope1,

These moronic idiots you are arguing with (bless your heart but it's futile) are so fucking stupid and delusional that for some reason, they are making the false assumption that people who violate immigration laws are somehow LESS LIKELY to violate other laws than law abiding legal immigrants or legal residents???

Based on what?

What they see with their heads stuck up their large intestines, perhaps?

There it is again. "otherwise law abiding".

According to who?

That's just b.s. leftists pull out of their a holes.

I guess what they want to sell is the notion that someone actually has to be convicted of a crime to be considered not "law abiding."

No.

These muther fuckers broke the law to come here, they continue to break the law to stay here, they continue to break more laws by evading deportation, they break more laws by inciting riots and violence.

Do the leftist douche novels really believe these illegals are scrupulously paying their taxes, have adequate auto, health, liability insurance, worker's comp.?

No of course not.

They break every damn law they think they can get away with.

They aren't otherwise law abiding.

This is again, total idiocy and sophistry.

These people are criminals.

Period.

If they weren't criminals, they wouldn't have snuck into the country or stayed here illegally.

They have the "criminal mentality" of always trying to "get over."

One way or another, illegal immigration is a huge grift.

What you're saying is "Let's INCENTIVIZE these people to continue violating our laws by not enforcing them!"

As if they need any more incentive.

The fact that some subset happens to be far more violent or worse criminals doesn't change the basic core characteristics of these grifters and fraudsters.

They need to leave. If they don't leave, then if the opportunity comes to deport them, out with them. Back to the hellholes they came from.

If they weren't criminals, they wouldn't have snuck into the country or stayed here illegally.

Which American Tribe issued YOUR immigration visa? Or you don't have one?

No thanks

Protest tomorrow, ICE OUT.

Protest tomorrow, ICE OUT.

Tilt at all the windmills you want, Don Quixote. Just don't break any windows or beat up any old people.

Meanwhile, make sure not to actually suggest any legislation that you want.

Just don't break any windows or beat up any old people.

The protest my wife and I attended yesterday in Saline MI was mostly old (60-85) with a good representation from young adult (20-35). Cops walked thru the crowd, interacting with all, no windows broken. Hundreds of cars (and a few semis) honked in support.

The only Debbie Downers were some drivers of pickups who grimly gunned their engines and raced from stoplight to stoplight, refusing to make eye contact.

The protest my wife and I attended yesterday in Saline MI was mostly old (60-85) with a good representation from young adult (20-35). Cops walked thru the crowd, interacting with all, no windows broken. Hundreds of cars (and a few semis) honked in support.

Good for you. Way to set the example and not attack other people and/or smash up their sh1t.

Good for you. Way to set the example and not attack other people and/or smash up their sh1t.

The only time(s) these protests have gone even remotely sideways is when ICE has initiated the violence.

Remarkeable, considering that we are talking about millions of people.

So, old retired people and twenty-somethings with no jobs.

Still waiting for any of these phonies to actually provide room and board for an illegal immigrant.

It's all performative so they can deem themselves morally superior when they go back to their nice comfy warm and safe homes, with fridges stuffed with food.

So, old retired people and twenty-somethings with no jobs.

It was a Thursday evening from 5-6. The temperature hovered around 12 degrees. All things considered, it was a good turnout.

Our last weekend Saturday afternoon protest was much bigger- and just as peaceful.

That particular protest (2 weeks ago), I noticed that the percentage of cars honking in support had gone up considerably when compared to the percentage during October protests. And that percentage continued or increased yesterday. It certainly had not decreased.

Inch by inch, marco, this is becoming a movement supported by the American people.

The only time(s) these protests have gone even remotely sideways is when ICE has initiated the violence.

That's a lie. You're not allowed to interfere with law enforcement at any level.

You're especially not allowed to assault them and/or try and run them over in your car.

The protest my wife and I attended yesterday in Saline MI was mostly old (60-85) with a good representation from young adult (20-35). Cops walked thru the crowd, interacting with all, no windows broken. Hundreds of cars (and a few semis) honked in support.

I’m wondering, were there any signs with names, pictures, and banners being carried by you good folks
remembering the tragic deaths of American citizens killed, raped and murdered by illegal aliens?

This just a partial list, there are lots more.

Say Her Name....

Kayla Hamilton, Jocelyn Nungaray, and Rachel Morin Minnesota mom Victoria Eileen Harwel
Hallie Helgeson, America Mafalda Thayer

𝐃𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐚 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐬𝐨𝐧 (19) — Killed in a home in Bowie, Maryland, her body was later thrown off of a bridge.

𝐋𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐑𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐲 (22) — A nursing student attacked while jogging, beaten with a rock, suffocated, and assaulted.

𝐑𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧 (37) — A mother of five abducted while hiking on a Maryland trail and killed, bludgeoned with rocks, strangled, and her body hidden in a culvert.

𝐊𝐚𝐲𝐥𝐚 𝐇𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐨𝐧 (20) — A young woman with autism was bound, assaulted, and strangled in her home (with the attack partially recorded on voicemail).

𝐉𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐲𝐧 𝐍𝐮𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐲 (12) — Abducted assaulted and killed in Houston, Texas, her body was later found in a creek.

𝐋𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐬𝐨𝐧 (40) — Fatally shot during a random attempted robbery while driving in South Carolina.

𝐉𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐞𝐥 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐰 𝐈𝐈 (17) — A high school student shot and killed in a drive-by after being confronted and mistaken for a rival gang member.

"These stories need to be heard. Discover the truth behind these heartbreaking tragedies and see how justice is being sought."

https://ifeg.info/2026/01/17/remembering-the-victi...

Illegal alien muederers in Texas

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/illegal-immig...

When will you good folks march in remembrance for the innocent killed by illegal aliens and
the grieving families left behind? Instead, twisted values march for rapist, murderers, criminals, instead of marching in support with Law Enforcement.

“These victims did not just lose their lives; they left behind families and communities forever changed. While each of these murders happened in different places and at different times, they share a common thread: the perpetrators, in many cases, were individuals who were in the country illegally. This connection raises serious questions about the safety of our communities and the effectiveness of our immigration laws.”

I noticed there were like 8 muted replies after my post. Are D1 and m100 still having conversations with each other? 😁

I’m wondering, were there any signs with names, pictures, and banners being carried by you good folks
remembering the tragic deaths of American citizens killed, raped and murdered by illegal aliens?

No.

But then again, nobody was carrying any signs remembering the tragic deaths of tens of thousands of American citizens raped or murdered by American citizens…. Except for Renenee Good and Alex Pretti.

I can’t speak for the others you mentioned, but the family of Laken Riley has asked you folks to stop using their daughter’s name in your racist pogrom of immigrants.

No Reverend.

It's a movement supported by some American people, but a very small percentage, far left fringe.

Further, nothing about this is organic.

It wasn't your personal idea to go out and protest. Someone signaled it to you--the National Strike or whatever it was called. You simply complied with your group-think and are now smug and self-satisfied that you "peacefully protested."

You can give yourself a great big pat on the back and tell yourself your performative little outing makes you morally and ethically superior to people who don't share your political views. It's all about making yourself feel good.

Remember BLM? What happened to that?

Remember "No Kings"? What happened to that?

This is simply the latest "flavor of the month" from professional leftist grifters and their hand puppets.

There are somewhere in excess of 250 million adults living in America nowadays.

Even the "No Kings" protests, at their most generous estimate, might have had 5 million people or so showing up.

5/250 = 2%.

Be honest with yourself. How many people actually participated in your local protest the other night? 100? 1,000? 5,000? Do you even know?

Now divide that number by the total adult population in your community or wherever your local protest was trying to draw from.

It's probably around 2% at best.

Like I said, not just a minority viewpoint, it's a fringe minority viewpoint.

You are definitely entitled to peacefully protest, that's your right.

You are not entitled to assume that the viewpoints of a fringe minority takes precedence in terms of political outcomes.

Not in a democracy and not in a democratic republic.

So, old retired people and twenty-somethings with no jobs. ~oldmarco000

Toss in uneducated and boom, you’ve built yourself a MAGA rally!

Is posting online it for you Dope?

Be honest with yourself. How many people actually participated in your local protest the other night? 100? 1,000? 5,000? Do you even know?

Last week, by me, 50k. In -20F weather. This is MN. So think carefully--or try to, anyway.

The lantern has been lit--and the word is spreading. Nobody here wants ICE/CBP.

Homan can try, but won't succeed.

Some of us are keeping the economy moving.

Some of us are into performative theater.

I’ll leave it as an exercise those who wish to determine which is more valuable to society.

Dope1: Some of us are into performative theater.

Working to keep democracy from being replaced with autocracy is hardly 'performative theater' and certainly more valuable to society, but thanks for playing.

Have you found that in your discussions IRL with people...

I haven't met albaby IRL, and maybe I'm just weird, but he (and some others on the old TMF) changed my mind about "socialized medicine" back ~2009. So, it can happen.

In my case, I was dead-set against it. I had changed my registration to "independent" during the Bush Jr years, but still had some Republican positions (probably still do, actually). Voted for Obama, but was not convinced about government healthcare.

I imagine he didn't expect to change my mind online, but the cadre of posters that joined-in all managed to do it with facts, data, and logical arguments. I'm not too proud to admit when I was wrong, and in that case I was wrong.

I never expect to change anyone's mind here. Nor in real life. If it happens, great. It seems most people are married to their positions, and many regard their opinions to be as good as facts. It's more for me...do my positions hold-up? What are the arguments against them?

Same IRL, though there is a lot less of that since I retired.

Some of us are keeping the economy moving.

So you've never done anything? It's all online?

So you've never done anything?

Are we having a civic engagement contest now?

Oh, to answer others:

Yes, performative theater. We all know that all the accusations from the left are merely your wish list for what you're dying to do. Why do we know that? Because the second you take power in locales you immediately favor your friends and punish your enemies.

And your paranoia is such that you see a Trump boogeyman under your bed every night so you assume others act the way you do.

This is where your collective malignant narcissism trips you up: Us normies don't care enough to bother with you. We just want to live our lives and not be messed with.

Yes, performative theater. We all know that all the accusations from the left are merely your wish list for what you're dying to do. Why do we know that? Because the second you take power in locales you immediately favor your friends and punish your enemies.

And your paranoia is such that you see a Trump boogeyman under your bed every night so you assume others act the way you do.

This is where your collective malignant narcissism trips you up: Us normies don't care enough to bother with you. We just want to live our lives and not be messed wit

Quite an imaginary defensive shield. So are you the most normal of all possible normies? While the rest of us are malignant narcissists because we don't think it's a good idea to pepper spray a man and when he's incapacitated on the ground disarm him and then shoot him in the back multiple times? Then flip him over and shoot him some more?

Quite the accurate representation of the modern American left.

Thanks, I think so too.

While the rest of us are malignant narcissists

The rest of you are malignant narcissists for a great deal many reasons. The biggest one is that many people with this condition are utterly unable to control their emotional impulses or express themselves logically.

represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust. We will show them to be living symbols of racial hatreds, of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power. They are symbols of fierce nationalisms and of militarism, of intrigue and war-making which have embroiled Europe generation after generation, crushing its manhood, destroying its homes, and impoverishing its life…. Civilization can afford no compromise with the social forces which would gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously or indecisively with the men in whom those forces now precariously survive."

Robert Jackson

The removal of immigrants from the economic life of the US is a systematic, state-sponsored process enacted by the MAGA regime beginning in 2025 to destroy the livelihood of American immigrants, confiscate their assets, and force them to emigrate. This process, known as "Americanization."

Does this sound familiar?

"I never expect to change anyone's mind here. Nor in real life. If it happens, great. It seems most people are married to their positions, and many regard their opinions to be as good as facts." - 1PG

I never expect to change a person's opinion here online (though I do know that I have in certain cases). Instead I am always looking for opinions different than my own so I can adjust and sharpen my thinking, maybe even completely change my own views. I actually want to have my views change. People do not understand that when you change your own views, it means you are learning something. I want to learn.

The problem has become that politically, it has become near impossible to find people with significantly different views that can present a rational, cognizant viewpoint. So much of the Trump supporters' views are based on falsehoods, crazy conspiracy, deception, ignoring facts, and just meaningless opinion that was fed to them. As an example of the last (meaningless opinion that was fed to them), in the lead up to the last election so many Trump voters said that one of the reasons they supported Trump over Biden/Harris was that Biden was weak in international relations and Trump was strong. What does that even mean? When I would ask them about concrete specifics, they would either not be able to give any or pointed to things that were simply not true ("There would have been a war with North Korea if it wasn't for Trump"). Many people cannot understand the difference between opinion and fact. They cannot understand the difference between allegations and evidence. They do not understand the there is a difference between bias and accuracy (just because an information source is biased does not mean it cannot have a strong reputation for accuracy, or inaccuracy).

So much of the Trump supporters' views are based on falsehoods, crazy conspiracy, deception, ignoring facts, and just meaningless opinion that was fed to them.

The right wing media is responsible for much of that. The lies, distortions and outright propaganda of the right wing media enable the insanity.

Illegal aliens are neither "American" nor are they "immigrants."

The are non-citizens (hence not "American") and unlawfully in the USA, and subject to removal (hence not "immigrants").

Could you possibly be less logical?

Could you possibly be less logical?

No they can’t, and hence the malignant narcissism.

The removal of immigrants from the economic life of the US is a systematic, state-sponsored process enacted by the MAGA regime beginning in 2025 to destroy the livelihood of American immigrants, confiscate their assets, and force them to emigrate. This process, known as "Americanization."

Does this sound familiar? - PP

========================

Yes. Loony speculations and false accusations are a way of life with the left.

Yes. Loony speculations and false accusations are a way of life with the left.

There is a lot of precedent. The Chinese Exclusion Act (yeah, Congress passed an actual law) of the late 1800s. The Irish (white folks!) certainly weren't welcomed initially. Emancipated black people faced lots of violence, and when they were successful they were slaughtered (see the Tulsa massacre in the early 1900s). Jews on the SS St Louis were turned away from US shores (only to end up in extermination camps). Native Americans ('nuff said). Now it's the Latino's turn, apparently.

There are probably more examples. Those are just the ones I know about off the top of my head.

USA USA USA! :-(

Now it's the Latino's turn, apparently.

No it isn't.

Are you proposing mass amnesty for everyone that's here illegally?

Are you proposing mass amnesty for everyone that's here illegally? ~Dope1

LOL! Mass amnesty for everyone here illegally?
Do you seriously think he’s Ronald Reagan reincarnated, strolling in with the 1986 Immigration Reform Act tucked under his arm?

The GOP used to quote Reagan, now they’d toss him out of the party for being too compassionate.

Are you proposing mass amnesty for everyone that's here illegally?

You are here illegally.

Now it's the Latino's turn, apparently.

----------------
Loony, like I said.

They don't have a single policy idea. Not one.

They just know that Trump is in office and they're mad. And now they're all stampy-foot about it.

Loony, like I said. -BHMike

Hey Mike, it looks the loonies are winning, big...

Democrat And Union Man Taylor Rehmet defeats Pro-Oligarch Republican Leigh Wambsganss, executive at Patriot Mobile, in Texas race, despite being outspent 10 to 1 by his MAGA-backed opponent.

"Campaign finance reports showed Rehmet spent a little over $70,000 between Jan. 1-21, while Wambsganss spent more than $736,278 during that period."

"My very good friend, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, needs a strong conservative Republican in SD-9 to KEEP TEXAS RED! VOTE!" Trump posted of his support for Wambsganss on Truth Social.

Today:
Reporter: "A Democrat won a special election in Texas in an area that you won by 17 points..."

Trump: "That’s a local race. I don’t know anything about it. I had nothing to do with it." (Of course he's lying, He tweeted multiple times begging Texas voters to support her.)

They don't have a single policy idea. Not one ~TheDope

Totally, the Dems are fresh out of policy ideas. Meanwhile, the MAGA master plan is crystal clear: break debt records, turn felonies into a lifestyle brand, strip-mine the treasury,
scrub Trump’s name off the Epstein list, start a few bonus wars just for nostalgia’s sake, and elevate lying to a professional sport.
Really, it’s inspirational, gold medals all around!

Dope1,

Mass amnesty for illegal aliens has always been the Dems' game plan.

Dope1,

I wonder what the Left's next flavor of the month is going to be.

Mamdani, Spamberger, and Sherill are all turning out to be total disasters. They are like the siblings for another mother.

The three of them are all moronically incompetent and their terms are already failures.

Loony, like I said.

You're better than ad-homs. Or, at least, you used to be. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and ask "what is loony about it"? Do you dispute the facts I listed? They're easy to look up.

And it is clear this administration is NOT going after "really bad dudes". They're going after everyone, including people with protection orders and occasionally citizens (though I don't think they've actually deported a citizen yet). If it was just the "really bad dudes", that would be one thing (whether I approve of their tactics or not). Ambushing people that show up for their court appointments (as they're supposed to) is just capricious (if I'm being polite).

Are you proposing mass amnesty for everyone that's here illegally?

No. I'm saying that these attacks are disproportionate. They are sweeping in to places -in many cases that don't have many undocumented immigrants**- and bullying people, beating them, shooting them. These aren't the "really bad dudes" or the "worst of the worst", as we were promised. These are otherwise law abiding people being targeted. In many cases, people who are awaiting their hearings (so they are, in fact, law abiding entirely). It's harassment of an ethnic community.

You really want to solve the problem of overstays and border-crossers? Severe penalties on the employers. Make it the employers' responsibility to verify documentation. My company did that voluntarily. Make it mandatory. The jobs for undocumented labor will dry-up almost overnight. No jobs, no incentive to overstay a valid visa (very common), or cross the border illegally. There likely will be some under the table stuff (e.g. day labor from 7-11 parking lots), but a fraction of what we have right now. That's how to address the problem, and you don't have to shoot anyone to do it.



**You want undocumented? Go to Texas. Not Minnesota.

"Theydon't have a single policy idea. Not one." - Dumbass Dope

LOL

How much of a dumbass does a person have to be not to be able to use Google for a simple query?

Speaking of not having a single policy idea, maybe if they came up with some concepts for a framework for a plan, you would be on board.

I'm saying that these attacks are disproportionate. They are sweeping in to places -in many cases that don't have many undocumented immigrants**- and bullying people, beating them, shooting them.

I assume you're referring to ICE here. I wouldn't characterize them as "attacks". The rest of your phrasing suggests they're randomly shooting people, which they're not.

It's harassment of an ethnic community. No it isn't.

<iYou really want to solve the problem of overstays and border-crossers? Severe penalties on the employers.

That's fine.

Mass amnesty for illegal aliens has always been the Dems' game plan.

Raygun Ronnie DID "mass amnesty for illegal aliens". You are hooked on his horns.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.