[HN Gopher] Marines being mobilized in response to LA protests
___________________________________________________________________
Marines being mobilized in response to LA protests
Author : sapphicsnail
Score : 594 points
Date : 2025-06-09 22:21 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnn.com)
| gnabgib wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Trump deploys National Guard as Los Angeles protests against
| immigration agents_ (105 points, 2 days ago, 50 comments)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44214230
|
| _The National Guard Deployment in LA Is a Threat to Democracy_
| (15 points, 7 comments)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44230137
|
| (Although you'd think 2000 National Guard troops would be enough
| without the 700 Marines)
| woodruffw wrote:
| I don't think it's about the numbers at all -- he's seeing
| whether anybody will stop him from nakedly violating posse
| comitatus[1].
|
| The President can of course dispatch the military for domestic
| law enforcement, but to do so he needs to establish a legal
| exception, like the Insurrection Act. That hasn't happened yet.
|
| [1]: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
| reports/poss...
| onli wrote:
| He does not have to care anymore. He realised he will not be
| prosecuted - the supreme court gave him king status after
| all, and all prosecution before failed to have consequences -
| so he can do whatever he wants. As you said, he checks if
| there is anyone who will stop him, which at this point would
| be an armed revolution or a coup d'Etat by the military.
|
| The USA is a dictatorship now, the trump cult has won. Let's
| hope it crumbles fast.
| mac3n wrote:
| he's hoping for a Kent State replay, using troops that aren't
| trained for police duty
| crmd wrote:
| I worry that, rather than de-escalation, one of the White House's
| explicit _goals_ here is to stage manage a Kent State-like
| demonstration of state force against left-wing activists that
| spreads to other cities. I sincerely hope I'm cynically wrong
| here.
| perihelions wrote:
| You're not cynical; it's his plain, revealed character. He's
| been openly fantasizing about soldiers shooting protestors for
| years. He's asked his own defense secretary if he could do it
| for him,
|
| https://www.npr.org/2022/05/09/1097517470/trump-esper-book-d...
| ( _" Former Pentagon chief Esper says Trump asked about
| shooting protesters"_)
| perihelions wrote:
| (Self-reply) There was also that infamous interview about
| Tiananmen Square, all the way back in 1990,
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tiananmen-.
| .. ( _" Resurfaced Trump interview about Tiananmen Square
| massacre shows what he thinks of protests"_)
| spacemadness wrote:
| It's been pretty obvious from their behavior and rhetoric since
| the beginning. It's not cynicism.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| Back then we called it the Kent State Massacre
|
| edit: and remember, it was a net positive for conservatives in
| the end.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| And the optics of Kent State worked so well for the
| administration.
|
| Kind of like shooting reporters with rubber bullets.
| brewdad wrote:
| About 35% of the country supported what the National Guard
| did at Kent State. Deplorable is being far too kind to these
| people.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Not sure it would be a good idea to shoot US citizens for
| the 35% approval.
|
| (But to your point, anything >0% is pretty horrible.)
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That is enough to win elections.
| sanderjd wrote:
| ... no it isn't. If you have 35% support but everyone
| else is opposed, that's not enough to win elections.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| But everyone else isn't opposed.
|
| https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
| releases/2025/2024-pre...
|
| >In the 2024 presidential election, 73.6% (or 174 million
| people) of the citizen voting-age population was
| registered to vote and 65.3% (or 154 million people)
| voted according to new voting and registration tables
| released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.
|
| Moreover, due to the electoral college and Senate and
| gerrymandering of House districts, the majority is hardly
| needed for attain power. I bet that even in other
| societies, throughout time, roughly a third of the
| population will not react to what one of the other thirds
| is doing (even if they claim they don't approve in
| polls).
| sanderjd wrote:
| I agree. This was my point. The 35% number is the strong
| support. But that is not enough. If they lose all their
| weak support, they lose.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It demonstrably is, because of gerrymandering, electoral
| college, turnout manipulation etc.
| hparadiz wrote:
| You only need PA, WI, and MI
| sanderjd wrote:
| If you only have 35% of the popular vote, you aren't
| going to win in the electoral college.
| sanderjd wrote:
| 35% is still not enough, even given those issues.
| distortionfield wrote:
| Most numbers I can find say that about 65% of Americans
| are registered to vote. Let's say 100% of them voted in
| 2024.
|
| Of that, let's call it a flat 51% voted for Trump. That
| means that about half of 65%, or roughly 32.5% of
| American citizens support Trump, and by extension, likely
| this policy move.
|
| So yes, it actually is more than you need to win
| elections.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Oh hmm, if the 35% number is _all Americans_ , then sure.
|
| But typically people are talking about percentages of
| voters with statistics like this.
| netsharc wrote:
| Didn't Trump say we won't have to worry about elections
| anymore?
|
| What's stopping them to do enough fuckery between now and
| 2028 to "win" the GOP the election in 2028 (or even
| 2026), and to stop Trump from joining the ranks of
| despots that keep getting reelected like Putin and
| Erdogan? Or JD Vance can be his Medvedev.
|
| To use a horrible analogy, a lot of times women don't
| even admit to themselves that they've been raped, because
| accepting that means accepting a horrific label. The USA
| is in the middle of getting raped, and so far the
| response has been to mostly freeze up and take it, not
| wanting to fight, because that is scary and can get you
| hurt even more. (Well, at least for the majority of the
| country there isn't a real fightback yet...).
| msgodel wrote:
| If you're concerned about that you have a moral
| responsibility to campaign for secession.
| distortionfield wrote:
| Trump has already joined those ranks, he just failed at
| it. January 6th was a legitimate attempt at overturning
| the election results. He was impeached over it. Mike
| Pence was the only thing that stopped it, and I can't
| believe how close we actually came to that timeline.
|
| And you're absolutely right about the denial. It
| manifests as the "nothing ever happens" meme.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That was a very different time, as you must be aware. We did
| not have anything like the same polarization or the
| accelerating effect of the internet coupled with all-out
| information warfare across a 24-7 news cycle. I could go on
| for 1000 words about how different society is from 60 years
| ago.
| i80and wrote:
| The majority of non-city dwellers I know are now so
| propagandized against cities that I think they would be
| neutral to outright supportive of a kill order.
|
| This is a dire situation and I'm not sure how this country
| crawls back out of this authoritarian slide, but we've got to
| somehow.
| Redoubts wrote:
| Nixon won 49/50 states in the next election, FWIW
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The day after Kent State, a Gallup poll found 58% of polled
| Americans blamed the students for being shot. 31% had no
| opinion, and 11% blamed the National Guard.
|
| After the National Guard shot a few kids for literally no
| reason (nobody had ever been given orders to fire), they told
| the student standing around "Disperse or we will shoot again"
|
| This has never been a problem for the party of Roger Stone
| who literally has a large back tattoo of Nixon and is one of
| the primary reasons we had Bush Jr as president even though
| Al Gore won the votes when the count was allowed to finish
| scoofy wrote:
| I think the goal hear is to "both sides" the concept of
| insurrection to neuter the January 6th criticism of his
| administration. The protesters here, at least in some cases,
| are doing their protests explicitly to prevent the government
| from enforcing laws that the protestors don't like.
| sh34r wrote:
| I wonder how many civilians will be disappeared before a Dem
| governor finds their balls and musters the state militia. There's
| millions of patriots out there just waiting for the call to
| action. This nonviolent shit will get you killed. MLK was a gun
| owner.
|
| If that kind of talk worries you, consider how much uglier it
| will be when the good people of LA form unregulated militias
| instead. Do you really want to see Ruby Ridge 2: Rooftop Korean
| boogaloo?
| tdeck wrote:
| Newsom is too busy performatively harming homeless people and
| platforming fascists on his podcast to cook up anything like
| this.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I really don't think it would be a good idea to throw more guns
| into this mix. That will not help any protester and it will
| help Trump justify his decision to send the military, to his
| supporters. It will also escalate things. I'm sure most marines
| will be very hesitant to use force against unarmed American
| civilians. Half of them wouldn't even have voted for Trump. But
| if they're up against a militia all bets are off.
| DoodahMan wrote:
| The idea of unregulated blue state militias has me chuckling a
| bit, given how said states have largely neutered their
| citizen's ability to own capable rifles.
|
| We are to depend on our trusted local law enforcement to
| protect us, as well as our valiant governors who will assuredly
| call up local guards to do the same. Examples of brave, novel
| Democratic resistance to Trump abound these days. There's no
| need to worry!
| legitster wrote:
| Soldiers, especially Marines, are trained to follow orders and
| kill. They are not specialists in de-escalation or crowd control.
|
| Here's hoping this is purely an optics play and they are _only_
| there to waste money and incite nationalism. Because if this
| escalates in any way and the US military turns on Americans, its
| hard to understate how bad things could get.
| smitty1e wrote:
| https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division...
| acdha wrote:
| I'm not sure that's true any more. I know a few vets and it was
| definitely thought-provoking to hear a Marine who'd been in the
| thick of Fallujah react to some police shooting by noting that
| they had stricter rules about use of force because the top
| brass wanted to get the Iraqi people on their side.
| zzgo wrote:
| I suspect that the current administration isn't concerned
| about winning the hearts and minds of Angelenos.
| acdha wrote:
| Very true, but I don't think there's been enough time to
| completely reverse years of training.
| vrosas wrote:
| You suspect what is very obvious.
| leptons wrote:
| Every city in the US has illegal aliens, but how many ICE
| raids are making the news in places like St. Louis, or New
| Orleans, or Houston - no, they aren't sending ICE to red
| states like they are to California, they are focusing on
| Los Angeles for the purpose of fomenting unrest so they can
| enact martial law. That wouldn't be so cool for their
| supporters if red states had riots, but their supporters
| love seeing liberal California with a boot on its neck.
| Ccecil wrote:
| Not that I totally disagree with your statement but one
| part....
|
| I live in a very red state (North Idaho). They don't need
| to send ICE here. The sheriffs are all cooperating and
| lending county facilities to hold immigrants. It is safe
| to say the entire sheriffs department is basically a
| branch of ICE at this point. They have been targeting
| I-90 and US-95 heavily and running plates on every car
| along with a helicopter that basically just goes back and
| forth all day.
|
| There is very little immigrant presence here (illegal or
| otherwise) but they have been catching work crews at
| random (usually under the premise of suspicious
| vehicle/behavior).
|
| Spokane has been having CBP and ICE raids as well. Quite
| a few make the local news. Just doesn't get the attention
| like the larger cities do. Quite a bit of roundups going
| on out by Yakima and Tri-Cities, WA too. Which is part of
| why they are using county jails to hold people.
| simoncion wrote:
| > I'm not sure that's true any more.
|
| If it was ever true, it hasn't been true for a long time.
|
| There used to be (and probably still is) a saying in the US
| military that goes something like "Folks who can't hack it in
| the military wash out and become cops.".
|
| The military is not at all configured to be an effective
| long-term occupying force, but its personnel are trained to
| be soldiers [0] and peacekeepers. (While I'm absolutely
| certain that one can find examples of psychos that should
| have been detected and discharged earlier, that's true of any
| sufficiently-large organization. Finding every malicious
| person is a task that's next to impossible.)
|
| Anyway, in a high-pressure, chaotic situation, I'd rather
| come up on a random member of the US military [1] than a
| random cop any day of the week.
|
| [0] Yes, this does mean that they damage, destroy, injure,
| and kill when required.
|
| [1] Whether active duty, reservist, or honorably discharged.
| hypeatei wrote:
| > Here's hoping this is purely an optics play and they are only
| there to waste money and incite nationalism
|
| They don't deserve any benefit of the doubt at this point. Ask
| yourself what the MAGA reaction would've been to troops being
| deployed to their riot at the Capitol.
| tylerflick wrote:
| Not saying I agree with the deployment, but as someone who was
| in this gun club this isn't true at all and hasn't been for
| some time. IIRC basic de-escalation was taught in recruit
| training.
| Refreeze5224 wrote:
| This is like saying since a gun has a safety it's not meant
| for firing bullets. 90% of the effort, design, and
| engineering of a gun goes into firing potentially lethal
| bullets. It's what a gun does, this is not controversial.
|
| Now ask yourself why Trump is sending a group (who are
| explicitly prohibited from making arrests) whose entire
| mission is war to the 2nd biggest city in the country? It's
| for the same reason those Marines carry guns.
|
| As I've seen others remark, LA gets far worse whenever the
| Dodgers or Lakers win a championship. It is not a war zone,
| warriors are not needed. But clearly they are desired.
| mgiampapa wrote:
| Hanlon's razor applies.
| Refreeze5224 wrote:
| Which part of Hanlon's Razor asks you to ignore years of
| evidence and explicit declarations of intent?
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| I suspect that whatever training the military provides is
| more than what LAPD officers get. LAPD is talking a good game
| this time around but ABC broadcast footage of mounted LAPD
| officers trying to get their horses to stomp someone who was
| on the ground, prone, and not resisting.
|
| YMMV.
| justinrubek wrote:
| I went through 10 years ago. It was not taught then.
| netsharc wrote:
| > Soldiers, especially Marines, are trained to follow orders
| and kill.
|
| I thought only German Nazi soldiers were incapable of having
| morality and ability to decide, and were only capable of
| following orders.
| jleyank wrote:
| Let's just hope Neil doesn't have to update his lyrics. But,
| given as that's probably the point of the exercise...
| pimlottc wrote:
| What song are you referring to?
| mig39 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_(Crosby,_Stills,_Nash_%26.
| ..
| delgaudm wrote:
| Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_(Crosby,_Stills,_Nash
| _%26...
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| Reminder that the authority under which the the US military is
| deployed against US citizens was intended to be used in
| exceptional (extreme) circumstances - ostensibly because no other
| options would suffice. The Insurrection Act
| authorizes the president to deploy military forces
| inside the United States to suppress rebellion or
| domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations.
| The statute implements Congress's authority under the
| Constitution to "provide for calling forth the Militia to
| execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and
| repel Invasions." It is the primary exception to
| the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military
| forces are generally barred from participating in
| civilian law enforcement activities.
|
| ref: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
| reports/insu...
|
| This is the heaviest hammer in the toolbox. Deploying it against
| citizens he doesn't like because he resents their message is a
| historical display of bad character and is profoundly unethical
| in a way that the harshest adjectives struggle to reflect.
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| That's the usual dictator and wannabe dictator playbook. Cause
| a problem, declare a national emergency and from there take
| over. The military is an excellent tool for that.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| I read somewhere reliable Trump is _not_ invoking the
| Insurrection Act.
|
| I'd cite my source, but can't find it. I also can't find
| anything saying he _is_ invoking it.
|
| Do you have any specific source?
|
| Edit: I've found several sources that make It clear the
| Insurrection Act had not been invoked.
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/09/politics/insurrection-act-tru...
| - "Trump officials quietly discuss moves in LA that avoid
| invoking Insurrection Act, but it's not off the table"
| brewdad wrote:
| Then that makes this move illegal. Impeach him now.
| RajT88 wrote:
| We tried that. Nothing has changed since then - if anything
| he has consolidated more power.
|
| Republicans would have to lose a lot of seats for it to
| happen. Or, Trump would do something beyond the pale for
| the GOP. Hard to imagine what would make them change their
| minds on it. Probably not thousands of dead protesters.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| I have no knowledge of this area of law, but responsible
| press are saying he can deploy NG and Marines to defend
| federal property and employees without anything special.
| cwsx wrote:
| Third time's the charm!
| plandis wrote:
| According to the military release [1]:
|
| > Approximately 700 Marines with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines,
| 1st Marine Division will seamlessly integrate with the Title 10
| forces under Task Force 51 who are protecting federal personnel
| and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area.
|
| It seems like Trump has not invoked the insurrection act but
| instead it's all under a different federal law. Steve Vladeck,
| a Georgetown law professor, has a write up [2] on Title 10 vs
| the Insurrection Act and some possible concerns. He posted this
| about the National guard but given the military release states
| they are being deployed to assist the nation guard under title
| 10 it still seems relevant. To quote the TL;DR of his post:
|
| > The TL;DR here is that Trump has not (yet) invoked the
| Insurrection Act, which means that the 2000 additional troops
| that will soon be brought to bear will not be allowed to engage
| in ordinary law enforcement activities without violating a
| different law--the Posse Comitatus Act. All that these troops
| will be able to do is provide a form of force protection and
| other logistical support for ICE personnel. Whether that, in
| turn, leads to further escalation is the bigger issue (and,
| indeed, may be the very purpose of their deployment). But at
| least as I'm writing this, we're not there yet.
|
| [1] https://www.northcom.mil/Newsroom/Press-
| Releases/Article/421...
|
| [2] https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/156-federalizing-the-
| californ...
| rocqua wrote:
| What can a soldier do to protect federal property or personel
| that is not law enforcement? Manual labor to throw up
| barriers seems to be the only option. Anything else requires
| violence, which only law enforcement can do legally I
| thought. Unless perhaps they intend to 'use self defense'.
| But intent kinda defeats self defense.
| bix6 wrote:
| This is terrifying and unconscionable. Hard to believe this is
| the USA today. I don't really see this de-escalating given the
| ongoing rhetoric but I hope I'm wrong.
| vasco wrote:
| I'm not american but I remember marines being mobilized for
| hurricane Katrina in New Orleans too. Funny that if it's so bad
| to deploy them, why is it OK to deploy them in other countries?
| bolster8505 wrote:
| Being deployed to help in a disaster is very different from
| being deployed to quell protests.
| MaxHoppersGhost wrote:
| They're not being deployed to quell protests they're being
| deployed to guard federal buildings from protesters.
| margalabargala wrote:
| That's not really relevant to the disaster remediation
| point.
|
| They are being deployed on American soil for their force
| projection.
| aceazzameen wrote:
| [flagged]
| MaxHoppersGhost wrote:
| ICE agents are deporting people here illegally. I don't
| see anything wrong with that.
| unsnap_biceps wrote:
| The deportation isn't the problem. It's how they're being
| done. Due process is core to our democracy and must be
| respected and followed, regardless of who. Court orders
| are being ignored.
|
| I have zero problem with deporting people that are here
| illegally. I have plenty of problems with how it's
| currently being done.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| > Court orders are being ignored
|
| Can you expand on this? If you are referring to the AEA,
| as far as I know that's not what is being used in LA.
| sapphicsnail wrote:
| Kinda seems like they're randomly grabbing people and
| shipping them to Mexico right now. Their MO so far has
| been to round up people, including people who are here
| legally, and deport them without due process.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/09/los-
| angeles-...
| 4MOAisgoodenuf wrote:
| The Gestapo simply detained people who were breaking the
| law.
| andrewshadura wrote:
| Freedom of movement is a basic human right.
| lurk2 wrote:
| Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
| asserts that:
|
| "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and
| residence within the borders of each state."
|
| "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including
| his own, and to return to his country."
|
| Note that this affords the freedom to relocate within,
| leave, and return to one's country, not the freedom to
| enter into other countries in violation of their
| immigration laws.
| Rodeoclash wrote:
| Yes, the classic "if it's legal, it's moral" position. It
| was also legal to turn in Anne Frank.
| aceazzameen wrote:
| This tells me a lot about you. You purposefully ignore
| the "how."
| edoceo wrote:
| ICE is deporting folks before due process - a right
| guaranteed to all persons on US soil by amendment to the
| US Constitution. That is against the laws of the USA.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| >ICE agents are deporting people here illegally.
|
| Well in a Freudian way this statement could be
| interpreted to exactly mean that what ICE is doing is
| illegal.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I would note they aren't guilty of a crime - it's a civil
| infraction. "Illegal" is a pejorative used to imply
| criminality, being an undocumented immigrant is not in
| fact criminal or a crime.
|
| The issue however that prompted the protests was the way
| they are pursuing deportations with militarized tactics,
| brutality, and snatching people off the streets as
| abductions. They do not declare themselves, do not
| present their civil warrant, do not produce
| identification, and subsequently frequently do not follow
| laws, regulation, or the constitutional requirements of
| due process.
|
| There is no reason that their neighbors, family, and
| friends need to be happy with what's happening. They are
| afforded protection in our society to be angry and
| disclaim the government without fear of persecution or
| prosecution. When they're then persecuted and prosecuted
| for doing that, people are pissed by the injustice. Then
| when their governments responsible is to fly in the
| military, you should expect an explosive situation.
|
| Indeed it seems pretty clear the explosive situation was
| premeditated and planned - using armored vehicles and
| riot armored police to invade immigrant neighborhoods and
| abduct service workers and day laborers in broad daylight
| when a simple standard ICE operation was clearly designed
| to provoke strong response in those neighborhoods.
| Everything after that has been pretty deductively arrived
| at to create this precise situation. Even the language of
| insurrection and rebellion - laughably absurd claims for
| even a riot - which hadn't happened until the national
| guard were deployed - are carefully chosen words to
| provide pretext for what comes next.
|
| I desperate miss the states rights individual freedoms
| libertarian leaning republicans. They would never have
| done these things.
| antonvs wrote:
| > The issue however that prompted the protests was the
| way they are pursuing deportations with militarized
| tactics, brutality, and snatching people off the streets
| as abductions.
|
| Also that they're going after many people who are
| actually attempting to comply with the law, because those
| are the easiest to find. Meanwhile tens of millions of
| undocumented immigrants are still here, and the lesson
| they're being taught is don't trust the legal process,
| stay under the radar. In the end the Trump administration
| is unlikely to make a large dent in the undocumented
| population - they certainly haven't so far. It's mostly
| theater. They'll just end up discovering how unintended
| consequences work.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| ICE agents are also deporting a lot of people here
| legally. Just last week: they attempted to deport and ban
| the wife of a U.S. soldier visiting her husband on leave
| with a valid tourist visa ; several U.S. citizens working
| for at the Westlake Home Depot despite being shown proof
| of citizenship; a U.S. Marshall of Mexican descent who
| was born in the country to legal residents.
|
| That doesn't include the hundreds of students legally
| here on student visas.
|
| And of course, if ICE is going to deport people in the
| country illegally: it's well establish by now that Musk
| and Melania violated the terms of their nonresident visas
| when they first came to the U.S., rendering their U.S.
| citizenship null and void (Musk worked in violation of
| his student visa; Melania both worked in violation of her
| tourist visa and overstayed her visa by several years; if
| she hadn't married Trump she would have been deported and
| banned from the U.S. for 10 years).
| freejazz wrote:
| Are they? What about the ones that aren't here illegally?
| Trump told the Supreme Court that Kilmar Garcia was
| wrongfully deported, but they had no obligation to bring
| him back anyway. Is that what you are talking about?
| vkou wrote:
| How will any outside observe be able to tell the
| difference between them 'guarding federal buildings' and
| them being deployed to attack political enemies of the
| regime?
|
| Will a useful idiot throwing a rock at a federal building
| be sufficient casus belli for the latter?
| ty6853 wrote:
| Lol at Katrina the police and guard were going door to door
| confiscating arms of occupied homes in blatant violation of
| the second amendment. There is a video if a guardsman
| bragging about something to the effect 'hoping he doesn't
| have to smoke someone coming around a corner."
|
| As it turns out when you send a force trained only to kill
| and subjugate, that's what they do. A few guardsman stood
| down but most did not.
| rascul wrote:
| National guard are also trained to assist in disaster
| relief and humanitarian efforts. They did a lot of that
| after Katrina.
| billfor wrote:
| They have been used in the past to quell protests (in LA),
| by Bush the senior in 1992. Actually he sent in more than
| the current number.
| bix6 wrote:
| National Guard and Army Corps of Engineers are often deployed
| in disasters to help. This is the opposite and the governor
| of California specifically did not request this so Trump
| usurped his authority.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Their job is to be deployed internationally and specifically
| not to be deployed domestically. That's why it's so
| appalling.
| rixed wrote:
| It's also appealing each time they are deployed
| internationally, but to "others".
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Yes. The American President is supposed to look out for
| Americans. First. That's what Trump was elected to do.
| Not trash out economy at the global and local levels.
| jaoane wrote:
| Looking out for Americans is precisely what he's doing by
| deporting illegals. Of course people who are in a
| position of wealth are not affected by their existence so
| they think there's no issue.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Looking out for Americans is precisely what he 's
| doing by deporting illegals_
|
| Nothing about deporting illegal immigrants requires
| deploying the Marines.
| xdennis wrote:
| They're deployed because of the riots, not illegal
| immigration.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _They 're deployed because of the riots, not illegal
| immigration_
|
| The riots got _worse_ after they were deployed.
| Obviously. They 're being deployed because we have a
| drunk for SecDef, a basket case in Stephen Miller and
| flagging illegal-immigrant arrest numbers that are making
| Homan look incompetent. So we get theatrics. Sort of like
| the tariffs.
| mindslight wrote:
| The elites have been stealing the surplus wealth from
| offshoring for decades under the Republican party's fake
| refrain of "fiscal responsibility", and now that the jig
| is up after our country's industrial base has been
| hollowed out you fall right for their ploy to blame a
| scapegoat instead. smh
| watwut wrote:
| Trump is doing exactly what his voters wanted. They
| wanted exactly these economic policies, exactly these
| anti-democratic policies, exactly these anti-science
| policies, exactly this harm to everyone who is being
| harmed except themselves.
|
| It is not just Trump. he represents what conservatives,
| republicans and their voters are. And this is enabled by
| consistent pretension that Trump is an secretly opposed
| aberration. No, he is admired both publicly and secretly.
| righthand wrote:
| 100% people begged Republican voters to review what Trump
| was cooking with Project 2025. It's time for dinner.
| xdennis wrote:
| No.
|
| > The Insurrection Act of 1807 [...] empowers the president
| [...] to nationally deploy the U.S. military [...] in
| specific circumstances, such as the suppression of civil
| disorder [...]
|
| -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| The marines were deployed in New Orleans to help in
| hospitals, distribute food and water, and specialists in
| search and rescue. That is a very different context.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I remember marines being mobilized for hurricane Katrina
| in New Orleans too_
|
| The governor of Louisiana requested federal help. Legally
| very different.
| xp84 wrote:
| Most people here in CA who aren't Democrats believe that
| Newsom is a partisan hack and that he and his policies are
| completely ineffective at keeping Californians safe from
| dangerous criminals, so his lack of requesting help is
| mostly being viewed as his typical "agenda over reality"
| orientation.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _his lack of requesting help is mostly being viewed as
| his typical "agenda over reality" orientation_
|
| Most people don't understand why we have the system of
| laws that we do. Most Americans couldn't design a stable
| republic the way our founders did. (Most of their
| contemporaries couldn't either.)
|
| Nothing about deporting illegal immigrants requires
| calling in the Marines. Nothing about this situation
| makes their deployment in Los Angeles legal. Performative
| hackery is practiced by both sides. Desecrating the
| honour of our armed forces used to be bipartisan, but I
| guess that's no longer the case.
| lossolo wrote:
| It's a salami tactic, that's how democracies are turning into
| autocracies, slice by slice. This is something new to you, but
| people who experienced this firsthand see what's going on in
| the US as an obvious road to autocratic rule. Then another
| Rubicon will be crossed, and another, one by one, little steps,
| until someday you will find yourself in a totally different
| country after all the steps converge into a different political
| system.
| dachris wrote:
| That, or the fast road to dictatorship. Escalate until you
| declare martial law, never to be revoked. The end.
|
| The Ghorman massacre in the recently aired season 2 of Star
| Wars Andor is the playbook version of this.
|
| I don't think the US is there yet, but the direction seems
| about right. As you say, step by step.
| YZF wrote:
| In the LA riots of 1992 there was also the national guard
| and the military:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
|
| Andor was great. I really enjoyed it. It's the AI robots
| you should really worry about.
| Larrikin wrote:
| Did the President during the LA protest of the beating of
| an unarmed person ever say they wanted to be a dictator?
|
| I edited this post because riots implies they weren't
| burning down their own neighborhoods because they didn't
| actually own anything there and had not been prevented
| from owning anything. Certain groups love to post the
| actually affected Korean store owners, but it's a gross
| one minority group was pitted against another to prove
| racism was ok in retrospect to cause the conflict.
| YZF wrote:
| I don't even remember who the president was. I'd have to
| look it up. And in 2050 you won't remember who Trump was.
| At least that's where my money is right now. There is no
| way Trump is turning into a dictator, for one thing he's
| too old. Is there any precedence to a 78 year old turning
| into a dictator for life? (I mean I'm not as young as I
| used to be and dictator is probably not in my future
| either).
|
| EDIT: It was US President George H. W. Bush ...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _no way Trump is turning into a dictator, for one thing
| he 's too old. Is there any precedence to a 78 year old
| turning into a dictator for life_
|
| I agree that Trump is unlikely to turn into a dictator.
| But Caesar wasn't Rome's last dictator. And he wasn't the
| first to march on Rome.
|
| Precedents are being set. Regardless of your views on
| illegal immigration, what's going on should be concerning
| because eventually someone with strong views you don't
| agree with will be in power, and if they can just arrest
| members of Congress, openly defy courts, ship ideological
| opponents to Guantanamo and send Marines into states they
| don't like, we're all going to be poorer for it. (If this
| shit stands, I'd argue the next Democrat in the White
| House should go FDR on the system.)
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| If history rhymes, I wonder if we aren't about at Marius
| and Sulla, rather than at Caesar.
| distortionfield wrote:
| Republicans used to limit themselves out of of fear of a
| Democrat being able to do it the next time they won.
|
| Now it seems like the republicans are trying to speed-run
| to a point where there won't ever be another Democrat to
| worry about.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Now it seems like the republicans are trying to speed-
| run to a point where there won't ever be another Democrat
| to worry about_
|
| The simpler explanation is they're bad at long-term
| planning. Most of Trump's Cabinet and advisors are,
| essentially, influencers after all.
|
| We probably need to work on a Project 2026 and Project
| 2028 document set. Plans to use these newly-unlocked
| powers to reform how power is distributed in America,
| force forward long-overdue projects being resisted by
| vocal minorities and secure our republic from its
| tendency towards electoral fetishism.
| HdS84 wrote:
| I studied political sciences twenty years ago - even then
| it was established consensus that presidential
| democracies are vulnerable to authoritarian takeover. The
| position has too much power, is easily abused and there
| are not enough checks on that position. The US escaped
| that problem for a long time due to strong cultural norms
| - but you abolished them (i.e. gatekeeping the
| presidential nominees and replacing that with a televised
| drama) and working checks (but again, now party in
| congress and president march in lockstep). FPTP and
| gerrymandering just exacerbate that problem and entrench
| a very unhealthy "the winner takes it all without need
| for compromise" culture.
|
| You need electoral reform post haste - but I do not seed
| even a start to that discussion, so I think you are
| hosed. Might not be Dictator Trump, but maybe Vance or
| some other guy who succeeds in this game.
|
| And all who cry "if the democrats win everything will be
| ok again!!!!" - not it won't. The democrats are too slow
| to recognize the problem and even if they eventually do,
| there are no majorities to change the system. And
| finally: Democracy needs at least two parties - democrats
| cannot be expected to keep branches of the government
| forever. You need a sane and democratic second party.
| Republicans ain't it - but the current system gives them
| success, so why change?!
| ty6853 wrote:
| We escaped them because the tenth amendment and judiciary
| constrained federal powers in non war time to activity
| summing up to like 2% of the GDP and they needed an
| amendment to do anything outside of a little box. POTUS
| was fairly low stakes office in peace time, lower stakes
| to most than their governor and state legislators.
|
| We tossed that all aside in the 1930s via threatening to
| pack the Supreme court. Federal powers are now everything
| because interstate commerce is now everything and without
| a functional 10A and with delegation to executive
| agencies POTUS approaches God level.
| Amezarak wrote:
| > I studied political sciences twenty years ago - even
| then it was established consensus that presidential
| democracies are vulnerable to authoritarian takeover.
|
| _Democracies_ are vulnerable to "authoritarian
| takeover" has been known and understood for 2500 years.
|
| > The position has too much power, is easily abused and
| there are not enough checks on that position.
|
| In most parliamentary democracies, the Prime Minister is
| much more powerful than the US President. This is
| particularly the case since the PM is PM by virtue of his
| party having the legislative majority.
|
| > And all who cry "if the democrats win everything will
| be ok again!!!!" - not it won't.
|
| A better argument would be that this isn't a partisan
| issue. The last President declared a Constitutional
| Amendment by fiat and attempted to do (good) things like
| student loan relief with blatantly illegal authoritarian
| methods due to the perpetual Congressional gridlock.
| tialaramex wrote:
| > In most parliamentary democracies, the Prime Minister
| is much more powerful than the US President. This is
| particularly the case since the PM is PM by virtue of his
| party having the legislative majority.
|
| This is a grave misunderstanding. A legislative majority
| isn't a static historical fact like Trump's electoral
| majority, it's dynamic - those are identifiable people
| not just a statistic.
|
| Liz Truss was the UK's Prime Minister for less than two
| months. What changed in two months? Probably most of the
| idiots who actually _voted_ for her didn 't change their
| minds, but that doesn't matter, her fellow Tory MPs
| feared the worst from the outset and were proven correct.
| If she hadn't left she'd have been kicked out, she's
| known to have actually asked if there's some way she can
| cling on and been told basically "No" because there
| isn't.
|
| Ultimately, if they can't get rid of her any other way,
| her backbench only needs to affirm a simple motion, "That
| This House Has No Confidence In His Majesty's Government"
| and it's all over. It would never come to that, but
| that's the backstop.
| Amezarak wrote:
| Congress can also agree to remove the President. Indeed
| it would take only a few Rs to flip to do so.
|
| We see PMs easily enacting massive legislative reforms
| and even Constitutional changes that are nigh impossible
| in the US, that was not a particularly controversial
| statement.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Congress could, in theory, begin an arduous process
| (weeks? months?) in which eventually, if they succeed,
| again in theory it removes the President and... puts in
| his place his chosen replacement. It has never
| successfully done this, so from there we're in uncharted
| waters but it's hardly obvious that it is an effective
| procedure.
|
| In contrast the Westminster Parliament _routinely_
| disposes of Prime Ministers who lose its confidence, it
| 's already happened once in my lifetime and it's not some
| multi-week procedure in which there's some performance of
| a judicial process, just a simple question: Does this
| Government retain the Confidence of the House?
|
| Margaret Thatcher decided on this course of action on a
| Monday, on Wednesday morning she rose to say, "Mr.
| Speaker, I beg to move, 'That this House has no
| confidence in Her Majesty's Government.'" and by the next
| morning the Callaghan minority government had fallen.
| Amezarak wrote:
| The length of time the process takes is entirely under
| the control of Congress. It could be done in a day if
| they wanted. The longer time periods seen with Clinton
| and Trump were to attempt to gin up the political support
| to follow through.
| amazingman wrote:
| I'll really worry about both, thank you.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _In the LA riots of 1992 there was also the national
| guard and the military_
|
| The Governor requested federal help. Legally different.
| philwelch wrote:
| It is different when state governors impede the
| enforcement of federal laws and the President needs to
| send in the military. Eisenhower had to do that in
| Arkansas. It's shameful but it happens.
| intended wrote:
| Yes, you also always have some superficially similar
| event to reassure people that this has happened before.
|
| It's usually too much for people to contemplate that
| things are going to end.
|
| Or worse, it's bad faith, and it's shared to lull people
| into accepting the change.
|
| One of the clear things is that the right side of the
| political sphere is no longer constrained to narratives
| that have accurate correspondence to reality.
|
| Even if this blows over, there will be something else,
| and then something else - and some superficially
| plausible rationale that contradicts previous positions.
|
| And people who've seen this before will point it out -
| but people in the hall of mirrors will be stuck dealing
| with whatever is being reflected around them.
|
| It's genuinely cognitively hard to reason past such
| things, especially if reasoning past them is done alone -
| because then you are now stuck feeling like you are
| outside of your group - worse, you might have to join the
| people you were angry with.
|
| This is one reason it takes a long time (months, years)
| to travel this distance - you can't mentally switch
| allegiances and world views in a moment. There's too many
| interconnected beliefs, actions - neurons.
|
| But for people who've seen this before, it's pretty clear
| cut.
| csomar wrote:
| It was requested by the governor. A lot different from
| today where the governor is actively opposing it.
| MaxHoppersGhost wrote:
| They're not being deployed to run down protesters, they're
| deploying to protect federal personnel and federal property
| only.
| mock-possum wrote:
| What if the threat to federal personnel comes from people
| trying to protect themselves from being run down by federal
| property?
|
| You think any individual marine will follow their conscience
| and step in if they see an abuse of power by authority?
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| To be fair they're not even doing that. They're holed up
| without food or beds because there was no plan while the LAPD
| manages the protests and riots triggered by the federal troop
| deployment. It's literally designed to inflame tensions, and
| it's the direct cause of everything that's going on. I feel
| bad for those troops being used as a pawn in a political TV
| stunt.
|
| The national guard and the marines are not trained in crowd
| control. They are trained in combat situations. They have no
| role to play here, at best they just make people angry, at
| worse could perpetuate a massacre.
| ty6853 wrote:
| I've never been in the military but I was in a civil war.
| Let me explain what a few days holed up does to a bunch of
| young dudes with automatic weapons: it makes them eager for
| an exciting break from the monotony.
| kulahan wrote:
| The US military probably cannot be compared to any other
| nation's military outside of China. They simply aren't
| that trigger happy, and with no civil war and a strongly
| enforced set of national laws, ain't no way that's
| happening here.
| scott_w wrote:
| Speaking as a Brit, there were _regular_ jokes about how
| bad US troops were during the Iraq war as a result of
| numerous friendly fire incidents. You also only have to
| go on Youtube to see jokes around US Marines and sticking
| crayons up their nose to realise your faith in the
| ability of the average soldier 's mental faculties is
| higher than that displayed _by the armed forces
| themselves_.
|
| Even the British Army, generally regarded for
| professionalism, make a lot of jokes about how
| unintelligent and trigger happy the average squaddie is.
| kulahan wrote:
| Do you think that marines doing silly things when bored
| and murdering their fellow citizens for entertainment are
| in ANY way actually related? I'm not sure we can continue
| this conversation if you can't tell how unrelated "guy
| sticks crayons up his nose for a joke" and "guy kills his
| own fellow citizens" are.
|
| Man I'm obviously not saying they have perfect
| discipline, I'm saying you clearly cannot compare them to
| a nation dealing with an ACTIVE CIVIL WAR.
| skc wrote:
| Are soldiers dumb automatons though? I struggle to
| imagine them looking forward to the prospect of firing on
| American citizens.
| watwut wrote:
| Yes, soldiers are frequent perpetrators of atrocities and
| proud about comiting those atrocities. They are also easy
| to convince civilians are their enemies. Especially when
| frustrated, bored, hungry and sleep deprived.
|
| It stems from leadership - and current leadership wants
| them to be like that. So, they will become like that.
| conartist6 wrote:
| Well they're training on that now. With rubber bullets
| they are breaking down the emotional barriers to pointing
| assault weapons at US Citizens, feeling the hate flow
| through them, and pulling the trigger
| zingababba wrote:
| 'Illegal immigrants' however would sell better,
| especially if they were 'provocative'
| darksaints wrote:
| The same exact lie was said about Tiananmen Square.
| intended wrote:
| I have a bridge to sell you.
|
| I suspect many commenters on HN would also have bridges to
| sell you, seeing as they're from around the world, and
| countries where similar statements were made.
|
| The statement is one thing. Reality is different, even with
| the best intentions, things get messy, and then the media and
| information firestorm that follows leaves scars that fester
| for decades.
|
| You'd be lucky if it doesn't lead to new infections and new
| wounds.
|
| Which is why self inflicted wounds are so absurd, especially
| from nations that have the expertise to know better.
|
| But - expertise is expensive, and entertainment and narrative
| vitality is the currency we traffic in.
|
| A currency that pushes the costs of clean up and figuring out
| what happened to the future, if you are lucky to have any
| committees to look at it all.
|
| We all need a news system that isn't competing with
| engagement.
| EGreg wrote:
| What happened to all those safe active denial systems?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
| hypothesis wrote:
| > modifications or misuse by an operator could nevertheless
| turn the ADS into a more damaging weapon which could
| potentially violate international conventions on warfare
|
| Safe? When manned by actors known to shoot journalists in the
| head with "less lethal" weapons?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Some passages from your source:
|
| _ADS operators would be exposed to more than the standard
| maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits for RF energy, and
| military use requires an exception to these exposure limits_
|
| _According to Wired, the ADS has been rejected for fielding
| in Iraq due to Pentagon fears that it would be regarded as an
| instrument of torture_
|
| Seems to have problems on both ends.
| ivape wrote:
| It's interesting ICE raided the outside of a Home Depot. Like,
| of all the immigrants, the immigrants that stand outside of
| Home Depot do the hardest physical labor. There's no heart to
| what's going on.
| motorest wrote:
| > It's interesting ICE raided the outside of a Home Depot.
| Like, of all the immigrants, the immigrants that stand
| outside of Home Depot do the hardest physical labor. There's
| no heart to what's going on.
|
| From an outsider's view, everything looks so performative and
| fabricated to be consumed by a tv target audience. I mean, if
| there is so much illegal immigration in the US, is it the
| most effective use of resources to target a TV cliche that
| would gather a residual number of people?
| monster_truck wrote:
| I've often felt the same way as an insider. It's beyond a
| parody of itself.
| k1t wrote:
| Presumably it's just this meeting, filtering down the
| ranks:
|
| _So in late May, Stephen Miller, a top White House aide
| and the architect of the president's immigration agenda,
| addressed a meeting at the headquarters of Immigration and
| Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. The message was clear:
| The president, who promised to deport millions of
| immigrants living in the country illegally, wasn't pleased.
| The agency had better step it up._
|
| _Gang members and violent criminals, what Trump called the
| "worst of the worst," weren't the sole target of
| deportations. Federal agents needed to "just go out there
| and arrest illegal aliens," Miller told top ICE officials,
| who had come from across the U.S., according to people
| familiar with the meeting._
|
| _Agents didn't need to develop target lists of immigrants
| suspected of being in the U.S. illegally, a longstanding
| practice, Miller said. Instead, he directed them to target
| Home Depot, where day laborers typically gather for hire,
| or 7-Eleven convenience stores. Miller bet that he and a
| handful of agents could go out on the streets of
| Washington, D.C., and arrest 30 people right away._
|
| https://www.wsj.com/us-news/protests-los-angeles-
| immigrants-...
| ty6853 wrote:
| Miller is an excellent, quick witted entertainment and
| speech writer in his own way. What's astonishing is using
| what is essentially an entertainer for high level
| strategy.
| fakedang wrote:
| Tbf this entire administration is a circus full of
| entertainers from the top down. It's like these guys are
| taking notes from a Mexican soap opera, ironically.
| motorest wrote:
| > What's astonishing is using what is essentially an
| entertainer for high level strategy.
|
| I think this makes it even scarier. This means the goal
| is clearly not establishing sound policy, but to output
| propaganda that is designed to be easily consumed by TV
| audiences. It is beyond reality because it is not
| designed to make sense, it is designed to make sense to
| TV consumers by feeding on the context they get from
| their TV tropes. The Mexicans hanging around in Home
| Depots is a TV cliche that's recognized by people living
| wel beyond any Home Depot.
| pjc50 wrote:
| People voted for the entertainment. They want to see some
| brown people getting violence meted out to them. It's the
| deep sickness of racism all the way up, especially
| Miller.
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| That's just one of many problems with this whole lie.
|
| The best is Trump crowing about historically low
| unemployment numbers, and then peddling hysteria about
| illegals "taking American jobs." None of his degenerate
| followers care that this argument is stupid, and calls them
| stupid.
|
| Now it's been papered over with other excuses, like the
| mythical "fentanyl" that's pouring in from Canada.
| ivape wrote:
| Trump is not a demagogue. He appears like he is, but that
| is a misconception. He actually _hates_ immigrants.
| hparadiz wrote:
| They hate poor people. The wealthy undocumented people are
| sitting at home in their legal son or daughter's house
| watching the kids without a care in the world. The ones
| getting caught up in this are the ones that can't lay low
| for a while.
| motorest wrote:
| > They hate poor people.
|
| The image the Trump administration conveys goes way
| beyond targeted hate. They appear to be replaying the
| Nazi playbook of persecuting minorities as a strategy to
| wedge in totalitarian control over a nation and society.
| Illegal immigrants just so happen to be the path of least
| resistance in the US.
| intended wrote:
| Nope.
|
| They is doing lots and lots of heavy lifting here. At the
| same time things are very confusing, because it seems
| like your fellow American is out for blood in a manner
| that shows no humanity.
|
| Your fellow American on the right is plugged into a
| Matrix that traffics in its own narratives and can now
| freely manufacture or amplify its own fringe facts and
| narratives.
|
| They are actually fighting very hard for the soul of
| america - as they see it. Virtuous efforts to stop the
| villainy and stupidity of the venomous yet weak liberals,
| leftists and democrats.
|
| There's a system in place to manufacture narratives, the
| closest analogy would be wrestling - except the President
| doesn't treat it as fiction, he acts as if it's real.
|
| And since you can make and sell narratives incredibly
| quickly, while facts and analysis are days of effort -
| well, you have a structural change to the market place of
| ideas.
|
| It happens everywhere in democracies now. See Brexit -
| entirely predictable. Yet completely unable to "sell" the
| known and clear problems to a majority of the citizenry.
|
| Same with tariffs.
|
| There's a floor to people's capability in navigating our
| current information environments - and partisan groups of
| experts are happy to use it to their advantage.
|
| The problem began empirically with conservative
| positions, but the efficacy of the technique has now
| created its own political force.
| PleasureBot wrote:
| The wrestling analogy is exactly how I feel watching
| Trump since 2016. I feel like I am watching WWE
| wrestling, and it is obviously fake. The actors are not
| actually fighting. Except half the country is completely
| convinced that it is real. Its hard to find common ground
| or even explain why I think it is fake, because it feels
| like it would be self-evident to anyone over the age of
| 12.
| baggachipz wrote:
| I'd say it's more like trash reality tv. The media loves
| it because people watch. They can highlight/create
| narratives and selectively edit footage to craft the
| storyline. In pro wrestling, on the other hand, the heel
| is in on it and plays their part in service to the story.
| That's not the case here.
| jimbohn wrote:
| To me, it's every day more apparent that democracies are
| transitioning into mediocracies. Everything is
| performative, real results do not matter. It's not a
| coincidence that this administration has a bunch of TV
| personalities in it, including the president. Influencers
| are the new ruling class because the opinion of every m**n
| permanently glued to their phone is valid (i.e. a vote)
| motorest wrote:
| > To me, it's every day more apparent that democracies
| are transitioning into mediocracies. Everything is
| performative, real results do not matter.
|
| I think the whole point of these stupid stunts is to
| mobilize the base and distract critics. Your random
| redneck racist might feel strongly about the Hollywood
| caricature of Mexicans wearing sombreros at a Home Depot
| parking lot, but the truth of the matter is that Trump is
| mobilizing the US armed forces against a governor's will
| while threatening him with imprisonment.
| msgodel wrote:
| Late stage democracy
| zippyman55 wrote:
| Only three people seeking work outside HD. Hope they raise
| their salary demands.
| labster wrote:
| You have to target the immigrants who work hard, just so we
| can eventually prove Trump right when he says all of the
| immigrants are lazy and take our welfare entitlements. The
| remainder will be poorer, that's just math.
|
| Whether it's good public policy is neither here nor there, so
| long as our Leader is right.
| King-Aaron wrote:
| They raided a school during their graduation ceremony to haul
| away parents of children receiving their graduations.
| tejohnso wrote:
| It would save a ton of effort and lives if illegals would
| self deport. So, maybe they're adding in a lot of
| intimidation to try to increase the self deportation rate?
| curtisblaine wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying ICE should deport
| on.. merit basis? Leave the hardest working immigrants be and
| deport the lazy ones?
| runlevel1 wrote:
| Trump repeatedly said the administration would be targeting
| 'violent criminals and rapists', 'gang members', and
| 'heinous monsters' first.
|
| So, you know, maybe they could try to do what they said
| they'd do for once?
| lipowitz wrote:
| The US is obsessed with precedence so doing something
| correctly once would ruin their exemption.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| I don't understand what are you proposing in practice.
| Should ICE discover illegal immigrants and let them go if
| they're not heinous enough?
| justinrubek wrote:
| They've stated themselves that they don't have the
| resources for due process in all of these cases. So, yes.
| That is precisely what they should do. They can stop
| putting effort and resources into pointless ones and
| actually do their job.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| So now they have not only to determine a person is an
| illegal alien; on top of that, you want them to somehow
| determine who is "heinous" and who is "good"? It seems a
| lot more work, considering the fact that there's no
| objective scale for "being heinous" (what do you do? You
| ask their friends?) but there's a reasonably objective
| way of telling if a person is illegaly residing in US or
| not.
| freejazz wrote:
| Well, it's what Trump said they would do. So they can
| either do it or he's lying.
| jghn wrote:
| The problem is that the average person bot agrees that
| only the worst of the worst should go, but also believes
| that there are far, far, far more of such people out
| there than actually exist. This is why we see poll
| metrics saying things like a majority of people agree
| with the deportations but disagree with how it is being
| done.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Ah but that was a sleight of hand! They're doing exactly
| what they said they'd do.
|
| They said they'd target violent criminals, but they
| didn't say they _wouldn 't_ target non violent criminals
| as well. People who heard that were wishcasting.
|
| Whether or not they are a "priority" is semantics. If you
| hear them explain it, they're all defacto criminals for
| being undocumented, and therefore equally culpable as a
| murder or a rapist in matters of deportation.
|
| The crime they're concerned about over all others is
| illegal immigration. According to them, an illegal
| immigrant who has done nothing else wrong deserves to be
| deported just as much as rapist illegal immigrant.
| intended wrote:
| There's a million ways to skin a cat. The process you
| choose informs everyone of the problem you are
| prioritizing.
|
| For example, you are deporting labor. Ostensibly Because of
| fairness and justice - they are in the country illegally.
| Ergo they should go.
|
| No one should be above the law.
|
| This has zip to do with gangs and criminality though.
|
| But why this process ? Why not punish people who are
| employing them ?
|
| This is more efficient and even more just. People are
| employing workers they know are here illegally and
| undercutting minimum wage.
|
| Or why not raise minimum wage so more people will be
| willing to work those jobs ?
|
| People act on incentives - and america is a country with a
| concentration of some of the hardest working and smartest
| people in the world.
|
| It has a tradition of valuing this and converting those
| strengths into its own.
|
| Now I have enough of a background in econ, business and
| politics to see through the narratives.
|
| I also know you can't sell all those interventions, not the
| least because none of these address the issue of gangs and
| criminality and eating pets.
|
| Which brings us to the issue that your rationale, the ones
| which are debated online - are downstream from whatever
| controversy and theory that's going to show up as soon as a
| new distraction is needed.
|
| I mean, just Take a look at your original question,
|
| "Leave the hardest working and deport the lazy ones ?"
|
| America is built on immigration of the hardest working,
| most driven people from across the globe.
|
| America is a machine for hardworking people to move ahead.
| That's its promise.
|
| And this is the question its citizens are unironically
| asking.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| That America was built on immigration one century (or
| even one decade) ago doesn't say anything about what
| America should do now. America is a nation that has
| borders and a right to control immigration, like all
| other nations in the world. When America wants more
| immigration, the American government raises the number of
| legal immigrants allowed per year. When they want less,
| they lower that number. Illegal immigrants, hard working
| or lazy, have nothing to do with that.
| intended wrote:
| You want to ditch history for what America should do now,
| and what America wants to do now, based on an exact
| reading of your words, is to "enforce its laws on illegal
| immigrants". And you implied you want to reduce
| immigration as well.
|
| As I said, many ways to skin a cat.
|
| People follow incentives, so why not punish people who
| are paying for the labor? Arrests for employing them?
|
| Its an economic system, theres 2 way incentives.
|
| The process used, depends on what problem you are
| solving.
| Amezarak wrote:
| ICE has been arresting business owners for this, but
| unfortunately the legal requirement to do so is very high
| - you have to prove they knew what they were doing. It
| should probably be lowered.
| aaronbaugher wrote:
| Yes, we need much higher penalties on employers who break
| the law by hiring illegal aliens, and make it harder for
| them to pretend they didn't know, _in addition_ to
| deporting illegals. It 's not either/or; it's both/and.
| freejazz wrote:
| Due process? Who cares?! ICE doesn't need due process and
| Trump said Americans aren't entitled to it anyway. Do you
| think Americans are special?
| Amezarak wrote:
| This isn't a due process issue. There are plenty of
| crimes where the state does not have to prove you knew
| you were doing wrong, only that you did wrong. I see no
| reason why this can't apply to employers, who would then
| be much more careful.
| freejazz wrote:
| Having evidence to prove a crime is absolutely part of
| due process
| Amezarak wrote:
| Yes, but having to prove you were committing a crime
| versus the government having to prove you _knowingly_
| committed a crime are two different things. We do not
| always require the latter. For example, in most states,
| the government does not care whether you knew you were
| above the legal BAC when convicting you of DUI.
|
| As it stands, employers can pretend ignorance and as long
| as they were not really stupid, put putting things in
| writing or personally arranging for the trafficking, they
| can likely get away with it. There's no reason I can
| think of why we shouldn't change that.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| Yes, punishing employers for hiring illegal immigrants
| works too. The two solutions are not exclusive and they
| can be implemented parallely.
| Amezarak wrote:
| This is exactly where they should raid. I have a lot of
| friends and family that work construction. Illegal
| immigration has absolutely destroyed the construction labor
| market by undercutting wages. People should be a fair wage
| for their work. We shouldn't promote pushing wages down by
| importing more people, especially desperate people.
| bix6 wrote:
| Maybe you should take a look at what Private Equity has
| done to construction before blaming day laborers at Home
| Depot.
| Amezarak wrote:
| I oppose private equity consolidation too, this is not an
| either/or proposition, but that's not the biggest factor
| that's impacted construction labor these past few
| decades.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| Where's you heart for the hard working black men who are
| disproportionately impacted by illegal immigration?
| Scuds wrote:
| there's a reason why people remember kent state.
| ty6853 wrote:
| The real danger of Kent State is it teaches _in for a penny,
| in for a pound._
| lurk2 wrote:
| What reason is that?
| pseudalopex wrote:
| National Guard killed unarmed students.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Kent State was only, what, four people? Barely registers by
| modern mass shooting standards. The US is inured to violence.
|
| For reference, Euromaidan involved the death of over a
| hundred protesters before the government finally collapsed.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| The thing about Kent State wasn't that four people were
| killed. The thing about Kent State was that _the US
| military_ killed four people - four US civilians.
|
| The people of the US may be inured to violence. They aren't
| inured to violence from their own military, though.
| Amezarak wrote:
| The President who ordered the Kent State National Guard
| deployment won his re-election campaign in a massive
| landslide - 49 out of 50 states went for Nixon. I suspect
| that people that lived through it remembered Kent State very
| differently at the time than we do (or maybe than they do
| now).
| lurk2 wrote:
| Nixon didn't order the Kent State deployment. It was Ohio's
| state governor, Jim Rhodes.
| distortionfield wrote:
| Which makes this situation all the more remarkable, since
| Trump called in the national guard without Newsom's
| approval.
| Amezarak wrote:
| That's true enough, I should have said supported and
| perhaps instigated (by insulting the students beforehand)
| rather than ordered.
| philwelch wrote:
| Kent State is a classic case of historical revision. The
| majority of Americans supported the National Guard's actions,
| in part because they were in valid fear for their lives after
| the rioters started throwing bricks at their heads.
| leereeves wrote:
| It's terrifying, certainly.
|
| One man was taken into custody for allegedly throwing a Molotov
| cocktail at an officer and a motorcyclist was arrested for
| ramming a police skirmish line.
|
| https://www.yahoo.com/news/kill-l-police-attacked-fireworks-...
|
| Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna said "you had people who
| were...attacking police officers, deputy sheriffs and causing a
| lot of destruction."
|
| The 101 Freeway shut down Sunday evening two times due to
| protesters on an overpass throwing rocks, debris, and
| firecrackers at California Highway Patrol officers and
| vehicles.
|
| Footage on Sunday from the CBS News Los Angeles helicopter
| showed that multiple windows of the police headquarters had
| been shattered as well.
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/downtown-la-protests...
| pempem wrote:
| I can't overstate how absolutely separate this is from
| reality. Yes there are protests, largely peaceful and in a
| tremendously small part of Los Angeles. In fact, in terms of
| sheer size, its less than half the size, in sq miles, of the
| fires in January.
|
| Rocks / debris came after tear gas.
|
| The news has been startling in its mis-coverage.
| exodust wrote:
| > _I can 't overstate..._
|
| Your effort to overstate might have derailed your own
| reality.
|
| Don't know about you, but I could never throw a brick at
| anyone. I couldn't and wouldn't put a mask on and head out
| with the intent to burn cars, throw rocks, loot, and cause
| criminal damage. That is the opposite of "largely
| peaceful."
|
| The LAPD chief stated it's "out of control." Your attempt
| to imply tear gas was used on peaceful protesters doesn't
| fit the evidence. Many of the rioters are highly organised
| with supply runs of masks, fireworks and projectiles. I'm
| not sure what your agenda is but "accuracy" doesn't seem to
| be it.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| I don't know about you, but I could never fire tear gas
| at peaceful protestors exercising their right to
| peacefully protest.
| exodust wrote:
| Do you have evidence of tear gas fired at peaceful
| protesters? I'm getting a Greta Thunberg "help I've been
| kidnapped by IDF" vibe from the tear gas claim.
|
| There's a lot of videos of the contrary - LAPD pelted
| with rocks by aggressive mobs who are there to fight
| against "nazi scum" or fight for "stolen land" as they
| wave every other flag than American.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| All the footage I've seen and social media I've seen goes
| the other way: that the people watching and filming the
| ICE raids were then fired upon by ICE.
|
| I suspect the usual media chicanery - everyone reporting
| the story that their viewers want to hear.
|
| Anyway. My point was that _I_ could not do this. If I was
| asked to fire teargas at a crowd who were protesting
| kidnapping people off the streets and taking them to
| concentration camps, I could not do that. I would refuse
| that order.
| midasz wrote:
| I saw the one where a journalist was shot with rubber
| bullets. What does the flag have to do with anything?
| Aren't you guys supposed to have freedom of expression?
| RangerScience wrote:
| AFAIK, I would not read much into the possession and use
| of gas masks - the bake-sale anarchist medics are pretty
| well organized and equipped.
|
| There's _a lot_ of people in LA with the skills and
| equipment to rapidly organize like this; got to see it in
| person during the Occupy protests, when a tiny village
| popped up around City Hall - complete with power and
| internet infrastructure; medical, porta-potties, meals,
| workshops and seminars... it was pretty impressive!
|
| It's also worth noting the insanity that is July 4th in
| Los Angeles, so there being a lot of fireworks is uhhh...
| really, really _not_ weird for LA? We usually get
| increasing amounts (in size and frequency) of illegal
| firework "shows" all throughout June.
|
| Lastly - there's also a big difference between "out of
| _our_ [LADP 's] control" and "out of control" - that's
| (AFAIK) actually the norm for effective protests. A large
| protest that's under the LAPD's control is generally a
| "demonstration" instead (see the women's marches).
| thinkingemote wrote:
| The protests usually are very well attended organised and
| peaceful. The organisers of the protests want people to
| go home afterwards and most do.
|
| But some people hang around after it's ended and then the
| sun goes down and the protest is actually over and the
| police try to get people to leave. Then it's a people Vs
| police confrontation that may escalate. Then it's a riot.
| Usually these deescalate and the police have training in
| how to do that.
|
| It's not the protests that is violent it's what happens
| after the protest finishes. Riots by definition are out
| of control!
|
| Some protestors would claim that the violence is
| orchestrated by the police. There has been some evidence
| of that in some places of the world. Mostly it's a riot
| of violent people, criminals, kids usually, who are
| thrilled by the violence and chaos and hatred. Mob
| mentality creates a mob.
| 8note wrote:
| you could compare to that time right wing extremists took
| over a some park in Oregon.
|
| they shot a bunch of people, and the feds took it pretty
| hands off. if anything, the protestors arent being nearly
| violent enough to get soft hands from the government. if
| they were out there with automatic weapons and actively
| shooting at the cops and guard, theyd be left right
| alone, and the road would be shut down for a couple
| months
| Intermernet wrote:
| The LAPD don't have a very good track record for honesty
| in the last few decades. I'd take anything they say with
| a cellar of salt.
| godshatter wrote:
| Agreed. And if I was out there, actually peacefully
| protesting, and people around me started throwing rocks,
| looting, or causing criminal damage I would leave. If I
| was gassed with tear gas, I would leave. I wouldn't
| attack the police.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| > Yes there are protests, largely peaceful and in a
| tremendously small part of Los Angeles.
|
| Firey but mostly peaceful protests are happening all over
| again. No, burning down cities is _not_ peaceful. After
| just a few days, at least five officers, several
| journalists, and we don 't know how many rioters have been
| injured so far. We don't yet have estimates of property
| damage, but tens of millions would be conservative. Similar
| riots have resulted in hundreds of millions in damages.
|
| When the right does this, we call it what it is: violent
| riots. We acknowledge it's wrong to attempt to prevent the
| government carrying out its the duties it was
| democratically elected to carry out. We should hold that
| standard to the left as well. These rioters are anti-
| democratic.
| justinrubek wrote:
| Apparently we don't call it that when the right does it.
| It's only the "Radical Left" that actually gets these
| labels. And the tear gas comes first.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| Well we should. American politics needs more integrity
| and consistency. Politics as a team sport is destroying
| the country.
| pempem wrote:
| I think you've missed what the protest is. People are
| against the government action they are using the first
| amendment -- which is part of what makes america great --
| to say they are against it.
|
| You can say, rightly, there's a car on fire. You can also
| say the police shot at a journalist.
|
| "burning down cities" would however be incorrect, as the
| person who literally lives here I can tell you that it is
| not happening.
| const_cast wrote:
| What happens is that these protests start off very
| peaceful and then they become riots because the police
| make it so.
|
| What you, and other's, need to understand is that the
| police have absolutely no mechanism to de-escalate
| anything. It's a concept completely foreign to American
| policing. As soon as the police are involved, the
| situation deteriorates rapidly.
|
| For instance, almost all (95%+) of the BLM protests were
| completely peaceful. No violence or property damage. You
| wouldn't get that impression from the news. But, of the
| ones that did turn violent, every time the violence BEGAN
| with police overstepping. Pushing protestors, or shooting
| them, or throwing gas. And then, obviously, the situation
| deteriorates.
| esseph wrote:
| What would you do if friends and family and neighbors of
| yours for years, even _decades_ , were pulled from their
| homes, places of work and worship, schools, etc?
|
| Once the state sets its eyes on enemies, it doesn't stop
| adding to that list.
|
| Use of the tools and techniques in place right now will
| continue to be used, and against "legal" citizens.
|
| I worry how we turn the corner. I don't like what history
| says.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| > What would you do if friends and family and neighbors of
| yours for years, even decades, were pulled from their
| homes, places of work and worship, schools, etc?
|
| This was always a well-understood risk though.
| 8note wrote:
| where is that in the US constitution? the part where it
| says anyone might be pulled from their homes?
| curtisblaine wrote:
| If you are an illegal alien you can be detained by virtue
| of being in the US illegally, that's my understanding.
| hparadiz wrote:
| This concept hinges on everyone walking around with ID at
| all times. If you don't have it on you we'll throw you
| into a concrete box for 8 hours while we sort it out.
| Cool? Oh you were a home birth in Wisconsin you say?
| Sounds vaguely Canadian.
|
| This is why the 4th amendment exists. It is my favorite
| amendment. I wish people would take it more seriously.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| As far as I understand, people are ID'd all the time in
| US. If police stops you, they will ask for an
| identification document; if you don't have it, they will
| ask for your SSN and if you can't remember it, they will
| run your name and address until they match you with a
| photo id on their systems. In the meanwhile, you're
| detained and you're not free to leave. Immigration aside,
| how are they supposed to identify you?
| hparadiz wrote:
| They can't detain you forever because they can't ID you.
| You can't be compelled to own an ID or carry it around
| with you all the time. Many naturally born americans have
| no passport, birth certificate, or even state license.
|
| So many homeless here have zero identification.
|
| They are basically just going after people who are too
| brown and even ending up grabbing people who are just
| here on vacation, legally.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| Wait, I agree that false positives shouldn't happen, but
| true positives (i.e. you are an illegal alien, ICE
| interacts with you, they detain you until they discover
| your status, then start the deportation process) are how
| the system is supposed to work.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| This is illegal, notoriously, police can only request AND
| detain someone to provide ID if they are actually
| suspected of committing a crime. Potentially being
| illegal, a neighbor calling the police or stuff like that
| does not give them permission to detain. They can nicely
| ask, but that's all.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| ICE can even arrest you, let alone detain, if they have
| reasonable suspicion that you might be subjectable to
| deportation.
|
| https://theconversation.com/ice-has-broad-power-to-
| detain-an...
| the_gipsy wrote:
| That's specific to ICE though, where they need a
| "warrant", not from a judge but just from some other ICE
| "supervisor".
|
| I agree that in practice there is some kind of loophole:
| ICE gets a "warrant" for someone that by definition has
| no ID, so there is no point in identifying a detainee -
| the immigration court will do that, later. Effectively,
| they seem to get away with snatching people off the
| street that vaguely may resemble any "warrant" they have.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| Okay, the president has decided to revoke your
| citizenship. You're now an illegal alien. What do you do
| now?
| curtisblaine wrote:
| If I'm not born American, I suppose the right way of
| handling that would be negotiating a date to voluntarily
| leave the country (I think it's called self-deportation),
| which leaves you a bit of levee to put your things in
| order. If I was born American and I only have American
| citizenship, that would be a strange situation to be in.
| I suppose a bunch of other countries would have offered
| me instant citizenship just to spite Trump. I'm not sure
| what does it have to do with people who entered the US
| illegally and were never citizens in the first place
| though.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| Because one of the major things Trump has talked about
| and has been moving towards is revoking citizenship. Both
| those who are naturalized US citizens as well as ending
| birthright citizenship and revoking their rights. You do
| that, then they have 'entered the country illegally' and
| everything follows from there
| Gareth321 wrote:
| 8 U.S. Code SS 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality
| Act makes it illegal to enter the country without
| authorisation. Are you implying that these people didn't
| know it was illegal, or are you arguing that the country
| should have no borders?
| dogleash wrote:
| > What would you do if friends and family and neighbors of
| yours for years, even decades, were pulled from their
| homes, places of work and worship, schools, etc?
|
| That _has_ happened to me. Some of them did real heinous
| shit and deserve prison for the rest of their lives. And
| some I disagree with the laws they were charged for.
|
| HN not beating the allegations of sheltered, gated
| community, out-of-touch kids going straight into white
| collar life.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| LAPD on Sunday night live with NBC 4 Los Angeles confirmed
| that most of the Sunday night looters were arrested. They
| also confirmed that most of the looters were part of a
| retail-theft gang attempting to use the protests as cover,
| and that at least one of the looters was actually a far-
| right-wing activist (unsuccessfully) attempting to stage a
| false flag operation to justify the use of military force.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _LAPD on Sunday night live with NBC 4 Los Angeles
| confirmed that most of the Sunday night looters were
| arrested_
|
| I trust this is true. But the comment would be stronger
| with a source.
| defrost wrote:
| A combined 42 arrests were made by the Los Angeles Police
| Department, California Highway Patrol and Los Angeles
| County Sheriff's Department, the LAPD said early Monday.
| Alleged crimes included attempted murder, looting, arson,
| failure to disperse, assault with a deadly weapon on a
| police officer and other offenses.
|
| https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/la-protests-
| arrests...
|
| is _one_ source, others may have more or less detail. It
| supports arrests being made wrt looting, not the
| assertion that _most_ of the looters were arrested.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _One man was taken into custody for allegedly throwing a
| Molotov cocktail at an officer and a motorcyclist was
| arrested for ramming a police skirmish line_
|
| So less violence towards law enforcement and insurrection
| than January 6th. Action the President endorsed in January by
| issuing pardons.
|
| Honestly, if a Democrat were to match Trump's energy, they'd
| be promising pardons to protesters who damaged ICE property
| or torched a Trump property. They're not. In part because
| they're rudderless. But also because they're still gripped by
| the notion that we're not in the midst of a coup.
| philwelch wrote:
| I like how the federal government actually enforcing
| federal law is a "coup" to you.
|
| If Trump wanted to match Democrat energy he would declare
| the LA riots an insurrection and devote 40% of the FBI to
| identifying, rounding up, and imprisoning all of the
| protestors.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the federal government actually enforcing federal law
| is a "coup" to you_
|
| The Marines aren't enforcing squat. That's on ICE and the
| LAPD, the only ones doing the arresting.
|
| > _he would declare the LA riots an insurrection and
| devote 40% of the FBI to identifying, rounding up, and
| imprisoning all of the protestors_
|
| If they broke into a federal building? Absolutely.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| You don't get to ignore _Everyone 's_ right to due
| process and then insist you are enforcing federal law.
| ICE is not enforcing federal law by ignoring the
| constitution.
| scott_w wrote:
| Bad as these things are, the Governor of California currently
| believes their own law enforcement can handle the situation
| without the National Guard. If he felt he needed support,
| he'd have requested it using the provided legal mechanisms.
|
| Note that Trump's DoD did not seem to be in a hurry to deploy
| the National Guard on 6th January, despite multiple requests
| to do so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_respo
| nse_to_th...
| Gareth321 wrote:
| > Bad as these things are, the Governor of California
| currently believes their own law enforcement can handle the
| situation without the National Guard. If he felt he needed
| support, he'd have requested it using the provided legal
| mechanisms.
|
| My understanding is that the National Guard are being
| deployed because ICE is being impeded from carrying out
| their operations. If California were allowed to
| constructively block the Federal government from carrying
| out policy of democratically elected administrations, that
| would be effectively a declaration of secession. Hundreds
| of years of precedent has made it clear that states are
| subordinate to the Federal government.
| scott_w wrote:
| > My understanding is that the National Guard are being
| deployed because ICE is being impeded from carrying out
| their operations. If California were allowed to
| constructively block the Federal government from carrying
| out policy of democratically elected administrations,
| that would be effectively a declaration of secession.
|
| The California government are _not_ blocking the Federal
| government from carrying out ICE raids. If you believe
| otherwise, please show the evidence that Trump has
| presented.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| California has decided not to prevent the rioters from
| impeding federal enforcement officers. This forces the
| Federal government to use Federal resources.
| scott_w wrote:
| Evidence please.
| HamsterDan wrote:
| What the governor of California believes does not matter
| when federal agents are being attacked. The President has a
| responsibility to protect his agents. If California is not
| doing that sufficiently, the President is more than
| justified in sending reinforcements.
| scott_w wrote:
| The government of California is not preventing ICE agents
| from working, so under what authority, with evidence,
| does the President justify using the National Guard?
| JCattheATM wrote:
| Maybe those agents should identify themselves as such
| instead of hiding like cowards, making them impossible to
| determine from crazed vigilantes?
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| The Gov of CA is not a neutral actor.
| const_cast wrote:
| Sure, whatever, but he's also the leader of CA. Something
| something state's rights? I don't know, doesn't that
| matter or only when it's you guys?
| billfor wrote:
| George Bush called up the National Guard and the Marines in
| 1992 for the Rodney King riots. At least 4000....
| runlevel1 wrote:
| Because the governor requested federal assistance.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > George Bush called up the National Guard and the Marines in
| 1992 for the Rodney King riots.
|
| Governor Wilson called up the National Guard, actually;
| subsequently, _at Governor Wilson 's request_, and
| coordinating planning with both the Governor and Mayor
| Bradley of LA, President Bush invoked the Insurrection Act,
| federalized the Guard, and called up the Marines, and
| deployed the federal and federalized forces (including, also,
| federal law enforcement) in close cooperation and
| coordination with state and local law enforcement to restore
| order.
|
| That is _very_ different from the situation presently.
| philwelch wrote:
| Yes this is more like the 1957 incident in Little Rock,
| Arkansas where the state governor was impeding federal law,
| forcing President Eisenhower to federalize the Arkansas
| National Guard and deploy the 101st Airborne to restore
| order and enforce federal law.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Its not LIKE that, and you can tell because in that
| situation, the Guard was called up by thr governor to
| directly prevent implementation of a federal court order,
| and it was only federalized to order it to return to its
| barracks (and the 101st deployed to assure that order was
| followed.)
|
| The fact that the Guard _can be_ actively federalized,
| rather than sent home to prevent jt from being used
| against the Federal government, demonstrates that the
| situations are wildly dissimilar.
|
| (It is also not _legally_ similar as Trump has not
| invoked the Insurrection Act, which is the only thing
| that allows using the US military use to enforce the law,
| whether restricted to doing so in the neighborhood of
| civilian federal infrastructure and personnel or not.)
| billfor wrote:
| Johnson also called up the guard in '65, without the
| governor requesting. So is your issue state sovereignty?
| I say without bias. Just trying to understand the point.
| If Newsome asked Trump for the guard you would then be OK
| with it?
|
| https://www.npr.org/2025/06/09/nx-s1-5428352/johnson-
| nationa...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Johnson also called up the guard in '65, without the
| governor requesting.
|
| After invoking the Insurrection Act, correct.
|
| > So is your issue state sovereignty?
|
| In part, but more specifically, my issues are both the
| substantive issues of policy _and_ the relevant federal
| law.
|
| The latter is simpler: 10 USC SS 12406, which Trump has
| relied exclusively on in federalizing the Guard,
| explictly does not (unlike the Insurrection Act, which
| allows federalizing any part of the universal militia,
| including but not limited to the Guard when its
| conditions are met) allow bypassing the Governor. And
| _no_ provision of law, absent the Insurrection Act,
| allows deploying regular federal forces, with or without
| the Governor, for any civilian enforcement mission,
| however limited.
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| This is probably an unpopular opinion but I would like
| politicians on the left to speak up about the rioting and burning
| of stuff at the current protests and also the Tesla and George
| Floyd protests. It doesn't help the cause if we allow some
| assholes to destroy stuff. Basically they are giving people like
| Trump an excuse to deploy force and a lot of people will agree. I
| can't see what is achieved by burning cars and stores.
| ekidd wrote:
| > _This is probably an unpopular opinion but I would like
| politicians on the left to speak up about the rioting and
| burning of stuff at the current protests and also the Tesla and
| George Floyd protests._
|
| I mean, Gavin Newsom just did a long interview from a "crisis
| center" where he did exactly that, today. And plenty of
| Democratic politicians also speak against violent protests
| whenever they occur.
|
| But unless you actually pay pretty close attention to what
| Democratic politicians actually say, you won't hear these
| statements. Fox doesn't cover Democratic politicians speaking
| against violence. And frankly, if there's a 99.9% peaceful
| protest with one burning car, the media will devote 80% of
| their coverage to the burning car, and maybe a few sentences to
| politicians saying the burning car is bad. The media is
| unfortunately interested in spectacle and entertainment.
|
| I pay more attention than average to what politicians of both
| parties say, and it's kind of hilarious how often I hear "Why
| didn't so-and-so say X?" (uh, they do every week or two), or "I
| never believed so-and-so would do Y" (uh, they literally
| promised Y on the campaign trail). I don't know how to fix
| this.
| speakfreely wrote:
| The Democratic politicians have painted themselves into a
| corner by trying to maintain far left support. Compare the
| messaging:
|
| Trump: We must have law and order. Immigration laws must be
| enforced. We will not tolerate riots or destruction.
|
| Protesters: The government shouldn't detain people who are in
| the country illegally. We should ignore federal laws we don't
| agree with. If we disagree with federal agents who are
| enforcing existing laws, we should impede them, attack them,
| and destroy property to lash out.
|
| This is not an endorsement of Trump, as he's clearly milking
| this situation to squeeze Newsom. This is a deliberate
| strategy to put Newsom in an untenable position and paint him
| as an irredeemable liberal to everyone outside California.
| Until the left takes a logically defensible position on
| illegal immigration, they will continue to be vulnerable to
| Trump's theater on this and he will continue to bludgeon them
| with it in elections.
| NalNezumi wrote:
| >The Democratic politicians have painted themselves into a
| corner by trying to maintain far left support
|
| >This is a deliberate strategy to put Newsom in an
| untenable position and paint him as an irredeemable liberal
|
| What's fascinating with current US politics and media is
| how these two sentences can be constructed in same sentence
| in an attempt to come off as "see I'm smart and media
| literate, I can see the full picture!" while literally the
| first sentence of your comment shows that that's not the
| case.
|
| The media repeating "Democrats are far left" long enough
| and it have penetrated your head. There's probably
| pandering to far left in democratic party I assume, but it
| have been magnified to a reality altering level by media so
| that's now believed as the core, while same thing happening
| on the far-right & Republican party.
|
| Both side must be truly be thinking like you, I assume. "I
| see the full picture, I'm smart" while parroting a
| distortion only required to be repeated for years.
|
| If everyone could put their phone down, touch some grass,
| take a road trip to the opposite political isle maybe this
| distortion could've been avoided.
| LightHugger wrote:
| First of all, chill out, for someone tooting their own
| horn, your own perspective is very one dimensional.
| What's really interesting about the democratic party's
| position is how they've utterly failed to embrace the
| popular parts of "left" policy (universal healthcare and
| etc, basically look at bernie sanders for what policy is
| actually widely popular on the left). And yet, they
| embrace incredibly unpopular parts of "extreme left".
| Being pro-illegal immigration is incredibly stupid and
| unpopular. DEI discrimination on the basis of race is
| also incredibly stupid and unpopular. I suppose i could
| also mention transitions for children. Need i mention
| free speech? It's a travesty that republicans have become
| the free speech party, but it's something the left has
| ceded.
|
| So we're in a situation where the democratic party is
| utterly failing to actually implement any of the good or
| popular left policies that would help the masses, even
| the pretty moderate ones, but is pushing incredibly
| unpopular extreme left policies that don't actually help
| the citizenry. In that context it's honestly a very
| reasonable thing for someone on the right to point to the
| dems call the party far left. And yet for those of us
| that want these policies for the people, the dems appear
| right-leaning. Very odd how this has worked out, but both
| are true in a way.
|
| I think the reason behind this is mainly due to them
| being controlled by their corporate donors who dictate
| focusing on the unpopular policies which are cheaper for
| the corporations to contend with. Universal healthcare
| would be a huge blow to corporate control in this
| country, as right now healthcare is tied to employment
| and that gives large corporate employers incredibly
| excessive power.
| NalNezumi wrote:
| I don't know how my comment gave the impression I'm
| agitated. I'm far from US so it's just an outsider
| observation.
|
| In either case, thank you for the insight. It didn't give
| me any additional insight and while you call it one
| dimensional, I only see an expansion of the same idea I
| shared: both sides use culture war to smear each other
| (and as a lazy cop-out to game the media attention for
| coverage and votes). Most people have heard of AOC,
| Bernie, and Elizabeth Warren's. Even Ted Cruz & RFK JR
| (pre election). Surely when congress is 400+ and senate
| is 100+ people, those names don't represent ALL of the
| intricate factions of the two parties?
|
| Yet we all act like they somehow are the representative
| of the opposite. To me you're just saying the same thing,
| but relieving any responsibility of the parrots, and
| putting it solely on corporate and self interested
| politician.
|
| If those culture wars win votes, I think putting the sole
| responsibility that way is just an convenient excuse for
| everyone to play along the system and shout at each
| other.
|
| I guess to the people shouting at each other, my comment
| might have come off as "touting my horn". I'm from the
| outside, I don't have any high horse or stakes in this
| but I understand the confusion
| DFHippie wrote:
| > And yet, they embrace incredibly unpopular parts of
| "extreme left". Being pro-illegal immigration is
| incredibly stupid and unpopular. DEI discrimination on
| the basis of race is also incredibly stupid and
| unpopular. I suppose i could also mention transitions for
| children. Need i mention free speech? It's a travesty
| that republicans have become the free speech party, but
| it's something the left has ceded.
|
| You've swallowed a lot of right-wing propaganda about the
| Democratic Party. Do you really thing Democrats are "pro-
| illegal immigration"? The rest of these tendentious
| mischaracterizations take some tedious and likely
| fruitless effort to debunk, but just think about that
| phrase. Do you think any party is in favor of illegal
| immigration? How would that work anyway? Parties try to
| pass _laws_. The best you could find is that some party
| favors immigration policies you would prefer be illegal.
|
| Democrats are against violating laws to deport people
| here legally or following the legal, prescribed process
| for adjudicating their status. Republicans are okay with
| breaking the law to chuck people out of the country. That
| produces a different result, but "illegal" is on the
| wrong side of the balance there for your argument.
|
| You're not in a great position to tell Democrats what to
| say and do if you're clearly ignoring what they say and
| do and believing the lies other people feed you about
| them.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| > Do you really thing Democrats are "pro-illegal
| immigration"?
|
| I do. Demonstrably so. The Biden administration admitted
| between 8-20 million illegal immigrants into the country,
| depending on the estimate used. Even at the low end, this
| is the highest ever in the history of the country. More
| than any other administration. They made all kinds of
| excuses. They claimed they needed new laws. Trump solved
| it almost overnight.
| [https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-
| border-enc...] The Democrats lied. They didn't need more
| laws. They _wanted_ things the way they were. They
| _chose_ to permit the situation and allow it to devolve
| like that.
|
| Now almost every Democrat representative is resolutely
| opposed to deporting illegal immigrants. There is simply
| no other way to interpret this than they are in fact pro
| illegal immigration.
| LightHugger wrote:
| I'm not the person uncritically examining party
| propaganda. My information is based on what the
| democratic party has said and done, nobody else. So,
| entire post misses the mark very hard for me.
|
| Frankly i think you're exactly the person who is part of
| the problem here, proudly prejudiced, not very well
| informed despite thinking you know better than everyone.
|
| > Do you think any party is in favor of illegal
| immigration? How would that work anyway? Parties try to
| pass laws. The best you could find is that some party
| favors immigration policies you would prefer be illegal.
|
| This kind of reads like it's written by AI or something
| but either way it's irrational on such a fundamental
| level that i don't really know what to make of it.
| Obviously a ruling power in a country can be in favor of
| something illegal and take action to increase illegality
| on purpose. That's what you are saying trump is doing, so
| you don't even disagree with yourself. Where did you
| think the huge numbers of illegal immigrants came from
| while under democratic leadership, did they materialize
| independently? No, they promoted illegality.
|
| It wasn't in my post but just in case you aren't an AI,
| the democratic party is pro illegal immigration for
| relatively straightforward reasons. their large corporate
| donors like having a large cheap underclass of workers to
| exploit and abuse. Illegal immigrants are much less
| likely to cause problems at work and are likely to work
| harder because they are at a much higher risk. If you're
| a CEO you can bet it's better to hire people you know
| will never unionize, you can exploit easily and won't
| file any workplace safety complaints. You can even commit
| wage theft with abandon, what are they going to do about
| it? There's also other secondary effects like creating a
| large amount of illegality overloads the courts and
| generally creates chaos which can be easy to exploit.
|
| I've also seen the argument that the dems hope to swing
| demographics to secure the vote but i'm not so sure about
| that one, especially considering how hard legal voting
| immigrants are swinging against the democratic party for
| all of my prior mentioned reasons. I feel like if you
| were actually in touch with the legal immigrant
| population you would understand this a lot better.
|
| I'm in favor of large scale legal immigration so people
| get full workplace rights and aren't easy to take
| advantage of. Duh. Creating an underclass of workers with
| less rights to keep corpo rat profits rising is bad. The
| democratic party has done the opposite, this is fact. Not
| really sure what else there is to say, all your smoke
| isn't worth much.
|
| And i do think the dem's longer term plan was something
| stupid like "bring in infinite illegal immigrants to
| create a problem" and then "we will sell the solution and
| make them all citizens!" and that went ass up with their
| own hubris exploding in their face. Either way that's
| evil shit.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > We will not tolerate riots or destruction.
|
| Well, unless it's done in furtherance of our agenda and
| against Congress...
| justinrubek wrote:
| You're further pushing the narrative here. If the
| government had acted entirely within the law then people
| would be less upset about it. I don't think it'd be
| entirely gone, but lesser for sure. Until the right takes a
| logically defensive position on illegal immigration, they
| will continue to trigger this reaction.
| speakfreely wrote:
| That's the point; the right WANTS this reaction. It's how
| they will continue to capture the American center. Masked
| people waving Mexican flags while they stand on top of
| burned out police cars is a gift to them.
|
| Trump's political superpower is his ability to take a
| base position that is entirely reasonable and agreeable
| to most people ("The US must enforce its federal
| immigration laws"), then use inflammatory rhetoric and
| legal boundary testing to whip his opposition into
| undisciplined, emotional overreactions that leave them in
| a worse political position than him. He has been absurdly
| successful in using this tactic since 2015.
| octo888 wrote:
| It makes you wonder about _agents provocateurs_
| FireBeyond wrote:
| The best quote I heard about the BLM / Floyd protests:
|
| "Too many people are saying, "It's terrible that innocent black
| men died, but this property destruction has to stop!"
|
| when they should be saying, "It's terrible that there is
| property destruction, but the death of innocent black men has
| to stop!"."
| HamsterDan wrote:
| George Floyd was not innocent. He was in the driver's seat of
| a car high on fentanyl right after using counterfeit money.
| He then resisted a lawful arrest. His death was entirely self
| inflicted.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > George Floyd was not innocent.
|
| Remind us all what crime he was convicted of. A $20 bill
| was alleged by a shop clerk to be counterfeit. There is no
| evidence either that it was, or that it was known to be
| counterfeit.
|
| > He then resisted a lawful arrest. His death was entirely
| self inflicted.
|
| Hard to self-inflict murder. "It wasn't murder!" - if his
| death was due solely to his alleged actions, and not due to
| excessive and inappropriate force by the police involved,
| then an officer would not have been charged with _and
| convicted_ of second-degree murder. Nor would prosecutors
| not only charge the police involved, but move to increase
| charges and sentencing requests due to the "unnecessary
| and particularly excessive cruelty being inflicted upon
| [Floyd] by the officers". Weird.
| const_cast wrote:
| A reminder to everyone for all time so we can stop seeing
| these stupid ass comments and we can all move on with our
| lives:
|
| The punishment for no crime in the US is state-sanctioned
| public execution.
| protocolture wrote:
| Spreads out police resources for one. Protesters outnumber
| police. Every cop pulled away from the protest to respond to a
| fire, looting incident, or whatever can translate directly to
| lives saved / protesters not arrested etc. Also makes certain
| goals more achievable. I read a crimethinc article about the
| george floyd protests and it suggested that the looting drew
| the cops away from the barricade at the police station,
| allowing them to destroy it. Seems a lot more practical than
| pearl clutching.
| unsnap_biceps wrote:
| > protesters not arrested
|
| We should be clear, protesting is not illegal. It's protected
| first amendment speech. There is activity at protests that is
| illegal, and should be punished, but that's not protesting
| and lumping them together puts a chilling effect on.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I think the difficulty of this is how much Trump absolutely
| wants to escalate things, because it fits right into his
| narrative.
|
| I've seen lots of pictures of protestors waving Mexican flags,
| and of the burning Waymos, etc. My guess is these are a very
| small percentage of protestors, but it makes for great TV, and
| Trump gets to say that he's "protecting America against violent
| foreign invaders". And I can imagine many people watching this
| and agreeing with him - I mean, I consider myself quite
| liberal, but waving a Mexican flag at these events just makes
| me think you can fuck right off with that bullshit.
|
| It's a great example IMO of how Trump deliberately sows
| division and escalates whenever possible in order to use
| people's fear to consolidate power. It's basically Autocracy
| 101.
| thecrash wrote:
| > I consider myself quite liberal, but waving a Mexican flag
| at these events just makes me think you can fuck right off
| with that bullshit.
|
| I'm confused, you consider yourself quite liberal but you
| think it's bullshit for Mexicans in the US to celebrate their
| heritage?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Puhleese. Yeah, the guy in this video is simply
| "celebrating his heritage",
| https://nypost.com/2025/06/08/us-news/mexican-flag-waving-
| ma....
| dazilcher wrote:
| "celebrate their heritage"
|
| If you think that's what's going on, you are indeed quite
| confused
| justinrubek wrote:
| If you think the first amendment shouldn't apply, you are
| indeed quite confused
| thecrash wrote:
| It's weird that you won't come out and say what you think
| is "going on" though. I've given the explanation that the
| vast majority of people waving Mexican flags in LA would
| give: they are expressing that they're proud to be
| Mexican, or of Mexican heritage, and are sick of being
| treated like they're less than other people because of
| that heritage.
|
| What is your explanation? I suspect that it's something
| along the lines of: "people waving foreign flags are
| signaling their intention to invade the US", but that you
| don't want to say it overtly because it's obviously a
| racist talking point from right-wing media.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| They do, to say otherwise is uninformed or dishonest.
| erezsh wrote:
| Can you provide some examples?
| conartist6 wrote:
| You would do well to remember that the protesters likely feel
| it would be accomplishing their political goals to provoke a
| larger violent confrontation with the police. The best case for
| the protesters looking to undermine Trump is if they convince
| the US Marines to open fire and slaughter lots of innocents on
| live TV. That could make these protests 10x - 100x larger than
| they are currently. Think Boston Massacre and you'll get the
| idea.
| aaronbaugher wrote:
| I doubt the rioters want to be slaughtered to undermine the
| president. But the people egging them on and providing them
| with riot masks seem to like the idea.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Whether or not someone supports the current topic of the mostly
| peaceful and somewhat rebellious and violent protests, this much
| is clear.
|
| You either support somewhat violent protests, regardless of
| topic, expecting that law enforcement and civilians will handle
| it amongst themselves, or you are authoritarian and demand that
| the federal government intervene with the US Armed Forces the
| moment someone throws a rock at a cop car.
|
| This is an abomination, and anyone who supports the deployment of
| troops in my opinion lacks the values I thought were universal in
| this country.
|
| (To support this action by Trump is to say you don't support the
| second amendment, on the grounds that the people should never
| have the power to subvert the state).
| msgodel wrote:
| >lacks values
|
| I really hated when Fox news would say things like this and I
| hate it when individuals do. It makes it impossible for us to
| communicate.
|
| Just because the other side doesn't share your values doesn't
| mean they have none. You might say their values are evil.
| That's a different discussion, but they're rarely just reacting
| blindly.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I didn't say they lacked values. They clearly value authority
| and order above all else.
|
| I'm saying they lack the values I grew up believing were
| universal in this country.
| mindslight wrote:
| > _They clearly value authority and order above all else_
|
| No, they do not even get to claim order any more. This
| situation is being _escalated_ by Trump in order to have a
| raging crisis for him to attack and drive even more
| division. Just like he did to the 2A /BLM protests, just
| like he did with the election lies culminating in the J6
| protests, just like he did with his appalling anti-
| leadership throughout Covid. Trump doesn't possess the
| skills to actually tackle problems. His only real skill is
| slithering away from blame after he creates chaos and
| destruction. The fascists' only real value is now naked
| autocratic "strong" man authoritarianism. And the only
| reason they're still clinging to caring about the law is to
| assuage their own egos that the suffering they're reveling
| in is somehow justified.
| spencerflem wrote:
| I say their values are evil.
|
| They are bad people.
|
| It makes me feel sick as a programmer knowing how many people
| on this board that values "hacker" anti authoritarianism and
| curiosity would have the government send the military to
| shoot their own citizens
| Gareth321 wrote:
| I think the bad people are the ones hurting others and
| destroying property.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I think the bad people are the ones hurting social
| services, creating terror through police actions and
| taking billions of dollars in bribes through their
| cryptocoin while being president.
|
| But yeah, some cars getting destroyed is terrible.
| const_cast wrote:
| Okay, so if this is the case, then why are you advocating
| escalating the situation further?
|
| I mean, surely you're not so stupid to legitimately
| believe the marines are being sent in for "control",
| right? We all, left, right, and center, understand what
| this is. Trump news-casting. It's an attempt to make the
| situation worse for clicks and views, for sensationalism.
| And it's working quite well!
|
| Even if you think these riots are riots and that they're
| the bad guys and yadda yadda yadda... okay and why are we
| sending in the marines to cause more destruction? What's
| the link there buddy? Do you just want to watch the world
| burn? Because, honestly, that's kind of fucked up.
| spacemadness wrote:
| You're absolutely nitpicking the wrong thing out of context
| by quoting two words. So many bad faith arguments on here
| that are so transparent.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| The mission so far is to protect federal buildings and
| employees.
| 3eb7988a1663 wrote:
| Wasn't this roughly spelled out in Project 2025?
| an0malous wrote:
| What was spelled out? Can you elaborate?
| aredox wrote:
| Flashback: For years, the Insurrection Act has loomed large
| in the minds of Trump and his conservative allies.
|
| - In the summer of 2020, as Trump privately fumed over
| nationwide Black Lives Matter protests, White House aides
| drafted a proclamation to send thousands of active-duty U.S.
| troops into the streets.
|
| - Trump ultimately was talked down by Joint Chiefs Chairman
| Gen. Mark Milley and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, but he has
| publicly expressed regret over not acting more forcefully.
|
| - Top Trump allies, including architects of the far-right
| roadmap "Project 2025," have at various points called for
| using the Insurrection Act to secure the border, preempt
| Inauguration Day protests, and even subvert the 2020
| election.
|
| https://www.axios.com/2025/06/10/los-angeles-protests-
| trump-...
| yahway wrote:
| I originally turned to HN to get away from politics, so it's
| disappointing to see one of the last remaining refuges being
| overtaken
| 0_____0 wrote:
| There's a little button called "hide" next to each post on the
| frontpage.
| DoktorDelta wrote:
| You cannot "get away" from politics. Burying your head in the
| sand will not insulate you from what is happening.
| darkmighty wrote:
| Plato: "One of the penalties of refusing to participate in
| politics is that you end up being governed by your
| inferiors."
|
| I don't love the phrasing of inferiors, but at least evil
| certainly applies. (Well thought out, well informed) Politics
| is a duty not a luxury.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| What is the point of encouraging more people to participate
| in politics when that increases the chances of your party
| losing? From a relatively recent analysis of polls at
| https://archive.is/kbwom " _The reality is if all
| registered voters had turned out, then Donald Trump
| would've won the popular vote by 5 points [instead of 1.7
| points]. So, I think that a 'we need to turn up the
| temperature and mobilize everyone' strategy would've made
| things worse._" That's from a Democratic analyst, not a
| Republican one.
|
| The Republicans are rubbing their hands together and
| cackling every time one of you claims "everything is
| political" or "politics is a duty" because it just helps
| them win elections.
| tanepiper wrote:
| [flagged]
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| And it's their only comment. They went through all the
| trouble of creating an account to write a comment about how
| much they hate politics on a political post, when they could
| have just hit the "hide" link that's on every post.
| Grimblewald wrote:
| [flagged]
| SkyeCA wrote:
| I am honestly so done with American politics infecting every
| single part of the English internet. Thankfully there is
| usually some refuge for those of us who speak more than one
| language.
| icar wrote:
| I'm interested. Any examples? I feel I'm on the same page as
| you.
| whyenot wrote:
| Why are you posting this on some brand new dummy account? If
| you feel so strongly about this, post your opinion on your
| regular account.
| Grimblewald wrote:
| when it doesn't impact you, or your immediate future, it is
| fair to steer clear and consider it noise - but this is a
| textbook historical moment. This isn't cheap talk. These are
| real and national trajectory altering events.
|
| What happens in these coming months defines a major historical
| event for the USA, which sets it's course for the coming
| century.
|
| It may become a country which is directly hostile to you. If
| you are American and are ignoring this, then it is no different
| to getting mad your family is wanting to talk about the raging
| kitchen fire that is unaddressed and escalating because "so
| what, the stove top has fire sometimes, it's a gas heater,
| that's normal" which, sure, would be right, but right now the
| entire wall is ablaze.
|
| You cannot ignore this one, even those of us in other countries
| cannot ignore this one, as we have to reconsider our alliance
| with a country that reasonably one can assume is in the middle
| of falling to a fascist regime.
|
| This is NOT run of the mill politics. This is genuinely about
| the collective future of the Anglosphere.
| mindslight wrote:
| Go start a website for the tech scene in your country that
| presumably _isn 't_ in the process of being taken over by
| fascists? Us Americans need all the avenues to organize we can
| get.
|
| And it's even topical here - this surveillance industry that
| grew out of many tech startups is itself at ground zero of this
| fascist takeover, both boosting extremist disinformation to
| drive "engagement" and also creating a crop of newly-minted
| elites with the audacity to kick over the whole apple cart of
| our American way of life.
| saubeidl wrote:
| To be "unpolitical" is a political statement in itself.
| const_cast wrote:
| Literally just don't click on the post. I don't understand - I
| look at the front page and 99% of it is not politics.
|
| So, you willingly and intentionally honed-in on the 1% you
| don't like... just so you can complain? I don't mean to be
| rude, but I don't think that's normal behavior.
| daft_pink wrote:
| I lived through the BLM protests in a liberal city. They let them
| destroy everything, then they called in the National Guard to
| stop looting that already happened.
|
| Everyone's okay with peaceful protests, but they should call in
| the national guard and prosecute people for violence. You might
| hate Trump, but in my previous experience, it's the residents of
| the most liberal districts that suffer all the consequences of
| this nonsense.
| khazhoux wrote:
| Now, did they really destroy "everything"?
| brewdad wrote:
| Of course. You've never heard of the lost city of
| Neverhappenda?
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Oakland had some boarded up windows for a while around then.
| The destruction of the window of the Chase branch in downtown
| was indeed complete, I think people might have broken it
| twice.
| daft_pink wrote:
| Honestly in 2020, I went to an open grocery store, a little
| bit outside the city center, the next day and I'm riding in
| the elevator to the grocery store and there is this black
| elderly man from the poor area of the city riding with me and
| we get out and it's closed, and he's like "Oh Man, they
| destroyed all the grocery stores in my neighborhood."
|
| Was literally everything destroyed, no, but I've got
| photographs of small businesses boarded up with they already
| looted everything, please don't loot again. There was
| devastation throughout the city.
|
| After everything happened, national guard trucks showed up
| and guarded the devastation. If you drive out to the wealthy
| burbs, it's like nothing happened. They devastated one of the
| most liberal parts of America. Congrats.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| LA had plenty of local police to handle the scale of the
| protests (it's something like 88 different jurisdictions in the
| whole region).
|
| Of the 2000 national guard deployed, only 300 have actually
| been operationalized.
|
| There was hardly any looting or rioting. Certainly not more
| than could be handled locally. Trump is doing this to
| deliberately escalate the situation.
| ptero wrote:
| While I think you are right that Trump is doing this to
| escalate the situation,
|
| > LA had plenty of local police to handle the scale of the
| protests before
|
| sure, and why didn't they do it this time? I suspect for the
| same reason: both Bass and Newsom want to escalate the
| situation as well. And when both sides want escalation that's
| what we get. My 2c.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Note I edited my post to remove "before". What I meant is
| at the start of these protests. LA had and continues to
| have plenty of its own law enforcement available. There is
| simply no reason to nationalize the guard without consent
| of the governor.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Trump decided to call out the National Guard in response to
| one car getting burned. That's something on the scale of a
| sports riot, not a collapse of law and order. You are
| making a mountain out of molehill, or falling for the
| manipulations of the people who are.
| Loughla wrote:
| All this trump nonsense aside -
|
| It's hilarious to me that we even have the cultural
| understanding of a sports riot, and it's assumed that
| it's just not that bad. Just people having a good time,
| burning up a car and smashing businesses to celebrate
| (mourn) their team's victory (defeat).
|
| Is that supposed to be funny? Because in a super dry sort
| of way it's hilarious as a concept.
| spacemadness wrote:
| I guess it needs hundreds of marines, huh? You're
| deflecting from the issue as so many others are here in
| bad faith.
| mrj wrote:
| Are we watching the same things? It would seem they are. I
| see videos of LA police shooting reporters (with less than
| lethal but from a lethal distance) and swarms of cops
| ignoring 3 mounted officers attempting to trample a guy on
| the ground. Tons of arrests already. LA police are plenty
| capable of escalating things all on their own. They
| arrested a solid 1/4 of the protesters last night and will
| keep right on doing that, I'm sure.
| dgfitz wrote:
| If it's the city I think you're referring to, the governor was
| literally begging the mayor to ask for help from the national
| guard, and she refused for hours. They would have been deployed
| long before that. I believe the quote the mayor said at the
| time was something like "give them room to destroy" and
| basically gave the rioters the green light.
|
| Edit:
|
| Fwiw, the governor probably shouldn't have waited for
| permission. A white man encroaching on the city run by a black
| woman at the height of Freddie Gray, tough spot to be in.
|
| > where the mayor of the city said that she was going to allow,
| give protesters room to destroy and wasn't going to stop them.
|
| https://www.fox5dc.com/news/hogan-says-defunding-police-wors...
| mkfs wrote:
| I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 or 2024, but I did do so in
| 2020 _specifically because of the BLM riots_ , which the media
| incited (through selective reporting of police violence),
| excused ("fiery, mostly peaceful protests"), and then went so
| far as to doxx and harass anyone who resisted the mob, or even
| just those who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong
| time, like the fuel truck driver who hadn't been informed that
| BLM had commandeered an interstate (and didn't want to get
| Reginald Denny'd): https://www.the-
| independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/tr...
|
| Glad to see Trump learned his lesson from the first time.
| protocolture wrote:
| BLM wasnt on the ballot, so your vote for Trump was really
| just performative.
| addandsubtract wrote:
| You're making it sound like the "violence" started in a vacuum.
| Let's not forget where the actual violence and unlawfulness
| originated from - in both the BLM and ICE protests.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| > You're making it sound like the "violence" started in a
| vacuum.
|
| They didn't make any such claim. They were explaining the
| consequences they experienced as a result of the BLM riots.
| Cheer2171 wrote:
| "Destroy everything"? This is HN, use techical precision in
| your language. No U.S. city was destroyed. Words have meaning.
|
| The fact that you won't say which city is telling. Do you still
| live there? How does one live in a city where everything was
| destroyed?
|
| Go look at photos of Ukraine, Syria, Gaza... There, cities have
| been entirely destroyed. Portland had some building fires and
| boarded up storefronts.
| sam345 wrote:
| Pretty rich citng HN standards given the vitriol and
| hyperbole and all the other comments on this thread. This
| post itself isn't even deserving of HN doesn't fit within its
| standards at all.
| daft_pink wrote:
| Sorry, shattered most of the windows of the central business
| district, destroyed virtually every grocery store and
| pharmacy to the point of an almost total loss, carried away
| most anything of value that could be reasonably carried away
| on foot from any retailer or small business, vandalized tons
| of private property/vehicles. Lit tons of police cars on
| fire.
|
| I don't still live there. Honestly, it convinced me right or
| wrong that the only reason I'm able to live in the city was
| because the police are there to sort of enforce the laws and
| that there is a certain percentage of the population that
| will steal everything as soon as they think there is an
| opportunity. Compare that to the suburbs where you could
| leave valuables out in your yard and no one would take them
| convinced me that I would rather raise a family in a stable
| mostly crime free environment.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Could you show me evidence of your first claims? That still
| seems like an overstatement.
|
| >shattered windows
|
| Yeah, I could see most of the first floor windows being
| broken
|
| >destroyed groceries and pharmacies
|
| Wait virtually every, and a total loss? I'm skeptical.
|
| >stole lots from businesses
|
| Sure, I don't doubt it, though how widespread this was
| across cities is worth asking.
|
| >vandalized
|
| Don't doubt this at all.
|
| >lit police cars on fire
|
| Sure, yeah, but how much does that add up to? A few cars
| per city wouldn't be much in the grand scheme.
| major505 wrote:
| You men the poor resisdents, because this people dont plunder
| and burn the mansions in Beverly Hills, where they hire private
| security and have gated communities.
|
| They burn the small business of honest working people.
| khazhoux wrote:
| Seems to me that sending the USMC to protect a burning Waymo is a
| bit of an overreaction.
| MaxHoppersGhost wrote:
| The marines aren't there to keep cars from catching fire,
| they're deploying to guard federal buildings and federal
| workers only.
| speakfreely wrote:
| Yes, but their performative purpose is to create the illusion
| that the situation is out of the control of the civilian
| authorities.
| MaxHoppersGhost wrote:
| Have you seen the photos? The situation is out of control.
| Cops were hiding under bridges while their cars are
| destroyed by rocks and Molotov cocktails. It's a shitshow.
| komali2 wrote:
| A problem easily solved by the cops simply leaving.
|
| The cops escalated every situation they arrived at.
| speakfreely wrote:
| Actually, if a mob of angry people is setting my car on
| fire, I'd prefer that the cops don't leave.
| aaronbaugher wrote:
| Seems like it would be their job _not_ to leave. If they
| just leave when people and property are being threatened,
| why do we pay them?
| speakfreely wrote:
| I meant that there are more than sufficient civilian law
| enforcement resources to address the problem. Between
| LAPD, CHP, and the various federal agencies, they could
| easily surge thousands of officers there if they needed
| to.
| rocqua wrote:
| By what authority can they actually use violence to guard
| these federal workers and buildings? Not the insurection act,
| and so not at all due to pose comitatus.
|
| What can they do to guard then?
| hparadiz wrote:
| Typically their presence alone is enough to stop anything
| new from happening. In theory they would only need to use
| enough violence to defend themselves. That's how we got
| Kent State but in general Kent State was also because the
| guards in that situation found themselves alone and
| isolated with little training. In a modern context 60
| national guards standing around outside of a downtown
| highrise with a couple Humvees is unlikely to see any
| escalation.
| kazinator wrote:
| Why doesn't Trump just send in the same goons that marched for
| him on the capitol.
| lysp wrote:
| They are already, in masked ICE uniforms
| whyenot wrote:
| I wish Kevin Drum were still here. I often didn't agree with his
| politics, but his blog posts were always insightful, and I wonder
| what he would say about our current situation.
| alexpotato wrote:
| I didn't realize he had passed away.
|
| His posts were always insightful and it is indeed sad that he
| is no longer with us.
| kmarc wrote:
| As a Hungarian, told my friends in November: "the election
| results, Project 2025, the newly elected president, etc... is the
| same old story we have already seen with Orban 10+y ago. But
| don't worry, the US has a much better established democracy, shit
| can't really go as wrong as in Eastern-Europe"
|
| Well, I'm not so sure about that last part anymore.
| barrenko wrote:
| I used to think that the quote "Elections have consequences."
| is much much more benign.
| input_sh wrote:
| As someone born just south of the Hungarian border, I feel it
| is important to point out just how quickly election integrity
| deteriorates afterwards.
|
| Or to quote Serbian president's freudian slip (from just two
| days ago): "Every living soul in Kosjeric [small town that
| held municipal elections] came out to vote against us, but we
| still managed to win."
|
| It is fucking bullshit how a country can spend decades
| building up its democratic institutions and all it takes is
| one opportunist to get elected once to undo it all and
| solidify himself into power for the next 15ish years. And
| then after they finally leave, you have to start all over
| again from scratch.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Solidarity to the Serbian protests. I know they're not
| getting much international coverage right now.
| barrenko wrote:
| I've watched Operation Saber recently, those quotes at the
| end are chilling.
| mrtksn wrote:
| At some point the "If voting changed anything, they'd make it
| illegal" quote went popular among the leftists. At the same
| time the right wing were convinced that elections are rigged.
|
| Turns out it's all BS. Unless it already deteriorated, and no
| it has not deteriorated in most of the world, votes do count
| and you live with the outcome which may include the eventual
| reality of vites stop counting. It's very weird, I can't form
| an opinion if its a psyop or just how the societies work.
| piva00 wrote:
| To anyone who watched or lived through the ascension of Orban
| and Erdogan in the 2000s it was very eerie how similar the
| playbook was for Trump.
|
| The same steps, in the same direction, the competitive
| authoritarian[0] playbook was clearly in full play, during the
| first term Trump started to openly attack the free press,
| subjugate some democratic institutions, etc. but guardrails
| were still holding, some GOP Congress people could pushback,
| the VP wasn't entirely in the cult, the cabinet had some level-
| headed people.
|
| Now in the second term there is nothing holding back, not the
| Congress nor Senate, not the Judiciary, not the cabinet, not
| the elites, not the press, and seemingly the people aren't able
| at all to comprehend and pushback on how authoritarian it all
| is.
|
| The plan trudges along, crisis will keep being fabricated so
| Trump's grip on power increases, this one in LA is definitely
| going to be used to salami slice more and more power into the
| Executive, under the veil of "homeland security".
|
| You're entering a new phase of Trump's authoritarianism,
| Americans, and there doesn't seem to have any power actually
| powerful enough to fight back.
|
| [0] https://muse.jhu.edu/article/745953
| spencerflem wrote:
| Yeah it all feels so hopeless. I don't know what I should be
| doing.
| piva00 wrote:
| I don't know anything else apart from finding communities
| and mobilising with similar-minded people, there's power in
| numbers.
|
| At the same time it feels pretty hopeless, even more when I
| noticed downvotes coming to my comment right after the day
| rose in the USA without any rebuttal, you're among people
| who actually support this and do not realise the path it's
| verging towards.
| kmarc wrote:
| Maybe not that interesting for a non-Eastern-European, but
| Orban went all mad when after his first term he lost the
| elections. He swore to come back and take revenge.
|
| And then 2010-2025 happened, we saw what the revenge was.
|
| Trump coming back feels very similar to this.
|
| Project 2025 is just a collection of methods they used in
| E-Europe before. On one hand one could read and learn from
| history. On the other hand... It's a manual on how to do
| things, in case you wanna build a system like those in
| E-Europe.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Who was in charge before Orban? Is there a parallel with biden
| being a ~ vegetable by the time he left? (not being sarcastic
| fwiw)
| card_zero wrote:
| Wikipedia says Gordon Bajnai, an entrepreneur aged about 41
| at the time, who was in power for just one year, by choice:
|
| > In his first speech as PM, he promised drastic measures to
| stop the negative spiral of the Hungarian economy, and to
| ease the burden of the international crisis. He also stated
| that he would remain in power until he had the solid majority
| of Parliament behind his austerity package, but will stay no
| longer than a year.
|
| > The new cabinet formed on 29 May 2010. Bajnai was succeeded
| by Viktor Orban. After that he retired from politics and
| returned to business life.
| kmarc wrote:
| He was a temporary PM after the previous one (Gyurcsany)
| resigned after a motion of no confidence against him.
| Bajnai didn't do much, handled the 2008 crisis, and it was
| known he would not continue.
|
| Funnily, Gyurcsany was removed after a leaked recording on
| which he said "we have fucked it up. Not just a bit, but
| much." [1] It's amazing that after 17 years, when Orban's
| huge lies and corruption is proven, people are fine with
| that, but when a former clown PM was complaining to his
| party members that "we should've done better", half the
| country was in riot.
|
| [1]: In English:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%90sz%C3%B6d_speech
| kmarc wrote:
| Before his second term came, it was the Socialist party in
| coalition with the (left) Liberals[1] for 8 years. I don't
| recall to have an equivalent of Sleepy Joe, but one of the
| early left wing PM certainly seemed a bit dumb.
|
| The "real" problem was that they had too many (Russia-
| influenced / supported?) ex-communists and some of them were
| doing corrupt business in the 100k USD range; Of course this
| is already forgotten, Orban's friends' 100M+ USD ranging
| businesses seem to be fine with the voters. Not to mention
| Orban's and the foreign minister's regular visit to Putin.
|
| Relevant search keywords: "Hungary Orban" + any of the
| following: "stadium", "castle", "rich meszaros", "corruption"
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Hungarian_parliamenta
| ry_e...
| jxjnskkzxxhx wrote:
| There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights
| the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the
| people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the
| state tend to become the people.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _One fights the enemies of the state_
|
| "At stake is a fundamental component of the framework of US
| constitutional democracy. It begins with the principle,
| enshrined in law, that military forces exist to protect the
| country from existential threats -- such as an invasion or
| rebellion -- not to enforce the law.
|
| Most fundamentally, the founders of the American republic
| understood very clearly that concentrated military power, loyal
| to a single man, could be used to achieve total control by that
| person. And they had a historical example in mind: Rome -- a
| republic governed by the people and the Senate -- was
| transformed into an empire ruled by an emperor as a result of
| the Roman army being turned against its citizens."
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-06-09/trump-...
| kpw94 wrote:
| > military forces exist to protect the country from
| existential threats -- such as an invasion or rebellion --
| not to enforce the law.
|
| serious question: are Countries such as Italy, France etc not
| a democracy?
|
| All of them are, verbatim from wikipedia, "a military force
| with law enforcement duties among the civilian population.".
| Ditto for spain Guardia Civil, and many of the countries
| listed in that same wiki page: Algeria, Netherlands, Poland,
| Argentina, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine, Chile, France, Italy,
| Portugal, Spain, ...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _serious question: are Countries such as Italy, France
| etc not a democracy?_
|
| They are, but not in the the "framework of US
| constitutional democracy." A system for which we have more
| evidence of stability than either of Italy or France's
| modern republics. (Note, too, _les gendarmes '_ heritage:
| imperial France. Also, _gendarmes_ aren 't usually deployed
| overseas. They are, in a sense, more similar to the FBI
| than the U.S. Marines.)
| gabaix wrote:
| I have always found confusing the existence of the
| gendarmes. They are indeed a vestigial force of the XIXth
| century, and should be transformed into a regular police
| force.
| aredox wrote:
| On the contrary, they are more relevant than ever in
| today's era of peacekeeping and anti-terrorism
| activities. They are fundamental to the stabilisation of
| the Balkans, for example. They fill the gap between full
| war and "normal" (punctual) criminality.
| gabaix wrote:
| The issues are two-fold
|
| 1- the territorial split between gendarmerie/police
| within the French territory
|
| 2- the fact the gendarmes for police work report to the
| Ministry of Defense.
|
| If one had to design the police system from crash, they
| would likely merge police and gendarmes for police work.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| You forgot 3: a hatred between the organizations for ego
| reasons (not everyone, not everywhere).
|
| The split is nonsense today.
| forty wrote:
| Gendarmerie are simply policemen with a military status
| which give them some duty (like I think they cannot strike)
| and some benefits (earlier retirement) but they are still
| really a police force in reality. I don't think it would
| look good to send actual army to fight citizens, and I
| don't think the army would appreciate it either (it might
| have been done already, no idea)
| closewith wrote:
| That is not universally true. A Gendarmerie is literally
| a military force with law enforcement duties and many are
| exactly that.
|
| In the Netherlands, the Royal Marechaussee are literal
| soldiers who perform military police duties and also many
| civilian policing duties, but all of them are soldiers
| first.
| close04 wrote:
| > A Gendarmerie is literally a military force with law
| enforcement duties
|
| The second part is a huge differentiator from "normal"
| military. A police force even if administratively under
| the military has one crucial differentiator: their daily
| duties and training revolve almost exclusively around
| _policing_ civilians from the same country. Military
| training and tactics are overwhelmingly aimed at dealing
| with foreign enemy combatants, mainly other military
| forces.
|
| The methods give away the intentions and expected
| outcome. The US already has a very "militarized" police
| force. You send actual military only if you want to
| inflict the maximum amount of damage, and with that
| threat overwhelmingly scare the country into compliance.
| closewith wrote:
| > their daily duties and training revolve almost
| exclusively around policing mainly civilians, citizens of
| the same country.
|
| That is the part that is not universally true. There are
| plenty of Gendarmeries who are soldiers first, with
| combat training and ethos, who also perform policing
| duties, the Marechaussee included.
| close04 wrote:
| > plenty of Gendarmeries who are soldiers first
|
| Fair enough, but Wikipedia confirms that they all have
| civilian law enforcement and police duties so clearly
| their training, tactics, and experience revolve heavily
| around dealing with civilians.
|
| I'll still take that over "soldiers only", even more with
| US's very active military where the soldiers routinely
| see active combat. Both the theory and practice shapes
| their "soldier vs. enemy combatant" world view. That's a
| hammer if I've ever seen one.
| forty wrote:
| Yes, sorry, I was answering only regarding the French
| gendarmerie, which I thought was made clear by the fact
| it's a French word but it turns out to be used more
| broadly.
| davedx wrote:
| It's not the same though:
|
| * when used domestically, it's under the Minister of
| Justice and Security
|
| * there's also no Dutch equivalent of the U.S. presidency
| with unilateral executive control over the military
|
| I'd argue this kind of danger is something you get more
| in presidential systems. Not that we all shouldn't be
| wary of military forces within our civilian populations.
| Y_Y wrote:
| What you say is true, but I'd add that Gendarms/Guardia
| Civil/Carabinieri etc.; tend to hang around carrying big
| guns, are responsible to the country as a whole (rather
| than the local community), are under the relevant defence
| ministry (while also reporting to the interior ministry).
|
| In my experience they don't act at all like normal cops,
| and sometimes can be in conflict with them. The only
| interactions I ever hear of with citizens is if they beat
| the shit out of someone. You're not going to be going to
| them for a lost phone or a cat in a tree.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| I don't know about the other forces mentioned here, but
| the French Gendarmerie are pretty much "regular police"
| as far as the people are concerned. The main difference
| with "actual regular police" is that they tend to operate
| in sparsely populated areas instead of large cities.
|
| But they absolutely will do traffic police on highways,
| intervene to reason with a loud neighbor, etc. They'll
| also routinely show up during large protests in big
| cities.
|
| The "big-gun carrying" Gendarmerie is a special unit, the
| GIGN, probably akin to US' SWAT teams. They'll intervene
| when "very dangerous" people are involved, think hostage
| situations or the like. "Regular police" also has a
| similar outfit.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Thank you for the correction. Indeed the main force of
| the French Gendarmerie (Gendarmerie Departementale) is
| much more like a "regular" police force than I described.
|
| The unit I was confusing with the Gendarmerie as a whole
| was the Mobile Gendarmerie, whose role is more similar to
| the the Guardia Civil and Carabinieri.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Gendarmerie
|
| I wouldn't have included GIGN, since I they appear to be
| much smaller and have a more "special"/"tactical" role.
|
| I'll also note that the the Gendarmerie don't appear to
| be sending a team to the AWC (the olympics of smashing
| through the ceiling and shooting you in your bed) in two
| weeks, whereas the Guardia Civil and Carabinieri will.
| This may be a geopolitical thing though.
|
| https://www.kasotc.com/14th-annual-warrior-competition
| seadan83 wrote:
| Lived in Paris 30 years ago, my experience:
|
| Seeing Gens D'Armes on the street was somewhat common.
| The Gens D'Armes are akin to 'heavy' police and are a
| show of force. The Gens D'Armes were pretty common to see
| in the subways, airports, and/or just on patrol. They
| were Gens D'Armes stations in the city just how there
| were also regular police stations. Gens D'Armes patrols
| were a bit distinct from other police patrols, almost
| always larger groups, around 5 to 7 people with long-guns
| and plate carriers. Meanwhile regular police had much
| lighter weapons, no body armor, and very rarely were in
| groups of more than 2 or 3.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| Times have changed. Nowadays, the gendarmes only show up
| when protests are expected to turn into rioting (so
| basically most of them). You don't see them around Paris
| in day to day life. We now have actual military
| patrolling the streets, "Operation Sentinelle". They're
| supposed to show some muscle to discourage terrorism.
| They are actual military, with actual military weapons.
| This has been going on for multiple years, I don't
| remember when it started.
|
| However, regular police now wear bulletproof vests, too,
| even when randomly patrolling the streets. Since some
| years ago, we now have "municipal police", basically
| police which answer to the mayor [0], as opposed to the
| state, with somewhat fewer powers. But even they walk
| around with bullet-proof vests.
|
| ---
|
| [0] In France, "the police" usually means "Police
| Nationale", which answers to the Prefect, who represents
| the State in the local Jurisdiction (departement) - they
| are not elected, but appointed by the Interior Ministry.
| The "Municial police" answers to the City, but they're
| not allowed to conduct all the operations that the
| National Police do. The City means the Mayor, who's
| elected by the local population.
| eldgfipo wrote:
| As a French, I'd argue we're a flawed democracy. Shame on
| us when we compare ourselves to Scandinavian countries.
| hotmeals wrote:
| Some of the cases you mention involve "military" police who
| are under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior,
| instead of the Ministry of Defense. Many also are not the
| only police force, in Chile the investigative duties fall
| to the non-military PDI.
|
| IMO as Chilean, it's a pretty bad thing democratically, for
| both historical (dictatorship) and more recent reasons.
| Still, there is a clear difference between when the police
| with deep ties to the army enforce the law and when actual
| troops do it.
|
| While copper Gutierrez and grunt Herrera both technically
| have the rank of corporal, one mostly writes tickets, deals
| with noise complaints, and has riot training, while the
| other only knows how to march and shoot an assault rifle.
|
| The actually important thing is that this is testing the
| waters. Trump will use the troops for flimsier and flimsier
| reasons.
|
| NOTE: Chilean police are semi-routinely brutal; this is not
| an endorsement.
| jxjnskkzxxhx wrote:
| In Portugal, the Guarda Civil are cops in rural areas. I
| have no special insight into their training or hierarchy,
| but I can tell you that in practice they interact with the
| population like cops, not like soldiers. E.g. you wouldn't
| report shoplifting to the army, but you can report to the
| Guarda Civil.
|
| So I don't think your comment makes any sense, at least in
| Portugal.
| tiagod wrote:
| There is no "Guarda Civil" in Portugal. It's called
| Guarda Nacional Republicana (GNR).
| jxjnskkzxxhx wrote:
| I haven't lived there in almost 15 years. I stand
| corrected. In fact I'm closer in time to having lived in
| Spain than in Portugal, that must be the origin of my
| confusion.
|
| In any case, I hope you agree my description of the GNR
| was accurate in substance.
| tiagod wrote:
| Yes you are correct. They also patrol some highways
| (although I believe some are the jurisdiction of PSP)
| aredox wrote:
| Superficial argument. The "gendarmerie" is exclusively
| trained in law enforcement. The military aspect is only
| relative to organisational aspects.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| Those are bad too. Anyone that grew up in a country with a
| gendarmerie knows they are the most violent, unpleasant and
| fascist (personally, not like "all cops are fascist")
| people you'll ever meet.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Having police not separated from military doesn't
| invalidate the democracy, it just makes it easier to
| subvert democracy at some point.
|
| The spanish Guardia Civil is a very good example of a
| police force tied too deeply with the military. In 1981
| some parts of the force attempted an actual coup, with one
| guy entering the parliament and shooting in the air (or
| ceiling).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_attempt
|
| The continuity of the Guardia Civil after Franco's
| dictatorship is one of many vestiges that has not been
| removed due to fears of creating an instability leading to
| some coup and a reversal to fascism. IMHO this may have
| been justified the years immediately after Franco's death,
| but should have been addressed at some point. See the 1981
| coup as for why "appeasing" the oppressors usually doesn't
| work out, or even works out _for_ the oppressors.
| anthk wrote:
| The Guardia Civil itself predates Franco, and to be fair
| some GC agents fought for the Republican side in the war.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| True. But AFAIK they were a crucial element of the
| regime's oppression, especially in rural areas.
|
| Their logo even today still contains a fasces[1] shield,
| which as been added during the Franco regime.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| If the US has laws that forbid that, and other nations have
| laws that establish that, then the US military being used
| for police activities is threatening to democracy - or at
| least to the rule of law - in a way that it is not
| threatening in other countries.
|
| Other countries can do that if they want. It may or may not
| be a threat to them. But in the US, it's _absolutely_ a
| threat to democracy, because it 's already the executive
| deploying the military _against the law_.
| lordnacho wrote:
| Well I hate to disparage a large group of people, but how
| often have you spoken to an American who understands this
| type of social-legal history of the country, and values it?
|
| Although I know quite a lot of (what I consider) well-
| educated Americans, it is also the only country from which I
| regularly meet the type of person who doesn't care at all
| about how society works (also, technology, history, art,
| etc).
|
| You'll probably find that HN-person is the kind of person who
| values this kind of argument, but HN-world is quite small.
|
| On multiple occasions, I've met Americans who simply care
| about might-makes-right. It's skin-deep, as soon as you ask
| them why they support this or that policy, it's because they
| are powerful and the rest of the world is not. I've literally
| met Americans who thought their tax money allowed them to
| summon troops, more than once. (This ended up backfiring as
| it turns out, they did not know how to get US Marines to
| arrive, big shocker.)
|
| The same kind of thinking seems to be prevalent internally.
| You can trample the law, because you can. You see it even in
| ordinary US-made popular media. What happens what a character
| gets in trouble with the law? Well, then of course it depends
| on who has the most money to hire the best lawyers.
|
| In the current case, I suspect the government will just do
| whatever it wants and there will be no legal reckoning.
| Y_Y wrote:
| > You'll probably find that HN-person is the kind of person
| who values this kind of argument, but HN-world is quite
| small.
|
| The nice thing about the HN Small World is that it can be
| efficiently searched.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_navigable_small_
| w...
| sebastiennight wrote:
| Well, one would have guessed that the service powering HN
| search would know about HNSW:
| https://www.algolia.com/blog/ai/a-simple-guide-to-ai-
| search
| jampekka wrote:
| I meet these in my home country Finland all the time
| nowadays. They've probably been there all along but have
| been emboldened and riled up by the rise and normalization
| of the far-right.
|
| My read is that this is even further along in many places
| in Europe.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Well I hate to disparage a large group of people, but
| how often have you spoken to an American who understands
| this type of social-legal history of the country, and
| values it?_
|
| Quite often, and the answer is not many. It's why I've
| returned to a frankly elitist worldview, because this seems
| to be a historical pattern when power is diffused too
| widely. The lesson of our age may be that the Chinese
| political system, which seeks to restrit political
| competition within a small, carefully-selected group, is
| fitter than the American experiment.
| miloignis wrote:
| You think the lesson that the president of a democratic
| country is amassing power and becoming less Democratic is
| to just go all the way and remove democracy?
|
| I'll additionally note that China has famously not
| handled some of its major protests well and uh, calls in
| the military.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _China has famously not handled some of its major
| protests well and uh, calls in the military_
|
| Agreed. I'm saying if we're accepting this as precedent,
| a Presidential republic is not a stable system. We either
| reject the military being called in to quell protests. Or
| we accept it as precedent and revise our system of
| government to remove that power from the madness of
| crowds.
| lordnacho wrote:
| Why won't the Chinese system just collapse eventually?
| You have a small elite who perhaps currently are well-
| selected (besides the point) but what is preventing that
| elite from leaving the reins to someone who is not so
| good? With the added effect that the incompetent ruler
| will call upon the reputation for competence built up by
| previous rulers?
|
| Seems like it's just cultural norms all the way down. If
| people want to take advantage of the system, they can
| break these norms while pretending to be what they used
| to be.
| blargey wrote:
| The political system that brought us Wolf Warrior
| Diplomacy? Being an authoritarian uniparty doesn't make
| them immune to seeking political capital one way or
| another, and they've dipped into the "encouraging
| jingoistic nationalism" part of that playbook plenty.
| drewcoo wrote:
| The reason is Posse Comitatus. It's in place because enough
| people were fed up with federal troops being used to impose
| "law."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| It's also, notably, a legacy of Reconstruction. Put another
| way, we're dismantling infrastructure built to prevent civil
| war.
| leereeves wrote:
| > a legacy of Reconstruction
|
| Quite the opposite. It was passed in 1878 because of the
| backlash against Reconstruction, shortly after federal
| troops were withdrawn from the South in 1877, and was
| intended to prevent something like Reconstruction from
| happening again.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _It was passed in 1878 because of the backlash against
| Reconstruction, shortly after federal troops were
| withdrawn from the South in 1877, and was intended to
| prevent Reconstruction from happening again_
|
| You're right. Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest it was a
| _product_ of Reconstruction. It was absolutely part of
| the process of post-civil war renormalisation.
| twic wrote:
| I love that the navy wasn't covered until 2021. So although
| the president can't send in the troops, Trident is a-ok!
| psalaun wrote:
| (I've the feeling that during civil uprising in dictatorship or
| democracy, the police tends to serve and protect the hand that
| feeds them, rather than the oppressed people.)
| watwut wrote:
| Well, in the case of Third Reich, they decisively sided with
| Nazi. They were not hands that fed them, but they were what
| police (and military) liked.
| ta1243 wrote:
| The police - especially the US police - often appeals to
| high school thugs who like authoritarianism, especially
| when it gives them power over others.
|
| Its always been this way.
|
| Its no surprise that some government systems more strongly
| appeal.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| We must have a different definition of "thug" because the
| "thugs" in my high school didn't become police. They
| became the people who shoot 11 people in a weekend, steal
| cars at 15, and commit disproportionate amounts of -
| especially violent - crime.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Thug: a violent, aggressive person, especially one who is
| a criminal
|
| The problem here is you've taken the last part as the
| whole.
|
| There were plenty of thugs as you say that have no social
| inhibition and get imprisoned. But there are numerous
| others that got along well enough and covered for each
| other they kept themselves away from punishment. There
| were cruel bullies in my school while committing vicious
| acts had enough of a following they could depend on them
| to blame the victims as the entity that started the
| fight. This type of person is well suited for the thin
| blue line.
| fractallyte wrote:
| You should provide the source: Commander William Adama of
| Battlestar Galactica, speaking to President Laura Roslin:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sz2QN8_VvoM
| moffkalast wrote:
| So say we all!
| jxjnskkzxxhx wrote:
| Look at all the upvotes I got tho.
| timewizard wrote:
| There's an entire division of the military that is literally
| police. They serve a similar function to their civilian
| counterparts. There's also intelligence and logistics units.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| 2/7 is an infantry battalion. They have no training or
| experience policing.
|
| I was a member of an infantry battalion once tasked with
| doing policing in a foreign country. Let me just say that the
| outcome was exactly what you'd expect. We were very effective
| at responding with overwhelming force to attacks by an
| insurgency but pretty ineffective at keeping the peace.
| closewith wrote:
| > We were very effective at responding with overwhelming
| force to attacks by an insurgency
|
| I don't think you were, since all US COIN operations in
| living memory have been abject failures.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| Heh not wrong but I think you stopped reading at "we were
| very effective"
|
| I never said we were effective at counterinsurgency ops
| kulahan wrote:
| Well sure, but their police activities are limited to
| government installations. Their jurisdictions do not extend
| to "everywhere"
| fenomas wrote:
| Recent anecdote from Popehat, about the 1992 riots in Los
| Angeles:
|
| > /4 So "cover me" to the LAPD means "if someone pops up with a
| gun and shoots at me, shoot at them." Apparently to the Marines
| it means "lay down a curtain of suppressive fire using your
| rifles." Hilarity ensued.
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social/post/3lr2w7wo3...
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Apparently to the Marines it means "lay down a curtain of
| suppressive fire using your rifles."
|
| Is that supposed to be a surprise to someone? What do you
| think "cover fire" is?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That's why the post says "cover me", not "cover fire".
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Well, "cover fire" is a noun, and can't be used as a
| command.
|
| It's called that because it's how you cover people.
|
| If you ask someone to darn your sock, and they do, will
| you complain "hey, I didn't say 'darning needle'"?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| A marine saying "cover fire" is asking you to shoot.
|
| A cop saying "cover me" is asking for something the
| marine might call overwatch.
| fenomas wrote:
| The fact that it meant something else to someone else is,
| if you look closely, the entire point of the anecdote.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| And the phrasing, "Apparently, ...", presents this as if
| it was hard to foresee. It was definitely not hard to
| foresee.
| margalabargala wrote:
| And yet it apparently was hard to foresee for at least
| one crucial person...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| What is easy to forsee in a conference room is not as
| easy to forsee in a crowded street with tear gas and
| shouting and rubber bullets flying.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| But, again, Ken White seems to be having trouble seeing
| it _in retrospect_. Is that not weird? The tweet is
| phrased to suggest that the Marines are using unusual
| terminology. They aren 't.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| "Apparently..." would have been the perfect way to
| describe my reaction. I didn't realize that "cover me"
| meant "lay down suppressing fire" to Marines. I guess it
| makes sense, but that's not the meaning I would have
| expected. So I would probably have been just as confused
| as the cops in the story. I wouldn't be surprised if most
| cops would have been similarly confused.
|
| So yeah in conclusion, I don't really understand the
| point you're trying to make.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You'll find Popehat is a _heavily_ sarcastic poster.
|
| Read it in the sense of "I told my toddler they can't
| have ice cream three times a day and _apparently_ that
| makes me a meanie ".
| chippiewill wrote:
| So say we all
| yokoprime wrote:
| And their training reflects this. I've served in the army, but
| not in the US. Some units did get crowd control training, but
| it was very unusual and specific for their deployments (they
| were going to Kosovo). Preparing these units for crowd control
| required weeks of training.
|
| Crowd control is pretty much the opposite of modern warfare,
| with large number of troops marching shoulder to shoulder
| forming shield walls, even having supporting cavalry.
| closewith wrote:
| > I've served in the army, but not in the US.
|
| Probably very specific, but I was in two non-US militaries
| and all combat corps were trained in Aid to the Civil Power,
| including public order, and were regularly refreshed.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > The other serves and protects the people.
|
| I think you'd already kinda lost this? Cops seem to mostly
| serve themselves?
| lostlogin wrote:
| > There's a reason you separate military and the police. One
| fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects
| the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of
| the state tend to become the people.
|
| It's not just that the military has become both, the police
| have too. Arming your police to the level of US police is just
| crazy.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| The police are not serving the people except if you use using
| "clearly the patriot act is good it has patriot in the name"
| type reasoning to define what that looks like. They're just
| serving your state and local government instead of the feds.
| They only serve the people in so far as doing so advances the
| interests of their employer. And that overlap is less than a
| lot of people make it out to be, especially when you look at
| specific issues.
| techdmn wrote:
| Just watched a vid of LAPD trampling a person with a horse,
| then shooting them with what looked like a baton round at a
| range of 5-10 feet. That is a life altering injury,
| administered with direct intent, while the protestor was trying
| to flee. Holding my breath for zero consequences for
| unnecessary force. Not to mention qualified immunity. LAPD
| doing LAPD things.
|
| How can one argue that the police serve the people? They don't
| necessarily even serve local government. They get a lot of
| federal funding and equipment, and in riot-control mode their
| purpose is to brutalize protestors until people stop showing
| up.
|
| I also find it rather grotesque to watch Newsom argue that
| state and local police are perfectly capable of handling (i.e.
| crippling) protestors by themselves and don't need any federal
| assistance to do so.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| True. Forming a Presidential Guard and have them rolling over
| protestors with tanks isn't very enticing either IMHO
| vixen99 wrote:
| How can the incident (with video evidence) you describe not
| potentially result in criminal charges? Why hold your breath?
| Surely there are countless people to act on that.
| conartist6 wrote:
| What would be the point? There's almost nothing they could
| do that would be against the law if they're just given a
| pre-emptive pardon. They could put up an arena with
| citizens vs lions as long as it pleases Donald...
| dmix wrote:
| Only federal charges can be pardoned by the executive
| branch
| pjc50 wrote:
| We know from the BLM protests that police are rarely
| prosecuted for misconduct unless there's massive public
| outrage, i.e. you need another riot to get the injuries
| from the first one prosecuted.
|
| Goes all the way back to Rodney King.
| thrance wrote:
| Presidential pardon? All jan 6ers were pardoned, despite
| extensive video evidence of their crimes. If you're loyal
| to the power in place, you can do whatever you want. That's
| fascism 101.
| 542354234235 wrote:
| I initially thought this was a joke or sarcasm, but not
| everyone has seen everything that happens (the lucky 10,000
| and all that). But during the 2020 Black Lives Matter
| protests, police, especially in Portland Oregon, used
| brutal and indiscriminate violence against protestors [1].
| Some of the most brutal and blatant cases were eventually
| prosecuted [2] but most were not and never will be [3,4].
| There were also multiple cases of Federal officers without
| uniforms in unmarked vehicles grabbing people off the
| streets to take them to unknown locations [5]. But there
| were cases across the country. In buffalo, 57 officers
| resigned after two cops were suspended for shoving a
| 75-year-old to the ground and cracking his skull (better to
| find a new job than the slight chance of accountability, I
| guess) [6].
|
| But there was countless incidents that were not high
| profile that went completely unpunished. The purpose was to
| terrify protestors. If the police beat, abduct, maim, and
| injure protestors, and a year or two later, a half dozen
| get some light punishment, are you going to risk getting
| your eye shot out by a rubber bullet or your arm broken by
| a baton to protest the police next time?
|
| [1] "Police here routinely embrace the violent crowd-
| control tactics ... indiscriminately attacking protesters
| with tear gas, flash-bang grenades, rubber bullets, and
| other "less lethal" munitions. The bureau has been hit with
| two temporary restraining orders from federal judges: one
| rebuking the PPB for likely violations of protesters'
| rights to free speech and against excessive force; the
| other ordering the PPB to stop arresting journalists and
| legal observers for documenting police clashes with
| protesters." https://archive.ph/39lib
|
| [2] "Donovan LaBella, 30, was peacefully protesting outside
| the federal courthouse in Portland on July 11, 2020, when a
| deputy U.S. Marshal fired a "less lethal" impact munition
| that struck LaBella in the face, causing brain damage."
| https://www.opb.org/article/2024/11/20/portland-protester-
| do...
|
| [3] "A Portland cop who chased down and beat a protest
| medic, in one of the most harrowing incidents of police
| violence from the city's Black Lives Matter protests last
| year, will not face criminal charges."
| https://archive.ph/6ErUo
|
| [4] "[N]ot a single federal officer on the Portland streets
| at that time has been held individually accountable for
| alleged constitutional violations over claims brought by
| David and other protesters. In fact, courts have not had a
| chance to assess whether constitutional violations even
| occurred. That is thanks to the intervention of the Supreme
| Court, which in a series of rulings has created an
| accountability-free environment in which federal officials
| interacting with the public on a daily basis...can violate
| people's constitutional rights with impunity."
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/portland-
| prot...
|
| [5] https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-
| officers-us...
|
| [6] "the video shows Mr. Gugino stopping in front of the
| officers to talk, an officer yells "push him back" three
| times; one officer pushes his arm into Mr. Gugino's chest,
| while another extends his baton toward him with both hands.
| Mr. Gugino flails backward, landing just out of range of
| the camera, with blood immediately leaking from his right
| ear... 'These officers were simply following orders from
| Deputy Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia to clear the
| square'[John T. Evans, the president of the Buffalo police
| union]". https://archive.ph/KYOIS
| conartist6 wrote:
| You are seeing what hatred like like up close.
| ChoGGi wrote:
| Nobody should be trampled, but for some context there was a
| Molotov about 10 seconds beforehand, and the first trample
| was a horse being spooked by some fireworks.
|
| Longer vid: https://streamable.com/bc1sog
|
| Still doesn't make it right.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| it's unclear to me if that is a firework or a police 'blast
| ball' both can detonate like that.
| undersuit wrote:
| I was watching live. There are better views. I don't think
| you throw Molotovs at your feet.
|
| https://www.twitch.tv/rhyzohm/clip/SmellyCourageousSardineT
| T...
|
| Your linked video is in the background in my clip.
| ChoGGi wrote:
| Well, I mean, not intentionally :)
|
| Thanks though, better angle.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Last I checked, police arrests dangers, not shoot them
| while they are already incapacitated.
| major505 wrote:
| yeah. A good quote from Adama, but that only applies to the US.
| In many places around the world the police and military are the
| same.
| jajko wrote:
| Nowhere in any western country, Heck, I've visited a bit of
| Africa and tons of south east Asia and a bit of South America
| and this ain't true neither for any of countries I visited.
| falcor84 wrote:
| > the enemies of the state tend to become the people
|
| Wait, don't you mean that "the people become the enemies of the
| state"? Or did I miss some jab at immigrants?
| jxjnskkzxxhx wrote:
| It means that if you use the military to police, the military
| looks at people and sees enemies.
| cpuguy83 wrote:
| So say we all.
| Larrikin wrote:
| If illegal immigration is such a problem, why not fine businesses
| 5x salary for using the labor, for as long as it was used? There
| are a lot of systems in place to verify working status at this
| point. It eliminates any incentive to hire this cheaper labor
| willing to work for lower wages.
|
| The people coming will be coming for a variety of reasons but it
| won't be to take the jobs of the uneducated Americans
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| This is what Canada mostly does and it's super effective, the
| problem is that the people who employ illegal immigrants:
| farmers, construction contractors, hotel owners, etc...belong
| to the same party pushing against illegal immigration, they
| would basically be punishing themselves, so it isn't going to
| happen.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Doesn't post-pandemic Canada have the highest rate of legal
| immigration in years since government gives out immigration
| visas like candy? I can't see how this is good in a country
| that already has a stagnating economy and a housing crisis.
| You're eroding the bargaining power of local labor and
| increasing competition for housing in an already tight
| market.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| They were slow to let off the gas pedal after the labour
| shortages during COVID. There's been a massive swing in the
| other direction now.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| What kind of labor shortages are we talking about? Isn't
| "muh labor shortage" just corporate propaganda for
| importing more cheap labor to drive down wages and
| increase rents?
|
| Also, isn't it completely reckless to import a lot more
| people in a short timespan, without the necessary housing
| and infrastructure (doctors, nurses, teachers, etc) to
| support them in the first place?
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Small businesses _were_ having a hard time staffing
| stores and the like. For a short period 2021 to _maybe_
| early 2023.
|
| It's definitely not the case now. Unemployment is way up.
| Which I suspect is a combination of factors (slowing
| economy & tariffs) not just immigration.
|
| But yes, Canadian governments work for employers, not
| workers. Just like any other advanced capitalist country.
| There is an expectation that there's a "natural"
| unemployment rate in this country around 6%, and they
| _freak out_ if it goes much lower than that.
|
| In general, when regular people are complaining about
| inflation they're complaining about their groceries. When
| you hear businesses and governments concerned about
| inflation .. they mean they're stressed out because
| minimum wage employees are demanding some basic respect
| that employers feel they shouldn't have to provide...
| pseudo0 wrote:
| There were no labor shortages during COVID... Low-wage
| employers just panicked because they were suddenly
| competing with generous temporary government benefits.
|
| No wonder Canada's productivity is stagnant and on track
| for the lowest growth in the G7. Why invest in technology
| or productivity when you can just cry to the government
| for cheap, indentured labor?
| swat535 wrote:
| There has been a massive swing? They announced a small
| reduction and called it a day.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| The tightening of international student visas has
| actually been quite significant. Its effects on colleges
| and universities has been very drastic. And it has
| effects in the labour market as well.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| _> I can't see how this is good in a country that already
| has a stagnating economy and a housing crisis_
|
| Increasing immigration is a good way to revitalize a
| stagnant economy. This is the great chasm between people's
| intuition of how national economies work and economists'
| understanding of how they work.
| jjk7 wrote:
| Well, it doesn't seem to be working.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| It's working at making Canadian landlords rich. That's
| economic growth too.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> Increasing immigration is a good way to revitalize a
| stagnant economy. _
|
| Then why is Canada's economy stagnating with all that
| emigration? When is that supposed economic boom coming?
|
| The second issue is, if that economic boom is gonna
| trickle down to the Canadian working class or only to the
| top 1% of Canadian business and asset owning class while
| everyone else is left holding the bag?
|
| Because we've been duped for decades with this
| uncontrolled immigration trickle down economic fallacy.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Your ancestors were likely "uncontrolled" immigrants and
| so were mine. That's the way the Western hemisphere was
| settled. If it's so bad, how did the US and Canada get so
| rich?
| pwarner wrote:
| Exactly The aggressive raids aren't in Florida or Texas, or
| even California farm county, they're targeting urban areas,
| and getting the intended headlines.
| sam345 wrote:
| Not true.. they are doing the raids elsewhere including
| Texas. Florida cracked down on the state level on
| businessrs a year ago so not as much of a problem as far as
| I understand.
| mcculley wrote:
| Florida has not cracked down. The E-Verify mandate is
| limited to companies of 25 or more employees and is not
| enforced. DeSantis will never oppose the criminal
| businesses profiting from illegal labor.
| nothercastle wrote:
| E verify is the real crackdown. Everything else is just
| show
| mcculley wrote:
| When they mandate E-Verify universally and enforce it, we
| will know that they are serious. Until then, it is just a
| sham to keep Democrats and Trumpers distracted.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Immigration is a federal government problem. Why would a
| start "crack" down on something not in its jurisdiction?
| mcculley wrote:
| The Tenth Amendment and Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
| give states the power to enforce work eligibility laws.
| andsoitis wrote:
| "Largest joint immigration operation in Florida history
| leads to 1,120 criminal alien arrests during weeklong
| operation" -- May 1, 2025
|
| https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/largest-joint-
| immigration-...
| mcculley wrote:
| And no employers will be penalized.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Most certainly not Donald Trump, god forbid.
|
| If I was a betting man, I'd handicap the number of paper-
| less workers he employs at his 3 golf clubs in Florida at
| 100. If we were to take into account the amount of work-
| permit-less laborers working on his golf courses
| nationwide, I'd say the number is over 200.
|
| And even then, I'd bet my life on the over. Having played
| golf once at his club in Doral (shitty course, would
| never play again, even if my round was covered), I can
| safely assume ain't nobody mowing that course that can
| speak English passably, let alone are in this country
| working legally.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| >Having played golf once at his club in Doral (shitty
| course, would never play again, even if my round was
| covered), I can safely assume ain't nobody mowing that
| course that can speak English passably, let alone are in
| this country working legally.
|
| How proletarian of him to hire "normal" help. Lol.
|
| Based on my limited experience with comparable clubs in
| the northeast I would have expected the properties to be
| run by (subcontracted) crews of "you pay extra because we
| speak english and have no face tats or felonies" type
| service personnel because that's what the old money wasp
| clientele expect.
| NickC25 wrote:
| I'm from the Northeast and have played tennis and golf at
| a few of the comparable high end places - the
| subcontractors don't usually speak english either,
| usually the head groundskeeper is white and speaks it
| well enough to communicate to the staff who know not to
| speak to members. Alternatively, the groundskeeper is
| someone that's been in the US long enough to speak
| English well enough that nobody would think about his
| immigration status. In some of the wealthiest places,
| it's usually a kid whose parents are illegal but he was
| born and raised in the US, was blessed with intelligence
| and won a scholarship to a great NEASC school where a
| member of the club is on the alumni board.
|
| I can also attest that some of the multigenerational "my
| great grandkids won't have to work a day in their lives"
| wealth types are some of the cheapest and stingiest
| people I've ever met, and most certainly don't care that
| the groundskeepers at their too-cool-for-school clubs in
| Westchester or The Hamptons or Greenwich speak zero
| english and aren't here legally. In fact, that's the
| expectation, because god forbid their club dues go up by
| a few hundred dollars a year (while they spend that same
| amount on a single dinner at the clubhouse).
| potato3732842 wrote:
| I don't golf so my only experience is incidental and
| limited to a few clubs that I have a business
| relationship with a vendors for but it seems to me that
| the waspy country clubs are mostly staffed with townies
| and a lower representation of immigrants than comparable
| occupations for different employers in the same towns.
|
| Now, I get that "a few" isn't a trend but the effect is
| pretty observable. IDK if it's the customers really
| driving things or if the townies are simply more capable
| of excelling in such roles.
| NickC25 wrote:
| > the waspy country clubs are mostly staffed with townies
| and a lower representation of immigrants than comparable
| occupations for different employers in the same towns
|
| I've played tennis and golf all over Westchester County,
| all over Fairfield County, and in Long Island. On the
| golf side, yeah, it's townies. Same goes for pro shop,
| tennis assistants, pool staff, and sometimes,
| kitchen/snack bar staff. But the folks who mow the lawns,
| clean the locker rooms and toilets, water the greens?
| Hell no those aren't locals.
| NickC25 wrote:
| However, I'd be willing to bet my life that if one was to
| go to the Trump golf clubs in WPB, Doral and Jupiter,
| you'd find that some of the folks, say, watering the
| course, raking the bunkers, or cutting the lawns
| definitely do not speak English, do not have work
| permits, are not getting paid standard legal wages, and
| most definitely are NOT here legally.
|
| Remember folks, with this administration, hypocrisy is
| the point.
| major505 wrote:
| They do in Texas. Is just that Texas dont buy into the
| santuary cities bullshit, and raids always happaned there.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Texas raids the employers and deports the undocumented,
| but the employers are never penalized. They are
| performative raids, intended to intimidate undocumented
| workers and prevent them from organizing or pushing for
| better pay and working conditions. Texas has been doing
| this for a century, and even during the Braceros era
| Mexico often refused to work with Texas because of how
| they treat chicanos.
| viraptor wrote:
| They may not be called sanctuary cities officially, but
| if that idea didn't exist there, Texas Senate Bill 4
| wouldn't exist in the first place. And it wouldn't be on
| hold and disputed today.
| throw0101d wrote:
| Or Wisconsin:
|
| > _President Trump spent much of his campaign vowing "mass
| deportations" of undocumented immigrants, and the first
| weeks of his term have been marked by public displays of
| immigration enforcement. It could pose a blow to multiple
| parts of the country's food supply chain, including the
| dairy industry, where more than half of the national
| workforce is undocumented._
|
| * https://www.cbsnews.com/video/how-undocumented-workers-
| suppo...
| andsoitis wrote:
| > The aggressive raids aren't in Florida or Texas, or even
| California farm county, they're targeting urban areas, and
| getting the intended headlines.
|
| I don't know that that is true:
|
| Florida:
| https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/100-undocumented-
| immigrant...
|
| Texas: https://www.tpr.org/border-
| immigration/2025-06-05/ice-raids-...
|
| California farm country:
| https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/01/kern-county-
| immigrati...
| larrled wrote:
| Didn't read them all but that last one in Kern was under
| Biden,
|
| "This appears to be the first large-scale Border Patrol
| raid in California since the election of Donald Trump,
| coming just a day after Congress certified the election
| on January 6, in the final days of Joe Biden's
| presidency."
|
| It strains credulity somewhat to act as though ICE, whose
| purpose has always been immigration enforcement, only
| started enforcing immigration under Trump. I remember
| hearing about ICE/immigration raids for many decades now
| in California.
|
| In any event I think the prior's point was that the
| current admins' zealous focus on immigration is mostly
| optics. The idea is to get California activists to
| juxtapose themselves on the evening news throwing bricks
| and Molotovs against clean cut patriotic young
| servicemen. The American electorate prefer marines to
| brick throwers, so it's just easy politics. It's been the
| go to gambit of the Trump team for most of his two terms.
| Immigration is a very popular issue with voters, but not
| with educated journalists who know most GOP donors like
| the Koch brothers are free market libertarians who want
| totally open boarders and therefore despite the voter
| concern, nothing meaningful will ever happen because
| immigration enforcement and reform will remain in essence
| a tool to whip up hysteria in the non-sophisticated.
| Immigration and deportation numbers don't lie, and tell
| most of the story.
| anonfordays wrote:
| You clearly posted false statements. Are you able to
| retract or delete your comment?
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| I would honestly hope that comments _don 't_ get deleted
| as it makes following discussion threads harder. If
| someone already posted a rebuttle, you can already see
| it.
| Symmetry wrote:
| I think the real reason is that Trump feels that the illegal
| immigration issue generates votes for him so actually solving
| it is the last thing he wants to do.
| lazide wrote:
| This has been true of every major policy 'lock in' topic
| for both parties for at least a decade, if not more.
|
| Gun control, abortion, immigration (legal and illegal),
| taxation/gov't spending, affirmative action (aka DEI), etc.
|
| Trump is _really_ good at pushing buttons and generating
| outrage though. Not unexpected for a reality TV show star.
| larrled wrote:
| It's sad how addicted people are to his button pushing.
| I've got an elderly family member with dementia who can't
| go more than 2 hours without watching a outrage video
| about Trump. You know the ones on YouTube, still doing
| hourly updates on russiagate and other "legal analysis"
| around Trump prosecutions, still. She lost much of her
| life savings because these YouTube "experts" explained
| how Trump would crash the market when in actuality, from
| 2016 to today, the market has actually gone up. A lot.
| Thanks medias touch or whoever it is for destroying the
| sanity and financial security of so many American
| seniors. What a business model.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > She lost much of her life savings because these YouTube
| "experts" explained how Trump would crash the market when
| in actuality, from 2016 to today, the market has actually
| gone up. A lot.
|
| How did the market going up lose her money?
|
| The loss of potential gains?
| lazide wrote:
| If you read the comment carefully, it sounds like she
| sold early and put into things like CDs which lost money
| to inflation.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| I'm not sure it even matters if there is an actual problem,
| as long as there is a perception of a problem in his
| voters.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Because this is more about a display of force than actually
| solving a problem.
| xivzgrev wrote:
| Shh! We can't do that! You'd piss off the republican donors.
| Not to mention the American public when their grocery bill
| significantly increases.
|
| No, it's much better to go harass people who aren't in
| republican circles. Us vs them. Round up some illegals, make
| some examples, stick it to the democrats (who loosened the
| borders and are complicit). Trump is strong, and finally
| cracking down on all of this illegal nonsense, hoo rah!!
|
| It's all theater, that's what Trump is - a darn good showman.
| Some illegals will get deported, eventually some of his core
| will see him as the thug he is. We just need to ensure
| democrats have a viable candidate lined up...ideally a white
| southern man. Clearly the push to elect a woman isn't working
| at this time - we've tried it twice and Americans vote Trump
| instead.
| jeffreygoesto wrote:
| This. And two santas.
| delfinom wrote:
| Don't worry, I'm sure they'll run Newsom for president this
| time.
| King-Aaron wrote:
| They want a reason to remove the current Californian
| government, as well as manufacturing a reason to enact
| emergency powers which can 'help' Trump push for a third term.
| They have been discussing this since before the election.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Trump is hardly a bastion of health, you think he'll still be
| around when he's 82?
| ben_w wrote:
| A better question is, does _he_ think he 'll still be
| around?
|
| I mean, this is a guy who put out a press release about his
| own health where everyone could tell he was lying because
| it included his own height and they just found pictures of
| him standing next to other people who were supposed to be
| the same height or shorter.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| The e-verify system has been in place since 1996, and does
| exactly that: verify legal status of workers. It's required for
| federal contractors, but only about half of states require its
| use (it used to be more but some states like CA have actually
| passed laws banning its use).
| ty6853 wrote:
| It verifies the legal status of the documents submitted. Does
| little beyond encouraging identity theft of USCs that end up
| with unexpected tax liabilities.
| kimixa wrote:
| But the estimated number of "illegal" workers is so much
| larger than the number of people whose identity is stolen
| on tax returns each year I'd suggest that the issue isn't
| so much with the tools already available, so much at people
| _aren 't using_ those tools.
|
| Even if we had a perfect e-verify system that magically
| guaranteed the result was accurate, it probably wouldn't
| make a difference. Not while it's use is "optional" in
| states like Texas.
| vel0city wrote:
| The fact Republicans in Texas harp on about illegal
| migration but don't do the most basic thing to reduce
| illegal labor supporting illegal migration really shows
| its more about having someone to hate than actually
| working to solve the problem.
| b33j0r wrote:
| I worked for a company that verified I9's and provided an
| eVerify integration for employers. I can't explain what
| problem it solved.
|
| It was a multi-million dollar if-statement that copied the
| expertise of the relevant law into a permanently legacy
| expert system.
|
| Doing anything besides that would be illegal. But that also
| means there is no cross-referencing or vendor enforcement of
| fraud.
|
| It did things like check if some tax-related status code was
| valid for the indicated home country of emigration. It didn't
| do things like check against a national database for an SSN.
|
| It basically punished people for filling out forms
| incorrectly or not being able to scan a document.
|
| We didn't get new regulations every quarter or ever. I dunno
| what the point was.
|
| Edit: the everify step technically used personally
| identifiable information to contact a national database.
|
| I guess my gripe is that I didn't see how it could prevent
| fraud in any way a normal HR person wouldn't have caught if
| it were to be caught. It's a duplication of a process
| everyone was already doing.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| LA is actively supporting illegal immigrants.
|
| If you want something like this to work, federal agents need to
| do it.
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| What is "this" and how do you define "work?"
|
| And if illegals are such a problem, why do the Republicans
| toady up to the corporations that perpetuate and profit from
| it?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If you want something like this to work, federal agents
| need to do it_
|
| Doing the arrests? Sure. Intimidating protesters for partisan
| messaging while desecrating the honour of our armed forces?
| No.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| They are doing arrests and others are trying to block them
| from doing arrests. That is why the National Guard had to
| step it, because local law enforcement did nothing to
| protect ICE from the mobs that try to set free illegals.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _They are doing arrests and others are trying to block
| them from doing arrests_
|
| The only "they" doing arrests are ICE and the LAPD. The
| California National Guard isn't arresting anyone to my
| knowledge.
|
| > _local law enforcement did nothing to protect ICE from
| the mobs that try to set free illegals_
|
| Source? For literally any of this sentence.
| chasd00 wrote:
| I won't google it for you. It there's multiple video
| evidence readily available.
| ben_w wrote:
| Evidence of absence is harder than that.
|
| Yesterday I saw a pic claiming to be of local law
| enforcement keeping the protestors separated from ICE. It
| was shared by protestors very upset that ICE was being
| kept safe while ICE shot at the protestors with tear gas
| -- but(!) I have no way to tell if that was even taken
| this week in LA or 10 years ago in a different continent,
| because even before GenAI, there's loads of cases where
| people share videos of something awful, but label it
| about something completely different and use it as
| evidence about that other thing.
|
| The person you replied to is looking for evidence that
| "local law enforcement did nothing to protect ICE from
| the mobs that try to set free illegals" -- it's really
| hard to show "did nothing" from any single clip.
|
| Even absent GenAI being pretty good now, what kind of
| video do you think will actually demonstrate that (1)
| _local law enforcement_ , (2) did nothing, not just in
| the area being filmed but even when the camera was off,
| (3) specifically that the mobs were trying to set free
| "illegals" rather than being very unhappy that
| unidentified armed people wearing masks were hauling away
| their local pizza maker who they'd known for a decade?
| bombcar wrote:
| ICE is doing immigration arrests.
|
| LAPD/Sheriffs are doing vandalism related arrests
| including unlawful assembly.
|
| CA guard is standing around federal properties. They
| normally don't do arrests but they can and will do
| "detainments" until another agency can take over.
|
| But the FBI is on site doing federal arrests (vandalism
| etc against a federal building is both a state and
| federal offense).
| JCattheATM wrote:
| > ICE is doing immigration arrests.
|
| Not properly, they are hiding while wearing masks and not
| making it clear they are LEOs.
|
| Not to mention arresting people here LEGALLY....
| freejazz wrote:
| "illegals"
|
| Doing a lot of work for you there.
| 542354234235 wrote:
| The anti-commandeering doctrine prevents the federal
| government from directly compelling states to implement
| or enforce federal law. It has been ruled on time and
| time again, from 1842 when Justice Joseph Story affirmed
| it [1] to Justice Samuel Alito in 2018 [2].
|
| The balance between State and Federal power is part of
| how the country works. You can't just call in the
| military whenever States refuse to help you, which they
| aren't obligated to do.
|
| [1] "The clause relating to fugitive slaves is found in
| the national Constitution, and not in that of any State.
| It might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of
| the power of interpretation to insist that the States are
| bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of
| the National Government nowhere delegated or entrusted to
| them by the Constitution." Prigg v. Pennsylvania
| https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/41/539/
|
| [2] "Congress may not simply 'commandeer the legislative
| process of the States by directly compelling them to
| enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." Murphy
| v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
| https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-476
| lenkite wrote:
| Technically, ICE were carrying out arrests for cartel
| activity and money laundering by illegals as Tom Homan
| pointed out. They were executing criminal warrants. Then
| they were attacked. LAPD never came to help them.
| thomasingalls wrote:
| Even this supreme court has said the way in which ice is
| "doing the work" that they're doing isn't constitutional. As
| in, the way in which "federal agents need to do it" is being
| done right now is literally illegal. Hence, protests. This
| isn't rocket science
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| One case brought before the Supreme Court was the
| humanitarian legal status for migrants, which it was struck
| down and they can be sent back.
|
| The other was about the deportations, which the court said
| they need to serve deportees a notice of deportation before
| they are actually deported.
|
| There is no ruling that says ICE can't go after them
| wherever they are and arrest them.
| thomasingalls wrote:
| so you agree
| honeybadger1 wrote:
| LA is definitely okay with illegal immigrants, but it's akin
| to a deal with the devil. It's a sacrifice on their part for
| cheap labor in exchange for the occasional burning down and
| looting of their favorite locations when the tide turns
| against their favor as it is right now. There is an entire
| economic system and mechanism of living wrapped around this
| blood-contract in states like California. The moment
| something threatens it, you see them out there burning,
| looting, basically being a terrorizer to preserve this
| system.
|
| Looking at it from both sides, they are providing cheap labor
| to the bourgeois, taking a penance and it's agreed that it's
| okay, and now an outsider is coming in(trump and his
| administration) threatening that contract and they expect the
| state leaders to protect them, as they currently are with
| their inaction and posturing that everything is fine and safe
| until Trump opened his big mouth and showed force. The
| inaction and posturing not being effective, now they are out
| there punishing the elite for not protecting them by burning
| down the city they love, and love for them to work in, like
| slave labor.
|
| Everyone knows this to be the case in LA, the argument is
| does ICE have the right to go in and mass-raid? I believe it
| does act in the interest of the state, but I also believe
| that no party has ever wanted to solve the issue of illegal
| but otherwise law-abiding people having a path to be legal,
| and that issue also should also be of great interest to the
| state.
| beyondHelp wrote:
| Also, the downvoting provides very deep insight of thinking
| that has taken over. These people have no critical thinking
| - not to mention self-criticism, as that has been carefully
| rooted out - apparently knowledge is not important, but
| education. The paid actors in streets are not the main
| problem of USA, but whole generation of imbeciles, that
| can't take responsibility of their own - not to mention for
| whole country.
|
| Count how many gray posts are here and think what will
| happen when they will all leave. Not to mention that this
| site is Reddit v2.0 and have the same result and that is
| not coincidence.
| vips7L wrote:
| > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It
| never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
|
| > Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning
| into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the
| hills.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| jazzypants wrote:
| Lol, people really believe in paid actors at protests?
| You need to work on your critical thinking if you think
| that is an actual problem.
|
| Where are they finding these actors? Why aren't the job
| advertisements ever leaked to the public? Why hasn't an
| investigative journalist gone undercover to get paid to
| protest?
|
| But, you're the smart guy, right? We're all imbeciles
| because we don't want a ruling class of billionaire
| grifters to normalize the concept of extrajudicial
| kidnappings. My bad.
| honeybadger1 wrote:
| This is not true, just last night an Apple store and
| Ootoro were completey looted and destroyed. You can't
| judge me and what I say when you don't even pay
| attention. I'm clearly calling out a problem from both
| sides unwilling to move a needle properly.
| projectazorian wrote:
| 1992 riots weren't perpetrated by migrants, to the extent
| they were involved it was as victims. Neither was any of
| the looting in 2020 to my knowledge.
|
| Btw, nothing significant was "burned down" in 2020 either.
| Some shops hit by looters closed for a while and eventually
| reopened. Fairfax was hard hit by looting and if you went
| there today you would have no clue that anything happened.
|
| The current events are primarily happening in an area that
| is full of state and federal government facilities, not
| really anyone's favorite spot. No looting either, there's
| nothing to loot. The demonstrators are burning Waymos and
| Bird scooters, better if it would not happen at all, but
| it's nobody's personal property.
| beyondHelp wrote:
| You are posting on a site, that is part of the problem of
| anti-government thinking without placing any other government
| structure in place.
| motorest wrote:
| > If illegal immigration is such a problem, why not fine
| businesses 5x salary for using the labor, for as long as it was
| used?
|
| The Nazis leveraged hatred towards minorities as a wedge to
| force their totalitarian control over Germany's state and
| society. They built up a ficticious enemy within, they inflamed
| society against that enemy, and proceeded to promise they would
| eliminate that enemy if the were granted total control over
| everyone and everything.
|
| It's no coincidence that Trump is targeting California to
| fabricate a crisis and rapidly escalate the issue he created
| himself, specially how he forced the unjustified and illegal
| deployment of national guard and the armed forces. The goal is
| clearly not illegal aliens standing next to Home Depots. The
| goal is to force a scenario where loyalists in the armed forces
| target any opposition. It's no coincidence Trump has been
| threatening the governor of California with prison for the
| crime of "running for elections" at the time he's announcing
| deploying armed forces in California without authorization or
| legal standing and against the will of the governor of
| California.
| timewizard wrote:
| > they inflamed society against that enemy
|
| They blamed them for pre-existing social problems. I feel the
| important context was that the government had to be
| significantly dysfunctional for the Nazi party to even exist.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| Would you describe the US government as functional?
| sigwinch wrote:
| So far, comparisons with routine life in Weimar Germany
| are a contortion.
| lostlogin wrote:
| There is an enemy, there are raids on civilians and due
| process has been abandoned.
|
| The military are now being used for police work, and the
| police are behaving like the military.
|
| This mob are creeping towards KristallMethNacht.
| watwut wrote:
| They also blamed them for non existent problems and for
| problems Nazi intentionally and consciously created.
| Xmd5a wrote:
| Hitler was elected as a dictator, at least in spirit.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator
| pseudalopex wrote:
| The Nazis had strong support. But Hitler was appointed.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The Nazis had strong support. But Hitler was appointed.
|
| Well, yeah, PM's (and the Chancellor in the German system
| at the time, and now, is a PM) are almost invariably
| appointed by the head of state after either a general
| election--or sometimes between them if an incumbent
| resigns or a vacancy occurs by other means--as the leader
| of the majority party (if any), the leader of the
| majority coalition (if there's no majority party but
| there is a majority coalition), or sometimes (and whether
| this is allowed and whether it makes a sooner next
| election than would otherwise be required varies) some
| minority party leader based on some combination of size
| of minority, support and opposition from other parties,
| and discretion of the head of state.
|
| And, yes, Hitler was first appointed as the last and
| weakest kind, but that's still effectively winning the
| tiebreaker set out for an ambiguous electoral result,
| since it could only happen because no other party or
| coalition could form a legislative majority.
| motorest wrote:
| > They blamed them for pre-existing social problems.
|
| Is immigration a new hot topic in the US?
|
| I mean, a few years ago the US government started wasting
| money building a wall on the US-Mexico border whose only
| purpose was propaganda and dog whistling.
|
| And is it really necessary to point out the obvious
| parallels between the Nazi's "vital state" propaganda and
| Trump's "Canada as 51st state" and "Greenland is ours"
| rhetoric?
|
| If they talk like Nazis and they goose-step like Nazis,
| what are they? I would ask if you'd start being concerned
| when they started rounding up random people off the
| streets, but apparently that's still not enough.
| kubb wrote:
| The Republican party is incentivized both to have illegal
| immigration, and to fight against illegal immigration.
|
| They act accordingly to those incentives.
| lazide wrote:
| Cheap workers that are also under constant threat of getting
| deported (and have no real legal recourse because of it)
| _are_ awfully convenient for many business models.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| crackdown on immigration is exactly to allow business to profit
| from informal and legal immigration.
|
| it's so widely know im unsure if you're really oblivious or
| being sarcastic. sorry.
| jonplackett wrote:
| Because they don't really care. It's just about creating
| divisions in society to keep people voting for people that do
| everything against their interests.
| matt-attack wrote:
| Or maybe they just got tired of millions of immigrants
| flaunting the law and overburdening the system? We had
| unprecedented levels of illegal immigration over the last
| four years. Do you think it went unnoticed and didn't
| adversely affect anyone?
|
| Why jump to these conspiracy notions about division and
| blatantly ignore the simplest and most obvious explanation.
| newdee wrote:
| Both can be true
| troyvit wrote:
| Honest question, because I don't see it here in Colorado:
| Who has it adversely affected? Crime rates among illegal
| immigrants are lower than the rest of the population [1]
| [2] [3] and illegal immigrants are the backbone of our
| agricultural system [4]
|
| So ... who is hurt and how badly are they hurt? Because
| when I see the amount of perfectly legal murder, robbery
| and torture happening in the U.S. [5] [6] [7] [8] I just
| don't understand what the big deal is. I guess it's
| whataboutism, but when we have limited resources, why are
| we using them for this specific problem? How bad is it
| compared to this other stuff?
|
| [1] https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/undocumented-
| immigrant-o... (the feds took it down -- gee I wonder why
| -- but the facts are in the permalink)
|
| [2] https://www.cato.org/blog/white-houses-misleading-
| error-ridd...
|
| [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7768760/
|
| [4] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-
| labor#lega...
|
| [5] https://www.techtarget.com/revcyclemanagement/feature/B
| reaki...
|
| [6] https://ij.org/press-release/new-report-finds-civil-
| forfeitu...
|
| [7] https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/07/27/whistleblo
| wer-e...
|
| [8]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#United_States
| const_cast wrote:
| > Do you think it went unnoticed and didn't adversely
| affect anyone?
|
| Coming as someone living in Texas - yes, it affects no one.
| It's always been an hallucination. We just attribute random
| things to "the illegals" when, in reality, they're not
| hurting anyone.
|
| In fact, if you've ever been in Texas, you'd know this
| state is run by illegals. I drive around and I see homes
| being built out the wazoo and who's on the roof? Huh? Who
| is it? It's not white people.
|
| I drive down 114 and they got 2 lanes closed for
| construction and I look over and what is working on the
| concrete? It's not white people. I stop by 7/11 to buy a
| coke and who checks me out?
|
| People just don't like "illegals" because they're racist.
| That's the hard truth, the pill a lot of y'all don't want
| to swallow.
| 4d4m wrote:
| Absolutely. Our country is built on the work of
| immigrants as much as anyone else. We should celebrate
| every hard worker that contributes with a path to
| citizenship.
| anonfordays wrote:
| Coming as someone living in Texas - yes, it affects no
| one. It's always been an hallucination. We just attribute
| random things to "the slaves" when, in reality, they're
| not hurting anyone.
|
| In fact, if you've ever been in Texas, you'd know this
| state is run by slaves. I ride around and I see fields
| being tilled out the wazoo and who's on the plow? Huh?
| Who is it? It's not white people.
|
| I ride down 114 and they got 2 bridges closed for
| construction and I look over and what is working on the
| stone? It's not white people. I stop by haberdashery to
| buy a needle and who checks me out?
|
| People just don't like "slaves" because they're racist.
| That's the hard truth, the pill a lot of y'all don't want
| to swallow.
| const_cast wrote:
| Yeah, we all know that republicans are deporting children
| for... humanitarian reasons? Really? That's what we're
| rolling with? Yeah, okay.
|
| Look, if you actually want to help marginalized groups,
| especially in their labor relations, you wouldn't be a
| Trumpie. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
|
| If we're talking about improving lives for immigrants -
| newsflash! - the left are the only ones even entertaining
| that. If anything, this comment perfectly encapsulates
| why Republicans are so fucking stupid.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Because their actions belie that narrative? If they went
| after employers, people wouldn't be coming here looking for
| jobs.
| nielsbot wrote:
| they're also rounding up legal asylum seekers.
| trilbyglens wrote:
| Because the system is designed to allow these people in a gray
| zone, so they do not have access to the same rights as citizens
| and therefore can be exploited. The problem is not illegal
| immigration. It's just a political football. Our economy would
| fily collapse without this cheap labor to exploit.
| trashtester wrote:
| It would not collapase. But it would shift some purchaing
| power from the middle class to the working class if all of
| them would leave, as working class salaries would go up even
| faster than the inflatino it would cause.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| Exactly. It would rebalance the value provided by blue
| collar work. They could finally demand a higher wage
| without being undercut by illegal workers.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| Our economy absolutely would collapse. Our entire farming
| industry exists because of heavily abused immigrant labor,
| and is a job that Americans refuse to take. We've made
| multiple swings and attempts at getting Americans to do
| this work [1] but it's low pay, low benefits and grueling
| work. Farmers literally could not afford the actual salary
| needed to attract people to do said labor, and it would
| cause food prices across the US to skyrocket.
|
| The only way this would stabilize is if the government came
| in and subsidized and socialized farm work heavily and that
| would also never happen.
|
| [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/31/6344421
| 95/wh...
| bombcar wrote:
| Of all illegals disappeared Thanos-style, the end result
| would be massively expensive certain crops, and a greater
| dependency on machine-farmable crops, like corn.
| ben_w wrote:
| And some weird severe-but-short-term economic volatility.
|
| Something along the lines of:
|
| Now nobody is picking fruits, all the fruits die on the
| tree/vine, so there's none of that in the supermarket and
| those farms go bankrupt. Also, most of those who were
| paid to butcher the cattle are gone, but the cows are
| still there, costing the farmers money, so those farms go
| bankrupt. And then so do the feed suppliers for cattle
| farmers that don't ranch (or do but need extra feed
| besides the grass). But everyone still needs to eat,
| which means there's correspondingly more demand for the
| stuff which is heavily mechanised, so prices for that go
| way up, but because this is an instant supply shock the
| average person is still hungry no matter what the prices
| are, unless the humans start eating alfalfa en-masse.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Why would it not happen? It would be yet another
| opportunity for the God King to give handouts to his
| subjects.
| anon025 wrote:
| Not only that, most of the construction and home services
| companies are usually the white American folks that come
| and give you a very inflated price and then send you the
| immigrants to do the actual hard work. It's crazy when
| you speak to the people doing the work how much they are
| getting paid vs how much you are paying.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| The middle class and the working class are the same thing.
| If you have to work to live, you are working class, it
| doesn't matter how much income you make or how many
| investment properties you own.
|
| The whole working class/middle class divide was made up by
| the rich to get you to vote against your interests, and
| propped up by pick-mes who want to feel like they're better
| than someone.
| neither_color wrote:
| The US refuses to admit it has always had an addiction to
| cheap labor so it entices desperate people to come over with
| the implicit assumption that if they keep their head down and
| are otherwise law-abiding it'll "look the other way." Some of
| them, after years of living on the outskirts of town,
| commuting 1.5 hours each day to back-breaking minimum wage
| jobs, and years without seeing their families, are able to
| scrounge up enough money to pay a lawyer thousands to help
| them get normalized. Only now they're being spawn-camped at
| court hearings too.
|
| If the US were more self-aware and honest it would expand
| existing guest worker programs and create new pathways for
| temp labor to work without obtaining citizenship the way
| Singapore and Middle Eastern countries do. They seem cruel
| but at least each side of the equation knows what it's
| getting and they can even visit home every year! But
| Americans' hubristic tendency is to look at a place like
| Singapore or some other new skyline in the middle east or
| Asia and declare smugly "borderline slaves built that."
| riskable wrote:
| The only reason we don't reform our work visa programs for
| cheap labor is because business owners do NOT want to have
| to pay these people minimum wage, pay taxes on them, or pay
| to insure them (workman's comp and similar). That's it.
| That's all there is to it.
|
| As soon as you institute such a program businesses could
| get sued for illegal labor conditions, abuses of employees,
| sexual abuse of employees, violations of contract law, and
| more. Their expenses for imported labor would probably
| triple.
|
| Would such businesses close as a result? Maybe a handful
| would but the _real_ impact would be a huge drop in profits
| --also known as a greater share of profits going to
| workers.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| > Americans' hubristic tendency is to look at a place like
| Singapore or some other new skyline in the middle east or
| Asia and declare smugly "borderline slaves built that."
|
| FWIW, I bet the part of the population saying that is also
| the part opposed to the current immigration enforcement,
| namely liberals.
| ChiMan wrote:
| The problem with that solution is that it would work too well,
| making it unattractive to lawmakers who need the issue to
| maintain their careers.
| LastTrain wrote:
| Because a certain party in this country must always have a
| scapegoat, it isn't any more complicated than that.
| thrawa8387336 wrote:
| There would be turbo-inflation
| Thorrez wrote:
| Why?
| thinkingtoilet wrote:
| Because cheap immigrant labor is the backbone of this
| country in many ways, especially when it comes to
| harvesting and processing our food supply. They could stop
| immigration tomorrow if they wanted to. $10,000 per person
| per day fine to agriculture companies. They don't want to.
| They are hate-filled people who want the poorest most
| vulnerable people to suffer. Just like Jesus would have
| wanted.
| transcriptase wrote:
| I find it interesting how the same political crowd that
| pushes hardest for workers' rights and higher minimum
| wages will also turn around and seriously argue that
| illegal immigrants are needed (to be paid under the table
| below minimum wage), otherwise food prices would spike.
| aaronbaugher wrote:
| It's incoherent, just like the corporate claim that we
| need moar immigration and moar imports to keep prices
| down at Walmart, even if that means none of us make
| enough to buy anything. Both sides have to dress up their
| real motives, one pretending to care about the immigrant
| and the other pretending to care about the consumer. Both
| are lying.
| thinkingtoilet wrote:
| Yes, the side that is fighting for immigrant rights and
| due process is lying about caring about immigrants.
| Excellent point.
| lupusreal wrote:
| > _fighting for immigrant rights_
|
| The side that's trying to maintain a population of
| illegal immigrants and explains that this is necessarily
| because it is necessary to have a pool of workers willing
| to work for illegal wages.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Republicans. Republicans want an exploitable underclass.
| They wouldn't have worked so hard at protecting large
| employers of undocumented workers (like Trump) or worked
| so hard to kill compromise legislation that would have
| moved the needle on enforcement.
|
| Trump needed immigration to go unsolved in 2024 to have
| something to run on.
|
| Liberals may make the point that removing millions of
| workers from the country would be bad for the economy,
| but you're being downright disingenuous if you suggest
| that is the primary reason people are upset about the
| raids and deportation.
| viraptor wrote:
| > and seriously argue that illegal immigrants are needed
|
| Nothing GP wrote suggests that. Listing some realities
| and effects doesn't mean you approve of them.
| transcriptase wrote:
| I know, that's why I said political crowd rather than
| directing it at them specifically. I've seen it come up
| often recently.
| thinkingtoilet wrote:
| I'm stating the reality of the world. I would be happy if
| the lowest paid workers in our country got paid a living
| wage. However, you know this, you're just upset.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| What the parent comment meant is that business owners
| love the illegal immigration status quo so they can rip
| workers off overtime and wages because those workers
| can't complain to the government.
|
| Your analysis is simply off. The side pushing for worker
| and immigrant rights are not saying "please keep
| immigrants here so we can exploit them more".
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Yep. That is the real message here. Corporations are the ones
| that hire immigrants, to pay less. And Corporations are the
| ones that off shore manufacturing, to pay less to foreign
| workers. But lets blame the workers, for working?
| Georgelemental wrote:
| Because that would require Congress to do something useful
| lemoncookiechip wrote:
| Because this isn't about that. This is about having a perceived
| enemy that only you can fight. If it wasn't immigrants (legal
| or illegal), it would be a different group, within or outside
| of your borders.
|
| It's fascism 101.
| snarf21 wrote:
| Yeah, the whole platform is about Othering. The greatest
| trick the rich ever pulled was convincing the middle class
| that the poor are the cause of all their problems.
| falcor84 wrote:
| I'm confused. I don't recall anyone ever saying that we
| need to get rid of the poor, but rather that we should try
| to make conditions better for everyone such that fewer
| people are poor. Did I miss my scheduled indoctrination
| message?
| dfxm12 wrote:
| _I don 't recall anyone ever saying..._
|
| Don't focus on words. Focus on actions. For example, the
| action of _deploying the military on Americans_ does not
| make conditions better for us. Quite the contrary. The
| action of _having a military parade for the president 's
| birthday_ is expensive and doesn't benefit us. That money
| could be going to education, school lunches, Medicaid,
| building bridges, etc. But it isn't. it is only going to
| stroke the president's ego. Most of his actions, EO's,
| deals, bills, etc., fall into this category.
| dotancohen wrote:
| I don't live in the US so please excuse me if I'm
| understanding this wrong. > deploying the
| military on Americans
|
| This does not look like the military being deployed on
| Americans, rather it looks like the military being
| deployed on rioters. Whether those rioters are Americans
| or illegal immigrants really doesn't matter for the
| purposes of reestablishing order.
| ty6853 wrote:
| I don't know it re-establishes order but rather teaches
| the populace to up the ante. While I don't condone
| repeating history, it is instructive to look at history.
| When this military-type response was done at Waco,
| Timothy McViegh looked at that (he was there) and took
| out 10x as many feds as they took out citizens. And it
| sparked a very long period of militia movements, etc.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Are Feds not citizens in the US?
|
| You guys have a stark division between the government
| employees and the not-government-employees. Isn't the US
| government "for the people, by the people"? Serious
| question. I'm not disputing what you said, rather I'm
| trying to understand it.
| ty6853 wrote:
| No feds aren't citizens in the US in any conventional
| sense. They have qualified immunity and a special kind of
| sovereign immunity that even state and local police do
| not have. They can initiate violence whereas citizens
| cannot. They can shoot a fleeing person as a citizen
| cannot. They can lie to you freely but if you lie to them
| (their interpretation of a lie), a felony. They generally
| can't be held accountable unless they are dumb enough to
| say the quiet parts out loud, and even then usually not.
|
| They are also effectively impossible to sue, so you'll
| probably never see any justice in the courts if they act
| unlawfully. Even if manage to get the lawsuit going they
| will play fuck-fuck games with jurisdiction until you
| lose (as I found out when trying to sue feds for
| stripping me naked, cavity searching me, and executing a
| fraudulent warrant on a fabricated dog alert -- no one
| would take my case because they had lost similar cases
| every time).
| sleepybrett wrote:
| They weren't rioting until the crackdown on the peaceful
| protest started.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Yes, if we focus on actions, the action of causing public
| disorder is a glaring example of things we do not want in
| civil society. We also do not want tanks in our streets.
| Both seem like bad things, honestly, so I'm wondering how
| we got here.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| _I 'm wondering how we got here._
|
| Among other reasons, we got here because the government
| only seems to respond to big business and the oligarch
| class, but not the rest of us.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| This is a well-understood and popular problem. I've tried
| the five-whys on this, and always end up at unnecessary
| escalation and righteous idealism (not by any particular
| party or person, just kind of by everyone). But the book
| Righteous Mind does a better job on this issue than I
| ever will.
| mindslight wrote:
| These events are not the opposites you're implying. Both
| are being directly caused by the same person! Trump is
| needlessly escalating the situation, to create a divisive
| crisis, for which he will force his "solution" of even
| more chaos and destruction. This guy turns everything he
| touches to shit, which should have been strongly apparent
| to everyone based on his first administration. Too many
| people were unwilling to put aside their gripes with the
| government and listen to their fellow citizens telling
| them this is exactly what would happen.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I dunno. Trump is a proximal cause, but is it the root
| cause?
| mindslight wrote:
| "dunno" what? There are many causes for why people wrote
| off their country and turned to Trump. I understand,
| sympathize, and even agree with many of the frustrations!
| But the fact remains that people listened to the siren
| song of a hollow con man instead of their fellow citizens
| telling them what a disaster his first term was, and his
| second term would surely be. There are root causes for
| that too, and they are endlessly debated in threads about
| social media polarization and the like. But in the
| context of this topic where American troops are now
| pointing guns at Americans, it is important to keep the
| focus on Trump and the need for him to be deposed.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I'm concerned that if you follow root causes enough, you
| get to statements like
|
| > it is important to keep the focus on Trump and the need
| for him to be deposed.
|
| being causal for more Trumps to be elected.
| mindslight wrote:
| What alternative do you see to the current events? The
| only one I see is remaining quiet and tacitly supporting
| fascism.
|
| This guy is not going to stop on his own. He's attuned to
| operating in a business context where there is some other
| singular entity who might back down when the damage from
| the chaos gets too high (or he backs down when the pain
| is too high for him, like with tariffs). But in a society
| based on individual liberty, backing down is not on the
| table until the whole society has been subjugated.
|
| Longer term, if we actually manage to get through this to
| meaningful elections, one would hope that the abject
| failure of Trumpism would make enough of the electorate
| wary of more "strong" man fascists promising easy
| answers. This should have happened after his first term,
| but Trump's main skill is deflecting blame and Covid was
| one heck of an excuse.
|
| And as far as underlying issues driving polarization and
| disconnect from reality, those are going to be there
| regardless of my statements.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| The top level comment was me wondering how we got here.
| This has nothing to do with what we should do now. You
| decide that for yourself, but I see wisdom in looking at
| how we got here and trying to not do _more_ of that.
| mindslight wrote:
| There are many directions to come at that from,
| discussing most of them will end up insanely political
| and polarized, and they have been discussed quite often
| in other threads. So it's a bit weird to be throwing that
| open-ended question out in the discussion of a specific
| alarming escalation - as if we have just been missing
| some simple answers that could have been done to pull up
| from this, or avoid it in the future.
|
| I'd say we are at the point where the people who enabled
| the fascists just have to accept they were wrong and take
| their licks for the damage they've caused to our country.
| Similar to the bits of soul-searching that are going on
| amongst Democrats about the overbearing DEI groupthink.
| Will some small reconciliation grow into a trend and
| create a lasting deescalation, or do we have to continue
| working to actively reject the extremism? Let's worry
| about that when the mad king no longer has the reigns of
| power, lest good-faith attempts hold us back from getting
| to that state where any of this might matter.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| Do not split.
|
| It's fine if you personally don't support more extreme
| actions. Time has shown again and again the most
| important thing civilians can do is to refuse to condemn
| other civilians who are acting in the same goals as you.
| We must focus on why everyone is acting in those goals:
| we have armed, masked men invading communities, who have
| made attempts at trafficking children, stolen away
| elderly women, detained citizens accused of no crime, and
| are being incredibly disruptive throughout the country.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > who have made attempts at trafficking children
|
| I'm going to have to see a source for that one.
|
| _Removed_ children? Sure. _Trafficked_ them? Prove it.
| lovich wrote:
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/deported-parents-may-
| los...
|
| Done, lose the sardonic attitude when you don't know the
| facts
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| That article says is that _one kid_ has been trafficked,
| _since the 1980s_. That 's the most you can use it to
| demonstrate. It certainly does not support KittenInABox's
| claim.
| lovich wrote:
| Oh yea sorry, I count removing children from their
| families and then adopting those children out as human
| trafficking, like when Russia does it to Ukrainian
| children
| KittenInABox wrote:
| What the fuck were the feds doing trying to get at kids
| in schools in April, lying about having permission to be
| there? Sure looks like attempting to traffic them to me.
|
| https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-04-09/feder
| al-...
|
| https://www.k12dive.com/news/ice-agents-lausd-schools-
| parent...
|
| https://www.k12dive.com/news/DHS-ICE-HSI-LAUSD-
| immigration-e...
| ChicagoDave wrote:
| This is the lie. At every step, immigration agents and
| police have instigated the violence. There are no riots.
| People are protesting and blocking access to vulnerable
| people. LA is not on fire. These incidents are in very
| small geographic areas even though media would suggest
| it's widespread.
|
| People are pushing back when rubber bullets and tear gas
| are being used, illegally.
|
| U.S. citizens have a right to protest. This is baked into
| our constitution.
| code_for_monkey wrote:
| You give away the game right here. You don't consider
| 'rioters' americans, you're already othering them right
| in the question. Fascism 101!
| freedomben wrote:
| GP said they don't live in the US, it's possible English
| isn't even their first language. If they are a non-native
| speaker and just made a translation/wording mistake, you
| might feel like a pretty big asshole twisting that to
| call them a fascist (which word btw, is pretty overloaded
| and has become essentially meaningless to a large number
| of people).
|
| It's also quite possible they mean "Americans" in a
| general sense in that the Marines are not being turned
| loose on the American public. They are being focused on
| the rioters specifically.
|
| Obligatory self-declaration since you and many others
| will probably jump to conclusions about my opinion (as
| for whatever reason, we seem incapable of nuance even to
| the point of understanding that not everything in life is
| completely black or white), even though I've said nothing
| of it until now: I think Trump's actions are grotesque,
| authoritarian, and fascist, and it really pisses me off.
| johnQdeveloper wrote:
| > I can understand having the military in the streets,
| when the news is full of people waving foreign flags
| while torching vehicles in the streets.
|
| Yes but the news (in the US) is a fully for profit
| organizations most of which are owned by the right-wing
| folks. (i.e. Much of the newspapers, CNN, Fox News are
| run by boards that are right-leaning)
|
| They are intentionally pushing a narrative that the
| family I have in the area believes is simply a very small
| number of incidents that are nowhere near as bad as what
| is presented.
|
| > This does not look like the military being deployed on
| Americans, rather it looks like the military being
| deployed on rioters. Whether those rioters are Americans
| or illegal immigrants really doesn't matter for the
| purposes of reestablishing order.
|
| https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
| reports/poss...
|
| I suggest you stop looking at this through the lens of an
| Israeli and do some research on the US system of laws :)
|
| Deploying the military "on rioters" and whether they are
| "Americans or illegals" is actually quite important.
| Using the military as a police force is illegal and the
| only real open legal question is if using it against
| "invaders" who are not here legally is technically
| allowed.
|
| You are acting like these people are Hamas, when in
| reality, they are nowhere close to even 5% as dangerous.
| susiecambria wrote:
| And the media and federal government citing the waving of
| foreign flags is another distraction.
|
| As Americans, and people living in the USA, we are
| allowed to do this. It's a Constitutional protection.
|
| Again, all of this is a distraction from what the prez is
| doing.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| For the most part, the protestors are peaceful, not
| rioters, and there are plenty of scenes of police and
| national guard being marshaled against them. In one clip,
| a couple dozen police officers opened fire on a kid with
| a skateboard. In another, they open fire on a journalist
| giving a live report. In another, they're beating back
| protestors holding signs.
|
| And "reestablishing order" is an obvious farce, because
| the Trump administration was deliberately provoking this
| conflict by sending in masked agents to abduct people and
| at least in one instance, running over a protestor. The
| administration has been consistently escalating the
| conflict, which is not something you do to "reestablish
| order", but it is absolutely a tactic of 20th century
| authoritarians to acquire emergency powers which they
| then use to prevent elections, jail political opponents,
| etc.
| HillRat wrote:
| _It looks like the military being deployed on rioters_
|
| Leaving aside the equivalence of "protesting" with
| "rioting," the United States has robust Constitutional,
| common-law and statutory guardrails against the use of
| the military domestically. _The US military cannot,
| absent an insurrection in which regular legal order
| cannot be maintained, be deployed against US residents._
| The use of the military in the past has been limited to
| what were deemed by federal and state officials full
| insurrections (e.g., the Whiskey Rebellion), or, in the
| civil rights era, in response to governors affirmatively
| refusing to enforce the law regarding an end to
| segregation and the integration of public institutions.
| In this case we have state and local officials explicitly
| stating that the factual predicates of an insurrection
| aren 't being satisfied (the protests cover a few square
| blocks in a metropolitan area that by itself is larger
| than Lebanon or Kosovo, in a state larger than Japan or
| Sweden). While courts traditionally give deference to
| executive determinations of this sort, they aren't beyond
| judicial review, and this is (I would argue) clearly
| pretextual.
|
| What we're seeing here, conversely, is an attempt to
| sidestep this clear principle through not-particularly-
| clever tricks and semantic gamesmanship; for example,
| mobilizing Marines to "protect federal property," but
| then DHS officially asking DOD to give active duty forces
| arrest power. This is clearly unconstitutional and
| illegal, but, as with much we've seen recently, the hope
| appears to be that if you change the facts on the ground
| quickly enough, the clear illegality of the actions can
| be ignored.
|
| In addition, the federalization of a state National Guard
| _against the will of the state_ is unprecedented; I don
| 't know of any previous example of this happening. In the
| American system, even though the National Guard is a
| vestige of the old state militias, it's clear that the
| states are at least assumed to have plenary authority
| over their own forces absent an invasion or insurrection.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Leaving aside the equivalence of "protesting" with
| "rioting,"
|
| Is not burning cars crossing the line from protesting to
| rioting?
| atakan_gurkan wrote:
| It is the other way around. The military is being
| deployed on Americans. Whether they are rioters or not
| doesn't matter for establishing an authoritarian state.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Since you're not American, a brief overview of our
| military:
|
| 1. We have 5 or 6 branches of military. The important one
| here is the national guard, ones meant to aid Americans
| in emergency or crisis.
|
| 2. The other branches have huge limits on when the
| federal government can deploy them domestically The Posse
| Comitatus Act that came as a result of the US civil war
| covers this.so having marines being deployed is a huge
| overreach.
|
| 3. The vast majority of the time, the national guard is
| managed by the state Governor, and Gavin Newsom has
| explicitly opposed this decision. The federal government
| taking command of the national guard is an exploit of The
| Insurrection Act that's been going on for a while.
|
| All thst context being given: Newsom is right. This isn't
| trying to establish order, this is a meticulous
| escalation on a conservative president in a liberal city
| to make a show of force. For reference, there's
| reportedly some 600 rioters and they sent out 2000 (now
| 4000) national guard and 709 marines. This is all without
| including the LAPD which is comprised of over 8000
| officers.
|
| The amount of money and resources spent on this is utter
| overkill. And part of the point. They want an excuse to
| call martial law so badly.
| ElectronCharge wrote:
| > The action of having a military parade for the
| president's birthday is expensive and doesn't benefit us.
|
| The funds for the "United States Army 250th Anniversary
| Parade" were allocated before President Trump was
| elected, during the Biden debacle. The fact that it falls
| on June 14th is what is called a "coincidence".
|
| Be careful about blindly accepting propaganda as fact.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I would agree with your "coincidence" explanation if it
| weren't for the consistent pattern of "coincidences" in
| which Trump does something dictator-like and right-
| wingers rush to his defense with "coincidence". It's just
| a coincidence that all of these foreign diplomats invest
| in his meme coin or some family business and then
| suddenly are granted meetings with the president! It's
| just a coincidence that Qatar sends him a luxury airliner
| and his rhetoric about Qatar does a 180 degree flip! It's
| just a coincidence that he tried to interfere in a
| presidential election! It's just a coincidence that he
| consistently claims Article I and Article III powers for
| himself! It's just a coincidence that he's rounding up
| people and sending them to foreign prisons!
|
| I've never met someone so unlucky /s
| ElectronCharge wrote:
| Are you claiming that the Army anniversary date being on
| DJT's birthday ISN'T a coincidence?
|
| That must take some crazy mental gymnastics...
|
| As to your other points, most aren't coincidences, though
| some aren't real either.
| weberc2 wrote:
| > Are you claiming that the Army anniversary date being
| on DJT's birthday ISN'T a coincidence? That must take
| some crazy mental gymnastics...
|
| You should read the post you're responding to. It clearly
| addresses this very question.
|
| > though some aren't real either
|
| I think you mean, "though I'm not familiar with some of
| those cases"--otherwise a citation is needed.
| 20after4 wrote:
| The date is entirely unimportant. I suppose it's just a
| coincidence that Trump is following project 2025, step by
| step, since day one1. And also a coincidence that many of
| the people who wrote project 2025 are in the Trump
| administration23. It's just a coincidence, but of course
| trump didn't and doesn't know anything about it. Stop
| playing stupid.
|
| 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-
| project-2025-first-100-da... 2.
| https://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-
| williams/5120168... 3.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cnyv9qNQSI
| ElectronCharge wrote:
| > The date is entirely unimportant.
|
| The date is exactly what was being discussed. I was
| responding to the mischaracterization of "a military
| parade for the president's birthday", which is factually
| inaccurate. Plus, the plan was made during Biden's term.
|
| > I suppose it's just a coincidence that Trump is
| following project 2025, step by step, since day one
|
| He's following Agenda 47, which was published on his
| campaign website. He stated he agreed with some of
| Project 2025, but not all of it.
|
| It's unsurprising that some involved in writing Project
| 2025 are working for the Trump admin.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > He stated he agreed with some of Project 2025, but not
| all of it.
|
| He's stated every stance you can on 2025. Heard of it,
| never heard of it, love it, hate it, etc.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+never+heard+of+2025
| &oq...
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _The funds for the "United States Army 250th
| Anniversary Parade" were allocated before President Trump
| was elected, during the Biden debacle._
|
| Um: "The Army's 250th birthday celebration has been in
| the works for two years, Army officials said. _But adding
| a parade was the Trump White House's idea, so planning
| for that began only two months ago._ " (Emphasis added.)
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-military-
| parad...
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| Maybe not "get rid of" but plenty of other fingers are
| pointed at them. They get "free housing" (which they fill
| with drugs and kids), they get "free food" (which they
| use instead to buy alcohol), they get "free cellphones"
| (which they use to run drug rings), etc.
|
| It's usually about how the poor get Foo for free, which
| everyone else has to pay for, and also about how they
| misuse Foo for nefarious reasons. The commons then get
| riled up, either because "Hey, why do _they_ get free
| housing when I have to spend tons of money? " or because
| of all the nefarious things they supposedly do.
| dylan604 wrote:
| When you say "they" are you talking about the local US
| citizens doing these things, because "they" are doing it
| too. Comments like yours that word it so that it sounds
| like all crimes are being committed non-citizens which is
| such a fallacy it's laughable.
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| I used the word "they" on purpose, because the target
| seems to change often. It might be lower class, it might
| be immigrants (illegal and even legal), it might be
| $racial_minority, political faction, etc,. As long as
| it's a group that people can blame, it works.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| If people say the "free Foo" being offered, I wage many
| would choose to keep buying better quality Foo. These
| people are not offered luxury. It can barely be
| considered essentials.
|
| Also: Food stamps can't buy alcohol (let alone drugs).
| righthand wrote:
| Go ask the same people railing about immigrants, what
| their thoughts on homeless people might be.
| vel0city wrote:
| > we should try to make conditions better for everyone
| such that fewer people are poor
|
| Explain how work requirements to qualify for Medicaid
| makes conditions better to ensure there are fewer poor
| people. Doesn't this just harm people who can't work due
| to disability, and practically ensure they will _never_
| get better enough to work and contribute to society?
|
| Sure saves a lot of money for wealthy people though.
| ETH_start wrote:
| The work requirements only apply to the able-bodied.
| Coddling people like this isn't doing them any favors.
| 542354234235 wrote:
| But isn't Medicaid just healthcare. Being able to go to a
| doctor when you are sick or injured doesn't really sound
| like coddling someone, "able-bodied" or not. Maybe I am
| misunderstanding and Medicaid is actually some new fancy
| handbag.
| msgodel wrote:
| If finding work is this hard maybe we should be slowing
| down immigration.
| vel0city wrote:
| Most here aren't arguing it's exceptionally difficult to
| find some kind of a job or education opportunity to meet
| the requirements. We're mostly arguing about adding all
| the additional bureaucracy to add additional requirements
| that will need to be documented and validated. And
| arguing that many who should be eligible for exceptions
| will end up not eligible because of some paperwork or
| bureaucratic oversight.
|
| There is about the same amount of money allotted to help
| states stand up new programs to validate these
| requirements as the federal cost of Trump's birthday
| party.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| The obvious answer is education and vocational training
| programs to help people develop skills that are needed
| today. Unfortunately, the people most affected by the
| changing demands of the modern economy are also people
| who have been negatively polarized against education.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| We're on a tech forum and Trump approved of more H1b's to
| be hired this year. What does that say about his policies
| to create American jobs?
| thrance wrote:
| > Coddling people like this isn't doing them any favors.
|
| Yes. Yes it is.
|
| Pray you never find yourself in a situation where you
| can't work anymore or rely on anyone. Because under
| Trump's, this means guaranteed death. In the richest
| country ever.
|
| Trump, speaking to his nephew about their disabled son
| [1]: "Maybe you should just let him die"
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/jul/24
| /trump-...
| Goronmon wrote:
| _The work requirements only apply to the able-bodied._
|
| How does the government know whether any specific person
| is "able-bodied"?
| andrekandre wrote:
| > How does the government know whether any specific
| person is "able-bodied"?
|
| easy, they create a new bureaucracy with lots of
| paperwork and inspections/visits to handle it all...
| vel0city wrote:
| Costs that will be borne by the state and become
| unavailable to actually assist and help people.
|
| Bonus points: we'll be able to remove people that should
| have had eligibility but failed to get the right
| paperwork in place. And we all know those who are
| severely disabled and unable to work are always excellent
| on filing their paperwork correctly and on-time and
| always make required meetings.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Don't you love all this government efficiency this year?
| ModernMech wrote:
| Putting a burden on people who aren't able bodied is
| harmful to them, because it means you accept some
| threshold of fasle negatives -- people who _aren 't_ able
| bodied but who will _not_ qualify for the support. What
| will they do? They can 't work because they aren't able
| bodied, but they can't qualify for assistance because the
| government doesn't think they're broken enough. That
| person will become homeless, and then their existence is
| essentially criminalized in many places.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Ahh, so you fell for the spin. What about the "able
| bodied" laid off in the economy and no one wants to hire?
| What about the "able bodied" who just graduated and can't
| even get an interview because everyone wants 5 years of
| experience? What about the "able bodied" who can do basic
| math and realize that $8/hour can no in fact pay for rent
| that sky rocketed to $1200 a month?
|
| Business and removing jobs and being rewarded with tax
| breaks while American workers can't find anything. Whose
| fault is that?
| sigwinch wrote:
| I look for the message of helping the poor, but it's
| frustrating that politicians can evade it and their self-
| attained devotion to Christianity go unchallenged.
|
| The phrases to look for are "infested" and "purge". Some
| politicians consider low-income to be a character of a
| person or a group (all the way up to a nation). Those
| same politicians laud language from Hitler about
| infestations and metaphors of racial purity.
| ETH_start wrote:
| Jesus didn't believe in IRS prisons. Don't look to
| politicians to impose Christian beliefs on people.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| You should try telling that to Ohio as of late.
| ty6853 wrote:
| "we should try to make conditions better for everyone
| such that fewer people are poor" and similar arguments is
| how the government scams you and everyone else into their
| racket. You always had the option to give to the poor,
| you didn't need a mob going in your pockets to do that.
|
| "But muh roads and hospitals and police." Lol, that is
| covered by the ~0.5% of my salary I pay in property taxes
| and a little extra in use taxes and county and state
| sales tax. The federal portion, what do I get? Massive
| subsidies for people who stick their boot down my throat,
| military provocations that make us all far less safer,
| the worlds largest prison population (and near the top
| per capita). None of it makes sense -- the stuff that
| matters was achieved with the feds spending 2% of the gdp
| (and I might add, pretty much open immigration).
|
| "Helping the poor" is one of the worst mistakes the USA
| ever undertook.
| vel0city wrote:
| > You always had the option to give to the poor
|
| History shows we've historically been pretty shitty at
| doing that at an individual level.
|
| > The federal portion, what do I get?
|
| Ignoring FICA, a large chunk is debt servicing, public
| health, earned income tax credits, food assistance, SSI,
| science programs, global trade security, and more. Most
| isn't "people who stick their boot down [your] throat",
| unless you're someone looking to abuse workers or food
| production or happens to be outside in LA these days.
| zzzeek wrote:
| not "the poor". _immigrants_
|
| here's the correct indoctrination message
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/us/politics/trump-fox-
| int...
|
| > Former President Donald J. Trump, in an interview
| broadcast Sunday, doubled down on his description of
| immigrants as "poisoning the blood" of the country,
| language that echoes Hitler.
|
| > "Why do you use words like 'vermin' and 'poisoning of
| the blood'?" Howard Kurtz, the media critic and
| interviewer, asked on Fox News. "The press, as you know,
| immediately reacts to that by saying, 'Well, that's the
| kind of language that Hitler and Mussolini used.'"
|
| > "Because our country is being poisoned," Mr. Trump
| responded.
| deeg wrote:
| "They're eating the dogs. They're eating the cats."
|
| That was the president lying on a nationally televised
| debate, the purpose of which was to lay the groundwork
| for exporting poor people who were here legally.
| jasondigitized wrote:
| "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than
| the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his
| pocket" - Lyndon Johnson
| ryandrake wrote:
| This one isn't even about middle class vs. poor. The
| immigration crackdowns are very popular across the entire
| (R) electorate, regardless of their wealth. It's all about
| picking out-groups, making them into enemies, and
| inflicting cruelty on them. That's what that side really
| wants out of their government. They have a long list of
| perceived enemies who they are expecting to be able to
| deliver cruelty to once they're done with immigrants.
| matt-attack wrote:
| Perceived enemy? Even the most liberal of cities touting
| themselves as "sanctuary cities" had to pivot and declare
| they simply cannot handle the influx.
|
| 12million immigrants came into the country during the Biden
| administration. This type of load on the system does not go
| unnoticed. NYC for example was drastically transformed.
|
| Why do you think it's just a "perceived" problem?
| kstrauser wrote:
| That's a lie. The actual number was closer to 4 million.
| https://www.macrotrends.net/global-
| metrics/countries/usa/uni...
| robomartin wrote:
| That page is a joke. Ignoring reality does not
| manufacture a new reality. Four million might be the
| legal migration count, hard to say.
|
| We had caravans of tens of thousands of people constantly
| streaming into the US for four years. The video evidence
| is out there for everyone to see. News outlets that did
| not engage in hiding reality and promoting falsehoods had
| crews at the border every day for four years collecting
| video evidence of what was going on.
|
| If you care about understanding the truth, go to the US
| Customs and Border Protection website and look around.
| You can also cross check with Homeland Security and other
| official sources. And, yes, you will find data that
| predates the Trump administration...so you can't blame
| bias. For example, if I remember correctly, there were
| over THREE MILLION unauthorized entries in 2024.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Imagine how long a caravan with an extra 8 million people
| would be. I mean, I've been to a Huskers football game
| and seen what the exit looked like, and this would be
| 100x more.
|
| If such a thing were being reported by multiple reputable
| sources, I'd be less inclined to roll my eyes at the
| preposterous idea.
| robomartin wrote:
| What are you talking about?
|
| We had an average of 250K people per month coming into
| the country for 48 months by land an air. The relevant
| government agencies have published the statistics, even
| going back to Biden era reports. You can believe anything
| you want, but thinking that it was only four million is a
| delusion.
|
| OK, even if I play your game and we say it was "only"
| four million (ridiculous). Here's the problem:
|
| That means 88K people per month for 48 months breaking
| our laws. Four million people entering the country
| without permission has a very simple name: Invasion.
|
| Even worse, unless we create 88K new jobs per month for
| 48 months, these people are, by definition, unemployed.
| Our published unemployment statistics somehow
| conveniently ignore this fact. And, the other fact that
| we ignore is that the US has not created an additional
| 88K jobs per month over the 48 months of the Biden
| administration. The best we did was to recover the 10
| million jobs lost during the pandemic.
|
| At 12 million, that is 250K new jobs required to support
| them. The US is NOT AT ALL anywhere close to that growth
| rate, not even enough for 88K new workers per month.
|
| That aside, as a resident of Los Angeles, I have seen the
| increase in crime (a neighbor's home, for example, was
| broken into by a couple of illegal immigrants). In
| addition to that, these destructive demonstrations full
| of Mexican, Guatemalan and Salvadorian flags are as tone
| deaf as can be. Throwing cinder blocks at police officers
| on the road and highway (surprised nobody died) isn't
| going to do anything positive for anyone's cause,
| justified or not.
|
| This is madness and it has to stop. What's worse, is that
| these people are protesting (and wanting to protect)
| criminals. The government of the state and city are also
| on the side of criminals. Here's a partial list of who
| was detained in Los Angeles and who these demonstrators
| want released into our city:
|
| https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/06/08/ice-captures-worst-
| worst...
|
| Yeah. Right. Time to realign your world view. This is
| stupid.
| V__ wrote:
| A DHS post from 2025 is not reliable information, just
| reading the headline should be enough to notice that. The
| number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. has
| been more or less stable for the last 20 years:
| https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-
| we-k...
| seadan83 wrote:
| The people chucking cinder blocks and protestors are
| unaffiliated. That is guilt by association, a logical
| fallacy.
|
| Seeing immigrants and perceiving an increased in crime,
| and citing that they are related is post facto
| rationalization fallacy.
|
| Let's see... what other logical fallacies are in here.
| Oh.. people emigrate and die, so the accumulation of
| numbers is not valid nor does that handle double
| counting.
|
| AFAIK a strong US economy generates around 250k jobs per
| month. Further, there were more jobs created under Biden
| than were lost during the pandemic.
|
| I'd also suggest if this all were a big deal, illegal
| entry ought to be elevated from a civil infraction. It is
| more severe in the eyes of the law to drive 25 hour than
| it is to overstay a visa.
| robomartin wrote:
| > The people chucking cinder blocks and protestors are
| unaffiliated.
|
| How can you possibly know that?
|
| > Let's see... what other logical fallacies are in here
|
| Not a logical fallacy, but the most incomprehensible
| development over the years is that somehow large numbers
| of people think it is OK for people to just pour into the
| US as they wish, no controls, no admission criteria,
| nothing. And yet, the same people understand that this is
| not acceptable anywhere else in the world.
|
| Clearly there's nothing I can say to help people who are
| firmly chained inside the cave looking at shadows. The
| indoctrination is way too powerful. Some of us try, but,
| sadly, the only way this insanity will pass is for people
| to gain clarity on their own. Not sure what it will take.
| Time will tell.
|
| Perhaps this is your idea of what this country needs to
| become?
|
| https://i.imgur.com/JcjpHKe.png
|
| Not going to happen. No way.
| lazyeye wrote:
| The sources you consider "reputable" lie all the
| time...by cherry-picking, obsfucating, mis-direction,
| distorting, half-truths etc. They of course, flat-out lie
| too quite regularly too.
| skeaker wrote:
| This is a bad argument because it could very easily go
| either way. Post any source of yours for the 12 million
| number and I'll just as easily say it's fake too.
| lazyeye wrote:
| Exactly but pretending unreliable sources are reliable is
| a bad argument too.
|
| We are left in a very, very bad place when the media
| can't be relied on to tell the truth. But here we are..
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| > Ignoring reality does not manufacture a new reality.
|
| I wish we could tell that to Trump.
|
| >We had caravans of tens of thousands of people
| constantly streaming into the US for four years. T
|
| Okay, and Biden deported more people than Trump's first
| term. Is that fact a joke too?
|
| >go to the US Customs and Border Protection website and
| look around.
|
| Okay, what am I looking for? The most recent news update
| was June 5th about building a wall in Arizona. I thought
| that 2016 narrative was over?
|
| >if I remember correctly, there were over THREE MILLION
| unauthorized entries in 2024.
|
| And
|
| >In Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, there were 271,484 individuals
| removed from the US by ICE (Immigration and Customs
| Enforcement). This number represents an increase of
| nearly 90% compared to the previous fiscal year. This
| data includes removals by ICE's Enforcement and Removal
| Operations (ERO).
|
| Why are we acting like Biden did nothing?
| atombender wrote:
| The New York Times put it at about 2.4m/year, or around
| 10m total:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/briefing/us-
| immigration-s....
| kstrauser wrote:
| That's gross immigration, not net. People leave, too. The
| government's numbers show the net being approximately
| +1M/year.
| vel0city wrote:
| > declare they simply cannot handle the influx
|
| They cannot handle it with the resources being given. This
| is true for the red states like Texas and what not, the
| social services we do have struggle to handle the load. But
| _we 're choosing to let these systems struggle_. We could
| solve it if we chose to do so.
|
| In 2020 our population was ~330 million people. Even _if_
| 12 million people immigrated to the United States, that 's
| an influx of 3.6%. In reality its probably closer to 4 or
| so million, so really more like 1.2%. We're supposedly the
| wealthiest country on the planet with so much opportunity
| and freedom and yet we can't handle adding far less than 5%
| of the population as migrants in five years? If that's the
| case, we're probably the _poorest_ country on the planet,
| not the wealthiest.
| mzmzmzm wrote:
| And that's a population of millions admittedly including
| many minors and major barriers to thriving, but overall
| far fewer elderly or disabled people than the general
| population. Boosting immigration is only an economic drag
| if you structure the asylum/immigration process to
| prevent people from working, which we do now seemingly to
| punish communities that accept immigrants.
| jjk7 wrote:
| They are concentrated in major cities not evenly
| distributed across all of the US.
| vel0city wrote:
| This does nothing to change the facts of my statement.
|
| And even then, we could choose to do something about
| that. We could do more to help people settle all across
| the US and be well supported to succeed. But we don't. So
| instead, we have people crowd the areas where we turn a
| blind eye to hiring illegal labor and have the social
| impacts concentrated there and then refuse to actually do
| anything to help those social costs.
|
| But these are all things _we choose to do_. We could
| choose to do something else.
| jjk7 wrote:
| You make it sound so simple, they don't want to live in a
| small town where they will stand out; with no social
| support or services.
|
| How do you decide who goes where? What stops them from
| moving back to the bigger cities? How to you limit
| demographic displacement?
|
| The UK is doing this, and the US under Biden was trying
| at a smaller scale with Haitians in smaller towns. It
| doesn't work, and isn't so simple.
| vel0city wrote:
| > with no social support or services
|
| Once again, we're choosing to not have these social
| supports or social services. It's a _choice_. We could do
| it if we wanted, after all we 're allegedly _the
| wealthiest country on the planet_ but somehow can 't seem
| to afford anything.
|
| > How do you decide who goes where?
|
| I'm not suggesting we force it to be a top-down forced
| decision. I'm often a pretty free-market and empowering
| people to make their own decisions kind of guy, when it
| makes sense. And sure, people will tend to cluster more
| in large cities, that happens even for non-migrants. But
| in the end, we're doing practically nothing to encourage
| people to spread out that social cost (or worse,
| encouraging for forcing the clustering), and that doing
| nothing is a choice. And then we're doing very little to
| support these places experiencing such large social
| costs, which is once again a decision.
|
| All of this is stuff we could do differently, we just
| choose the status quo (or now choosing violence!) that
| doesn't work well for a lot of us. Sure seems to be
| making some people exceptionally wealthy though.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| There's many towns & small cities that have been
| revitalized by immigrants communities. Lewiston Maine,
| Charleroi Pennsylvania.
|
| America is really struggling to support & enable a
| people, to create a social safety net. Opportunity is
| low. But often when immigrants come in from other places,
| they will put in enormous energy, that can bring some
| very sad towns back to life.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Huh? Have you driven through Iowa lately? Southern Idaho?
| freejazz wrote:
| Guess what is also true of the US population in
| general...
| sureokbutyeah wrote:
| Yes, basically this. Americans have to hustle all day in
| the war against "line go down". Our agency is not allowed
| to be put to caring for other people but the illusion the
| 1% alone prop up society.
|
| So sick of Americans empty-analysis and ignorance of
| externalities their society puts on others; overseas
| colleagues see it as white Taliban. They don't see people
| in streets over tariffs screwing up their lives, so
| they've started to tell their politicians Americans (as
| in the public) are not reliable actors. They don't
| realize it, but the American publics own credibility is
| shot, not just their politicians.
|
| I have taken to cutting off friends and family and shit
| talking anyone in public that wants to socialize; do the
| politic work to put me on the hook for their healthcare,
| otherwise I refuse to bother with their existence.
| Withdrawing from people's lives is a forcing function for
| self reflection.
|
| You all keep me off the hook caring you exist. I just
| have to help make line go up. Anything to do with you all
| as individuals is not my responsibility. That's the
| choice of the American people. I'm here to profit, not
| give a fuck you exist.
|
| That's what my fellow Americans taught me through their
| feckless political effort. Illusory idea some invisible
| hand gives a shit based upon the gibberish from history
| they read by people who were wanking their literacy
| rather than inventing indoor plumbing.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| I don't really care if it's 1.2% or 12%. Illegal
| immigrants need to go.
| apwell23 wrote:
| > In reality its probably closer to 4 or so million
|
| your calcuation needs to account for ppl coming in on non
| immigrant visas too.
|
| usa issued 10 million non-immigrant visas in 2024. not
| counting 5 million tourist visas.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| If they were approved visa, they aren't exactly an
| illegal immigrant, no? That's a different issue entirely.
|
| Also, Trump approved for. Ore H1B Visas this year.
| righthand wrote:
| We had no problem in NY handling the influx. In fact we
| handled it so well that it angered the Republicans even
| more because they still gave immigration money to Texas AND
| had to give more money to the sanctuary cities. A problem
| they created and reaped the effects.
|
| There were not 12 million immigrants entering during the
| Biden administration. Please provide balanced proof.
|
| The only people in NY that claimed we couldn't handle it
| were the Mayor who was trying to get out of his blatant
| corruption by appealing to Trump.
| trust_bt_verify wrote:
| Same with Chicago. They handled it from what I heard, why
| did Texas struggle so even with the extra federal dollars
| they get?
| righthand wrote:
| Texas didn't struggle. They just created the appearance
| that it was an influx by immediately putting people on
| buses and shipped across the country then covering it in
| the media as if a bunch of buses driving somewhere means
| the border is under surge.
|
| Funny how that seems to have ended magically as soon as
| Trump was elected.
| vel0city wrote:
| As a resident of Texas, _yes we are struggling with
| migration_. I 'm not trying to paint migration in a
| negative light, but we do need to do more in terms of ESL
| programs and better funding schooling and similar
| programs in migrant-heavy areas. It's hard to have well
| performing schools in areas where it's hard to hire a
| teacher that speaks the language of the children, our
| Medicaid programs are struggling to provide healthcare,
| etc.
|
| We all point to Texas's education department as a
| laughing stock of results. But we expect Texas to bear a
| massive part of the burden of low income non-English
| migrants while using the same measuring stick to compare.
| And we act like this is fair. And don't get me wrong,
| Texas' legislature is complicit for the failure! We
| should all do more to support these communities.
|
| I do agree, it's largely a self inflicted problem. But
| things need to change to properly deal with the increase
| in those relying on public programs. They're underfunded,
| understaffed, and under supplied. We're not setting
| people up for success, and it shows.
| JCattheATM wrote:
| > It's hard to have well performing schools in areas
| where it's hard to hire a teacher that speaks the
| language of the children,
|
| It can't possibly be that hard to find Spanish speaking
| teachers in _Texas_.
| vel0city wrote:
| As someone who knows many people who were high-quality
| Spanish speaking elementary teachers in Texas, it's hard
| to find skilled and qualified people willing to work at
| that level working for the wages being offered when the
| cost of living is what it is and other jobs are offering
| considerably more.
|
| When you can have 80% of the take home apay but have
| fewer parents issuing death threats while filling tacos
| at Taco Bell (and they pay for your community college to
| go elsewhere) it's no surprise teachers choose to go
| elsewhere.
|
| Practically every school district in Texas is facing a
| qualified teacher shortage.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| There is an issue around a general teacher shortage,
| mostly due to poor pay and treatment. It's hard to find
| teachers in general. It's been exacerbated recently in
| states like Texas, with proposed book bans and bans on
| teaching history. No one wants to get punished for
| assigning Brave New World or teaching about slavery (and
| teachers don't want to lie to kids about history,
| either).
|
| Of course, the Trump admin has responded to this by
| deciding not to fund the TQP grant program, which in part
| trains and places teachers in high-need areas like STEM,
| special ed, and bilingual ed. This struggle is mostly a
| self-inflicted policy choice.
| righthand wrote:
| I can't tell what kind of change you're asking for. Your
| state refuses to raise wages and fund education. So
| instead inciting a fictional immigration crises is the
| acceptable change? Rounding people up and locking them up
| won't solve the other self inflicted problems. It will
| just make money for the prisons.
| vel0city wrote:
| > Your state refuses to raise wages and fund education
|
| I'm saying we need to change our funding for education
| and protect workers rights. We need to crack down on
| those hiring illegal labor. I agree things need to
| change. I think the federal government should acknowledge
| we're being more impacted by immigration than many other
| states and help more with education and other social
| programs. I think it was a bad choice for us to not
| expand Medicaid back in the day and I think its bad we're
| talking about restricting it more. I'm probably not the
| person you're picturing in your mind, I'm going to go
| ride a bicycle to pick up my kids from school today and
| I've talked a few friends of mine out of buying a pickup
| truck.
|
| > And don't get me wrong, Texas' legislature is complicit
| for the failure!
|
| I'm fully agreeing at least half the problem is within.
|
| > Rounding people up and locking them up won't solve the
| other self inflicted problems
|
| I agree! I don't think a lot of what Texas is doing is
| good!
| righthand wrote:
| I try not to make judgements based on where people are
| from. I was just seeking clarity in your statement. You
| don't sound like a drooling troll interested in spreading
| national politicking. You sound like a concerned citizen
| of Texas and promoting education and expanding healthcare
| is how we get out of this mess for sure.
| lazyeye wrote:
| 12 million is equivalent to the average population of 2
| states.
|
| The Democrats, who love to lecture everybody about
| "protecting democracy", are attempting to sway voter
| demographics in their favor through illegal immigration.
| California used to be a Republican state till it was turned
| deep blue through immigration.
|
| And one-party states produce the worst, most incompetent
| politicians, who rise to the top not through the battle of
| ideas, ability and accountability but through political
| favors and backroom deals.
|
| Gavin Newsom is the perfect example of this.
| seadan83 wrote:
| Apart from statements of Mayor Adams, could you list maybe
| 3 examples?
|
| Trying to research this, I see examples like Denver and
| Chicago that have had struggles, anx did things like limit
| shelter stats to 72 hours. I found no examples though that
| were point blank: "we cannot handle this." Again, excluding
| mayor Adam's, perhaps you can help fill in the gaps with
| concrete examples and hopefully some verbatim quotes of "we
| cannot handle this?"
| apwell23 wrote:
| Chicago had taken measures to restrict migrant buses from
| dropping off migrants within the city limits so they were
| dropping them off in the burbs. under the guise of some
| nonsensical rules "we want orderly drop-offs with 24 hr
| advance notice and only 2 migrant busses _total_ in 24
| hrs "
| seadan83 wrote:
| I appreciate the specifics.
|
| When you wrote "so they", I want to be sure that the
| 'they' refers to bus operators that were payed to drop
| off migrants in Chicago:
|
| "The city says buses can arrive only during daytime hours
| so volunteers can be available to help, but bus drivers
| are responding by dropping migrants off in Chicago
| suburbs at night." [1]
|
| The '2 buses per day' needs context. That could very well
| be a simple ask to not send them all at once. Further,
| the buses we are talking about were meant to overload the
| target the cities. They were sent with no notice, no
| coordination, just dumping a couple hundred or more
| people off into a random place in a random city. The ask
| therefore of "don't send all buses just on the same day",
| instead spread it out so that the volunteer resources are
| not overwhelmed and have a chance to work with and place
| everyone. I don't want to belabor this too much further,
| but I strongly suspect the desire for 2 buses max was a
| lot more about load balancing than it was rate limiting.
|
| My impression, Chicago was more like "do this orderly, we
| can handle it, just don't drop off a couple hundred
| people all at once in some random place without telling
| us."
|
| [1] https://www.npr.org/2024/01/06/1223287116/chicago-is-
| tighten...
| billy99k wrote:
| The democrats called Trump hitler for 8 years and made his
| supporters enemies of the state. I didn't hear anyone on the
| left calling it out, even though it fits your definition of
| 'fascism 101'.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Trump would not have won if Dems had not escalated illegal
| immigration 2020-24. It was such an unforced error on Biden's
| part
| JCattheATM wrote:
| That was never a real issue, it was just something pushed
| by Fox.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Yup, this is the exact error. Thanks for replicating it.
| JCattheATM wrote:
| No, it's not an error at all, but you're showing the real
| problem in your reply.
|
| I'd suggest doing some light reading on the reliability
| and integrity of the sources you prefer to get your
| 'news' from.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| The error is that you're ignoring the actual statistics
| in lieu of what Fox told you. I can't make a horse drink,
| but feel free to look up the immigration statistics in
| Biden's term vs trump's first term.
| motorest wrote:
| > Trump would not have won if Dems had not escalated
| illegal immigration 2020-24.
|
| Do you actually have any source to support your claim? I
| mean, MAGA nuts have been swearing for over a decade that
| there was a torrent of illegal immigrants arriving each day
| into the country, and that somehow democrats were to blame,
| but even after Trump's fascist push with it's forced
| deportations of everyone including US citizens without due
| process the numbers barely reached 100k. And now we're
| seeing Trump's ICE thugs mobilizing a small army of agents
| to assault Home Depot parking lots?
|
| Where are all those illegal immigrants?
| atombender wrote:
| The Congressional Budget Office estimated [1] about 10.4m
| immigrants during 2020-2024, more than 3 times more than
| under Trump's first term, and of which most was illegal
| immigration.
|
| The numbers cited by Republican scaremongers like Stephen
| Miller were probably inflated and derived from CBP border
| encounters, rather than on how many people were entering
| the country. But there does seem to have been a
| significant surge, partly thanks to new immigration
| programs that made it easier to entering the country
| while seeking asylum. Deportations seems to have remained
| high under Biden.
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/briefing/us-
| immigration-s...
| hypeatei wrote:
| Ah yes, you're doing the meme: if ANYTHING happens it means
| "fuck the Democrats"
|
| Sure, it couldn't possibly be anything else like inflation
| after COVID (which happened globally) that caused
| incumbents to lose around the world. No, Dems just needed
| to get this one thing right and they're to blame for Trump.
| Sure.
|
| EDIT: https://imgur.com/uPJAxEl
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| You're mistaken.
|
| I'm pro Trump and have been for many years. I just don't
| think we would have won if the Dems hadn't handed us the
| victory. Thank you Democrats!
| kubb wrote:
| Do you think Elon was telling the truth about the Epstein
| files?
| hypeatei wrote:
| The meme is still applicable to MAGA voters. For example,
| Trump could start a riot at the Capitol and it would be
| Dems' fault for not doing enough to stop it.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| "But why didn't Nancy Pelosi deploy the National Guard?"
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Even Ronald Reagan wasn't as cruel as the current regime and
| implemented an Amnesty for millions instead of doing what
| Trump/ICE are currently doing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control.
| ..
| aaronbaugher wrote:
| Reagan's amnesty, like the others, was a bait and switch.
| The DC/corporate establishment said, "Let us amnesty the
| ones that are here, and we'll get control of the border and
| stop the flow." After getting their amnesty, the second
| part never happens.
|
| That's led directly to the current mess because it taught
| people that the most important thing is to get into the
| country, regardless of legality, so you could be in place
| when the next amnesty came along.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Exactly right.
| bsder wrote:
| Except that Covid showed us that the immigrants _quit
| coming and even go home_ if there is no job.
|
| We know how to stop illegal immigration--you put CEOs in
| jail for employing illegal immigrants. Illegal
| immigration stops dead.
|
| "Illegal immigration" is simply a dogwhistle.
| aaronbaugher wrote:
| True. Maybe the worst act of Trump's first term was
| commuting the sentence of a kosher meatpacking company
| executive. He was in prison for bank fraud, but he should
| have been there because he got busted for having hundreds
| of illegals working in Postville, Iowa. We should be
| going hard after the corporations and their executives
| who hire illegals _and_ deporting the illegals.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| No, it was an honest understanding that rounding up and
| shipping off millions of people can not be done in a way
| consistent with what conservative (against a federal
| paper checking sweep of the nation), Christian (love thy
| fellow man) America was at the time. Sadly we are a much
| different country now and put our desire to punish 'the
| scary other' above checks on government power or any
| pretence of following Christ's teachings.
|
| People wouldn't have continued to come if Conservatives
| hadn't continued to employ and build business models
| around undocumented labor. Not addressing the root cause
| of the problem, employers willing to reward people for
| coming to the US, is the problem with the Reagan amnesty.
| Nothing else would have stopped immigration like stopping
| the reward for immigration would have. But conservatives
| are addicted to their bottom lines/business special
| interests and couldn't bring themselves to do what needed
| doing to stop what they term a 'foreign invasion'. At
| least the dems do it out of compassion and don't see it
| as an invasion. The conservatives just allowed the
| financing of what they see as a 'foreign invasion' for a
| small share of business special interest dollars.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| It's honestly mind boggling that some third of the
| country is convinced about immigrants "coming for their
| jobs". Meanwhile we choose to punish the immigrants
| coming in instead of the companies for hiring illegal
| immigrants for sub minumum wages.
|
| Really shows the priority of some people here. It's
| clearly not getting a job.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > it taught people that the most important thing is to
| get into the country, regardless of legality, so you
| could be in place when the next amnesty came along.
|
| That is a strange thing to think is to blame. I'll take a
| guess that you do not live in a (south) border state.
|
| People were taught they could come into the country and
| (1) find work that (2) paid more than not having work --
| when they got paid at all [0] and still less than US
| workers [1] and the state not only allows it but
| encourages it. Why? There continues to be a chronic
| shortage of construction workers to fill jobs. Our
| housing situation would be far worse if the GOP
| immigration stance was anything more than a dog and pony
| show. [2]
|
| The state with the longest south border has refused to
| require businesses use the fed e-verify system to check
| work id's, everyone knows they use fake ids. It's not
| some scandal that Reagan or the "Dems" recently caused.
| It's simply just the way it always has been. Makes for
| great rage bait though.
|
| But, we do appreciate all your federal tax dollars paying
| us to "get tough on immigration"!
|
| Texas, again, failed to pass a bill aimed at conducting a
| "study of the economic, environmental and financial
| effects of illegal immigration on the state" -- just the
| cost mind you. The last study in 2006 found that they
| contributed more than they cost. Deporting the "estimated
| 1.4 million undocumented immigrants living in Texas in
| 2005 would have _cost_ the state about $17.7 billion in
| GPD. " [3] They have since refused to do another study.
| They know mass deporting immigrants would devastate the
| economy and growth.
|
| For the undocumented that's been here awhile, it's just
| another day. Maybe they get unlucky and it's their turn
| to play a part in the "tough on immigration" hoax.
| They'll be back in a few days because the state and their
| employer needs them and no one will bat an eye when the
| cameras are off. Which is why we should be taking note of
| the extremes Trump is going to, there is something else
| to it; else his buddies in Texas would have passed those
| bills last month.
|
| [0] https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/16/undocumented-
| workers...
|
| [1] https://www.fosterglobal.com/news/report_half_of_tx_c
| onstruc... [pdf]
|
| [2] https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/05/texas-e-
| verify-requi...
|
| [3] https://www.texastribune.org/2024/12/06/texas-
| undocumented-i...
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| This is the reason the GOP lost California forever. Don't
| expect the GOP to make the same mistake again.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| In the context of finding an enemy, the admin literally tried
| to recreate the premise of the Michael Moore film _Canadian
| Bacon_ before realizing it just wasn 't sticking. I'll bet
| they took it as a challenge.
| ourmandave wrote:
| Back in 2019 during Trump 1.0, ICE raided 7 chicken processing
| plants in Mississippi and arrested 100s of workers.
|
| They charges 4 low level managers with aiding illegal
| immigrants.
|
| But I don't think the companies had to pay any fines or any
| owners face charges.
| peppers-ghost wrote:
| Because that would be anti-business. Illegal immigration is
| only a problem when you need to wind up the right wingers about
| something.
| major505 wrote:
| There are consequences for business owners, but because of
| complicity of govermnet in this states, it still worth the risk
| to run big operation on the back of illegal imigrants in semi
| servitude status.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > If illegal immigration is such a problem, why not fine
| businesses 5x salary for using the labor, for as long as it was
| used?
|
| Why do you assume that that doesn't happen?
|
| - Chicago (2014) https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/chicago-
| area-company-fined...
|
| - Texas (2012) https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/2-companies-
| admit-hiring-i...
|
| - Colorado (2025) https://www.cpr.org/2025/04/30/ice-fines-
| colorado-janitorial...
|
| etc.
| vel0city wrote:
| These actions are _rare_. And the fines are more slaps on the
| wrist instead of any real action.
|
| ACSI fined $2M for the same amount paid as wages to illegal
| labor. How much profit did they make from that? Sounds more
| like the cost of doing business than any real crushing fine.
|
| Put the management of these companies in prison for
| ~~knowingly~~ recklessly hiring illegal labor. Make it likely
| they will be audited and caught. Make it easier to get a work
| permit That will solve a lot of illegal migration.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > Make it easier to get a work permit
|
| Also for tech jobs like software engineering? Or only for
| manual labor?
| vel0city wrote:
| With the rise of remote work I think US software devs
| need to adapt to the global cost of software development
| sooner than later.
|
| This current structure of immigration status being tied
| and sponsored to your current employer is pretty messed
| up though. It does a lot to artificially drive down wages
| even more, these people aren't free to choose where they
| work.
| csomar wrote:
| > Why do you assume that that doesn't happen?
|
| You just provide proof of why it doesn't happen in the very
| first link. 300k fine for 604 illegal for a _repeat_
| offender. That 's essentially saying: The cost to hire
| illegals is too small not to do it.
| 542354234235 wrote:
| >Chicago (2014)
|
| They were fined less than $400 per undocumented person they
| hired, or about a week and a half pay at minimum wage. That
| just sounds like a reasonable fee to hire someone without
| having to pay minimum wage, healthcare, payroll taxes, etc.
| If you put aside ethics, that sounds like the smart business
| move.
| seadan83 wrote:
| The business and employee still pay many taxes, even if
| undocumented - so payroll taxes are still payed, "The IRS
| estimates that undocumented immigrants pay over $9 billion
| in withheld payroll taxes annually." [1]
|
| [1] https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/how-do-undocumented-
| immigr...
| JCattheATM wrote:
| > If illegal immigration is such a problem,
|
| It isn't remotely the problem or even in the same galaxy as
| needing this type of response.
|
| The cause for the actions is racism. The protests are due to
| calling out racism and removing due process.
|
| Anything else is denial or sophistry, that's the simple truth.
| matt-attack wrote:
| So all counties with strong border policies are racist?
| That's preposterous. Australia has some of the strictest
| border policies (drastically more strict than us). Do you
| believe they're just racist policies too?
| 613style wrote:
| I believe that those who justify cruelty with rhetoric and
| spread hate will one day look into the mirror and be
| horrified at what they see.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I wish I shared your optimism.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| > So all counties with strong border policies are racist?
| That's preposterous.
|
| Your response is a straw man. Be better.
|
| FWIW I don't agree with OP in that there isn't a single
| cause, but racism definitely plays a role.
| tejohnso wrote:
| Doesn't seem like a straw man to me. It's an extension of
| the unsupported claim that the cause for the action is
| racism. False equivalence perhaps. But I think the
| problem is that "The cause for the action is racism"
| doesn't actually contain an argument at all. It's just an
| unfounded opinion.
|
| And then "Anything else is denial" shows a myopic, closed
| minded viewpoint, suggesting any further discussion would
| be pointless. As is most internet chatter on this type of
| matter.
| Sharlin wrote:
| What makes you think that racism _isn't_ a major reason for
| Australia's strict policies? It doesn't seem like a
| "preposterous" hypothesis to me.
| JCattheATM wrote:
| > So all counties with strong border policies are racist?
|
| I never said that, but that's quite the strawman.
|
| It would have been possible to reform the system, without
| deporting anyone the wrong color to a damn megaprison in a
| foreign country, or arresting people right at their court
| hearings, most who are here legally.
|
| The way things are going, the protests are _more_ than
| warranted, _more_ than justified. As far as I 'm concerned,
| anyone still defending a clear authoritarian is a traitor.
| code_for_monkey wrote:
| Australia, a white settler colony in the southern
| hemisphere, racist? Yeah, I dont find that hard to believe
| at all. Why would you use that as an example?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >So all counties with strong border policies are racist?
|
| Please inform me how the US under democrats has NOT had
| "strong border policy"? Do you know what Obama did more
| than any president before him? He rounded up immigrants,
| placed them in front of judges to give them due process,
| and shipped them out of the country if they did not have a
| legal right to be here.
|
| Sure is funny how that is "weak border policy"
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| Yeah Australian immigration and border policy is super
| racist. It's not even up for debate.
| alxfoster wrote:
| Lets separate headlines from reality here: Yes this is an
| unnecessary provocation with loads of emotionally charged
| elements (and federalizing California's National Guard in this
| context is certainly concerning for multiple reasons
| -considering the scale of the protests and violence ) BUT there
| is no sign that Active Duty military personnel are being
| deployed to engage civilians (yet).
|
| It would seem most likely that the Marines were called strictly
| to protect federal buildings, facilities and agents. The
| problem I see is the latter category. I am personally fine with
| National Guard being used to protect people and infrastructure
| when appropriate and when confined to federal facilities, and
| I'm even fine with the use of military to protect federal
| facilities... however, the second active duty military engages
| civilians 'on the streets' we have martial law and that's a
| whole new can o worms with explosive possibilities for
| escalation.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > BUT there is no sign that Active Duty military personnel
| are being deployed to engage civilians (yet).
|
| Yes, there is.
|
| > It would seem most likely that the Marines were called
| strictly to protect federal buildings, facilities and agents.
|
| So, to engage civilians deemed a threat to federal buildings,
| facilities, and agents.
|
| The distinction you are trying to draw _does not exist_ , and
| is simply a very weak attempt to craft a mission that can be
| argued not to be using the military as a posse comitatus
| (even though it clearly is exactly that) for the sole purpose
| of reserving invoking the Insurrection Act until the
| aggressive use of federal forces has been successful in
| provoking a suitably dramatic incident.
| amluto wrote:
| Even a fine is absurd. There are straightforward technological
| solutions that might even generally decrease costs of employing
| people. For example, imagine that there was a special kind of
| money transfer called "payment for labor": the payer would send
| the payee $X (via their bank), and the bank would automatically
| verify the immigration status of the payee, generate the
| correct tax records, and withhold the correct amount of money
| and send the withheld money to the IRS. With some sensible
| regulation on top, this could automatically handle
| unemployment, etc.
|
| Then businesses or even individuals could hire someone for an
| hour, a day or a year and pay them with no friction. And the
| check for eligibility would be automatic. Fees could be driven
| to very low levels by the fact that there is no creativity
| whatsoever in actually implementing the transfer.
|
| But there's a showstopping problem here: the US economy,
| especially agriculture, is highly dependent on employing people
| illegally. So a real solution to controlling illegal employment
| would also require the kind of immigration reform that actually
| allows useful immigration, and it would require a competently
| run nation database of employment eligibility, and good luck
| getting bipartisan consensus on that.
| Aloisius wrote:
| The H-2A temporary agricultural worker visa is uncapped.
|
| It is entirely possible to hire all the migrant agricultural
| workers one needs using it, but most farms just don't want to
| pay visa fees, transportation or housing on top of a
| prevailing wage.
| amluto wrote:
| Seems like the H-2A program is too restrictive, then.
| trod1234 wrote:
| There are many problems but immigration isn't one of them.
|
| The employers/government don't do this because the prices of
| existing goods depend on that cheap labor. Money printing
| (deficit spending) through the economy has created many chaotic
| distortions and as a result of currency debasement has pushed
| the profit margins down close to zero for many businesses
| concentrating them in few hands.
|
| These businesses can continue functioning for a time thanks to
| money-printer loans they receive in the form of non-reserve
| based debt to a primary dealer, but that doesn't solve the
| issue that the price of good inputs and the amount of money
| that gets circulated through work in the economy is
| insufficient to purchase basic necessities (its sieving, which
| often happens before a deflationary collapse).
|
| On top of this already floundering problem which we cannot
| address, we have a demographics problem. The old, infirm, and
| disabled outnumber the young who work. There is no way forward
| without replacement as the costs of the old far exceed the
| young, and the only means to do so is through taxing immigrants
| who come here to work.
|
| On top of this, China wants to go to war to retake Taiwan, and
| so securing the border is a critical national security
| interest/threat.
|
| Its called a debt trap, any historian can tell you about how
| this and other behaviors towards empire (hegemony) culminate in
| destructive cycles.
|
| The baby boomers as a cohort largely caused this, and have been
| orchestrating it in leadership so that the consequences of
| their choices don't hit until after they die.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Romney pushed for E-Verify in his campaign. He lost and it
| never happened.
| msgodel wrote:
| I think most of the voters who want this also want that but the
| choices are: mass illegal immigration vs mass deportations.
| People voting in primaries should probably take this into
| consideration.
| seadan83 wrote:
| False dichotomy.
|
| - Recall back to the old republican party of just 20 years
| ago, GW Bush wanted a guest worker program.
|
| - Recall back to just a year and a half ago, a big bill was
| in congress to drastically ramp up employment laws and
| increase border funds - funny enough that was rejected. That
| rejection by the republican party _increased_ illegal
| immigration
|
| - The deportation rate under BOTH Obama and Biden has been
| higher to date compared to the current (second) Trump
| administration.
|
| So, if you want higher deportation and laws to increase
| border security - apparently we need to go back to the
| previous administration... The facts are seemingly all very
| topsy turvy compared to the narrative.
| apwell23 wrote:
| I see this comment often.
|
| you think tyson foods is paying ppl cash under the table?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Trump can't implicate himself whie pretending he cares about
| American labor.
|
| Also, I'll keep saying it: the cruelty is the point. And sadly
| the Stanford experiment shows that people will always oblige
| over the change to torture others if there's no consequences.
| belorn wrote:
| Looking at Sweden and the issue of human trafficking in
| construction, cleaning and farming, the general problem is that
| the fine businesses are employing independent contractors from
| multiple layers of hiring firms, and no one seems very
| interesting to hold the people who is benefiting from the labor
| responsible.
|
| It is a well know open secret that not only do practically
| every large construction site employ illegal immigrants, but
| there is also a tier system for who do what job. The highest
| risk and longest hours are given to illegal immigrants. The
| next tier are those that work off the books, and then last we
| got those that operate legit as there need to be at least a few
| of those. This setup seemingly works, until there is an
| accident or the hiring firm suddenly refuse paying the illegal
| workers and the miserable details of the human slavery becomes
| news for a day.
| csours wrote:
| Ahead of time, and from the inside, it looks and sounds like
| 'restoring proper order'.
|
| Afterwards, and from the outside, it looks and sounds like ...
| well read some history about attempts to 'restore proper order'.
| The outcome and progression is entirely and sadly predictable.
|
| It's been about 80 years since WWII. Are we doomed to repeat this
| on an 80 year cycle, when the last generation who went through
| this passes from the scene?
| RangerScience wrote:
| Yes. AFAIK, this is exactly the (theoretical) cause for the
| "doomed to repeat it" effect of "those who don't learn from
| history are doomed to repeat it" - the death of the last
| generation who remembers it from the previous iteration.
|
| So - maybe not doomed to an 80 year cycle, as life expectancy
| changes, and/or as cultural memory changes due to more/better
| records.
|
| But in broad strokes... yes.
| csomar wrote:
| As someone who got advice when I was younger and got older; I
| think we are doomed to not learn anything from history. This
| might explain the persistence of religion: Here are a set of
| rules that kind of worked, just follow them blindly and
| _religiously_.
|
| The current US generation didn't go to a full blown war; and
| the US did little infighting in the previous decade (that
| requires mass mobilization). Think about it this way: Trump
| wants to lower the interest rate and ease monetary policy in
| good times. Putin maintain high rates despite him having a full
| blown war. Trump has never experienced hyper-inflation but
| Putin did.
| Izkata wrote:
| > Are we doomed to repeat this on an 80 year cycle, when the
| last generation who went through this passes from the scene?
|
| Have fun reading about
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio...
| a0-prw wrote:
| Lots of very vocal yankees thought it was great when "pro-
| democracy" protesters in Hong Kong waved _American_ flags and
| firebombed police and public buildings. That went on for about 6
| months, if I recall. Karma 's a bitch, America.
|
| P.s. China never deployed the military in the Hong Kong
| insurrection.
| hulitu wrote:
| > Marines being mobilized in response to LA protests
|
| Finally, the American people fights for democracy, after
| centuries of oppresion. /s
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| Politics aside, LA just can't seem to catch a break. Floods last
| year, fires earlier this year and now this.
|
| That said, what the current administration is doing is almost
| like they're following a manual other countries followed on their
| road to nationalistic decline and all the right people in places
| of power seem to know this. I wonder if they're ready for it? My
| observation is that the previous administration had four years to
| pass laws and measures based on trump's first four years and they
| didn't, which tells me there is really no stopping what is to
| come.
|
| The planned decline of America won't be like other countries
| because of post-WW2 "super power" repositioning of country and
| it's critical role in global trade, communications and finance.
| All of humanity might suffer, at least that's my fear.
|
| On the other hand, I like to think that if things turn sour and
| gruesome very fast, the American public might react to that well
| enough to make a u-turn.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _LA just can 't seem to catch a break. Floods last year,
| fires earlier this year and now this_
|
| I'm in LA right now. If I didn't read the news I wouldn't know
| anything is up.
| hparadiz wrote:
| Living in LA is so great. The only thing I regret in my life
| is not getting here sooner.
| b2fel wrote:
| I can imagine but wait until you visit a walkable city!
| kulahan wrote:
| Man this is America. If people had any interest in
| walking, our national health picture would look very
| different. Even huge swathes of people voting for public
| transit in the US are doing so because they want everyone
| ELSE off the highway.
| 0xAFFFF wrote:
| It's not just about a lack of interest in walking. If
| your infrastructure is extremely hostile to walking, it's
| outright dangerous and unreliable and force people out of
| it.
| hnthrow90348765 wrote:
| >our national health picture would look very different.
|
| It wouldn't, you'd need to change the food industry for
| that to happen.
| kulahan wrote:
| No, consistent exercise is more than enough to make a
| significant difference. I didn't say it would be fixed, I
| said it would be very different.
| Marsymars wrote:
| I'll take that still. It's bananas to me that _more_
| people aren't in favour of public transit only for that
| reason.
| hparadiz wrote:
| LA is walkable.
|
| However I don't really like walking everywhere or taking
| public transportation so LA is the perfect city for me
| because it has many municipal places I can park my car
| and then walk around.
|
| Let me explain LA to you since you clearly don't
| understand it.
|
| LA is a combination of many smaller cities. Each one, on
| it's own is a small micro city with everything you would
| expect. You can live in Santa Monica, Pasadena, Burbank,
| Sherman oaks, West Hollywood, Ktown, Beverly Hills,
| Sawtelle, etc. each one of those places has a very
| vibrant and walkable area with cute shops and restaurants
| and easy public transportation. If you live in those
| places you don't necessarily need a car.
|
| The problem with LA is that you might want to go from one
| of these places to another and the walk would take a very
| long time because LA county is bigger than Delaware and
| Rhode Island. But you can walk it if you want.
|
| LA is currently the only city in North America building
| new subway lines. And is doing so rapidly.
| closewith wrote:
| > LA is walkable.
|
| You and I have different definitions of walkable.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Mostly in the 70s, sunny, sidewalks everywhere, an actual
| street food culture, a bus network that spans the entire
| county and about half a dozen rail lines. Where does the
| goalpost have to move for people who have clearly never
| spent much time in LA to see it for what it is?
| malexw wrote:
| > LA is currently the only city in North America building
| new subway lines.
|
| That is demonstrably false. As I type this comment I can
| hear the sounds of excavators digging out a station for a
| new subway line in Toronto.
| closewith wrote:
| Panama Metro Line 3, too, which is underground for 5km.
| runarberg wrote:
| All the extensions under construction to the Seattle's
| link light rail are grade separated and subway standard
| (or 3/4 if you count the Tacoma extension).
| pantalaimon wrote:
| It's also mostly low density, single story housing which
| of course means that the distance to get anywhere will be
| quite substantial.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Density is pretty dispersed in hot pockets. You have
| places like koreatown with 45 thousand people a square
| mile.
| crubier wrote:
| > LA is walkable.
|
| > However I don't really like walking everywhere
|
| Hint: If you don't like walking, then your city is not
| walkable. In actually walkable places, everyone likes to
| walk because it's so much better.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Hint: if you read the parent comment, you see that "LA"
| is actually a collection of many smaller cities, and that
| "LA" is geographically bigger than some states and so of
| course it is not completely walkable. LA is 44 miles long
| and 24 miles wide. And that's just the _city_ of Los
| Angeles. The county of Los Angeles is 4000 square miles,
| and has over 80 cities, most of which are only separated
| from each other by a road. But LA Metro is the
| (geographically) largest public municipal public
| transportation system, so you can take a bus from one of
| of LA county to another.
|
| Downtown is walkable. Hollywood is walkable. Echo Park is
| walkable. Pasadena is walkable. Santa Monica is walkable.
| Long Beach is walkable. Culver City is walkable. Bevery
| Hills is walkable. Glendale is walkable. Burbank is
| walkable.
| closewith wrote:
| > Downtown is walkable. Hollywood is walkable. Echo Park
| is walkable. Pasadena is walkable. Santa Monica is
| walkable. Long Beach is walkable. Culver City is
| walkable. Bevery Hills is walkable. Glendale is walkable.
| Burbank is walkable.
|
| In the same way that Everest is walkable. None are
| walkable cities by any reasonable definition.
| crubier wrote:
| 100% this. The person above has never been in any
| actually walkable city. Can't blame them, these are very
| rare in the US. (I haven't seen any yet).
| hparadiz wrote:
| I'm out walking around LA all the time. Santa Monica
| alone is a beach town with an amazing ocean front. You
| don't need a car at all. I'm seriously sitting here doing
| the Obama shrug meme.
|
| It's stupid that I even have to point out a few things.
| Like that I was born in Europe, have been to Germany and
| Japan, and lived near NYC for a time so I probably know
| better than some European about my own city.
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| Have you seen other american cities outside of NYC and
| Chicago? LA is walkable in a lot of places,plenty of side
| walks. Southern cities are particularly atrocious because
| even if they were walkable, the heat makes walking
| impractical in the summer (which can be > half of the
| year).
| lagniappe wrote:
| Southerner here, bless your little heart, we are fine!
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| No, we're not. been wanting to take a walk for ~2 months
| now and couldn't because of the heat. Maybe in more
| inland cities it is nicer, but within ~200 miles from the
| ocean it is unbearable.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Live in Houston, and no we're not. The only break we get
| from punishing heat is hurricanes and floods, but that
| often comes with significant power loss throughout the
| area, making the heat even worse.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| This is such a tired argument. Yes, YOU like it, that
| doesn't make an objective goal for every person on earth
| to achieve.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| There are walkable parts of LA, just LA itself isn't very
| walkable. But if you confine yourself to westwood around
| UCLA, you can even walk all the way to Sawtelle for
| Japanese food (although it isn't a very nice walk).
| vips7L wrote:
| Contrary, I couldn't wait to leave LA. I regretted moving
| there as soon as I did and I'm much happier now that I
| left.
| peterbecich wrote:
| GOP and Dems have been nearly evenly matched for years in
| Congress now. There was no prospect of dramatic legal overhaul
| i.m.o., let alone any new Constitutional amendments.
|
| Graph:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat...
| intended wrote:
| This is also not how Congress works as meant to work -
| deadlocked yes, but not a deadlock driven by partisanship.
|
| Republicans get primaried for supporting Dems.
|
| This creates the reality which is sold in their information
| and news networks. Dems always have bad bills, and see - no
| Republican is supporting it.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Dems have oddly bad party discipline. Obviously any D
| voting for any R should be immediately expelled, and yet
| this doesn't happen. They've not yet got serious.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Obviously any D voting for any R should be immediately
| expelled_
|
| Why? If we had a couple more Manchins and Sinemas right
| now, you know what we'd have? A majority.
| nemomarx wrote:
| The question is whether you have more of them in addition
| to the rest of the party, or instead of some members of
| the rest of the party. 4 machins in the same number of
| seats would really make it impossible to do anything.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _4 machins in the same number of seats would really
| make it impossible to do anything_
|
| One, we did a lot with one Manchin and one Sinema. (To
| the degree the former had concerns, it was well-founded
| ones over the inflationary effects of the Inflation
| Reduction Act.)
|
| Two, not doing anything beats the _status quo_. A weak
| majority would be a check on the executive. We're paying
| the price for ideological purism.
| intended wrote:
| You would think so, and that would be a reading of the
| American Legislative machinery which is incorrect.
|
| Simplifying: Congress was never meant to be deadlocked on
| simple party lines. It was always meant to have people
| figuring out ways to work together, even at the expense
| of the party, but in favor of their constituents.
| isleyaardvark wrote:
| That dynamic is essential to any stable democracy.
| the_other wrote:
| Party discipline contributes to the decline of democracy.
| It reduces the representation of opinions down to
| whomever sets the party line.
|
| Better than party discipline would be more effective
| intra-party debate, discussion, consensus processes etc.
| It's probably slower than line enforcement tho'.
| raxxorraxor wrote:
| This would drive partisanship, probably the most
| immediate problem in the US and beyond. I am not from the
| US but the impacts of similar perspectives are sadly more
| and more widely spread.
|
| If you cannot accept an idea because it was brought
| forward by a political competitor, you lack the necessary
| detachment to make good decisions.
|
| Sometimes party discipline is sensible for political
| pragmatism, but in all other cases democracy is the
| better solution. It should be handled with care.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Rejecting this philosophy wholesale and labeling it as
| explicitly anti-American _is_ the sensible political
| pragmatism at this point.
|
| Partisanship is only something to be concerned with when
| you're dealing with functioning political parties. In
| America, I think the bare minimum for a political party
| should be that it believes in the ideals of America: a
| government by and for the people.
|
| MAGA is not that, it's an explicit rejection of the
| ideals of the American revolution. Fundamentally they
| have a vision for America run by a king who has absolute
| authority over state, congress, and the judicial system.
|
| There's no meeting of the minds that can be had with such
| a perspective, our forefathers figured that out and
| started the American Revolution over it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _This is also not how Congress works as meant to work -
| deadlocked yes, but not a deadlock driven by partisanship_
|
| Yup. We let the pointers take precedence to the point that
| that they don't actually point at anything, we just like
| how they look.
| BrenBarn wrote:
| And they're still nearly evenly matched and Trump is still
| doing what he's doing. The Democrats could have done all the
| same stuff Trump is doing, but for good instead of evil. The
| problem is that the Democrats are not willing to accept that
| the system is entirely broken, so they keep clinging to a
| belief in "institutions" that they think will somehow
| magically protect us, when in fact those institutions are
| destroying us.
| watwut wrote:
| You can not destroy democracy and rule of law for the good.
| By definition, you are destroying democracy and rule of
| law. Even if you believe yourself to be good, and Trump and
| MAGA are under that illusion, you are doing something
| horrible.
|
| Democrats could not do it. If they had done it, they would
| be as bad as Trump is now.
| BrenBarn wrote:
| The point is that what we have now (and what we had
| before Trump) is not democracy and is not the rule of
| law, and Trump's actions show that, because those actions
| are taken within that system. We have been living for a
| long time under the illusion that our governmental system
| was democratic when it never was, it was only due to
| coincidence and luck that it appeared that way. When I
| say "do the same stuff Trump is doing" I mean use similar
| _methods_ to create a system that actually supports
| democracy and the rule of law.
| staunton wrote:
| Havimg "democracy and rule of law" isn't a question of
| yes or no, it's a matter of degrees on several only
| partially aligned axes. Something like that can slowly
| shift.
|
| You make it sound like "our democracy was never perfect,
| so obviously we always just had a mad emperor all
| along"...
| BrenBarn wrote:
| Sure, it's a matter of degree, but I think recent events
| have shown that the actual guardrails we have are
| significantly less than what we thought we had.
|
| It's like, if you built a bridge to carry 10,000 tons
| because you need it to carry 10,000 tons, and then it
| turns out it's starting to fall apart under 5,000 tons,
| it doesn't make sense to me to say that you should just
| fix it so it securely holds 5,000 tons, or if it breaks
| just restore it to hold 5,000 tons. You need to rebuild
| it so it can do what you need it to do.
| staunton wrote:
| If it can be fixed, any civil engineer would clearly
| prefer to fix it rather than tearing it down and
| rebuilding it.
|
| This is still not a noce analogy because tearing down a
| bridge is just expensive (and maybe unnecessary). Tearing
| down a political system isn't something you can "just
| do". Most people don't seem to want that and as long as
| that's the case it won't happen.
|
| US citizens still enjoy vastly more rights, protection
| and political participation than most people in most
| countries. If you tear the system down, quite likely what
| you get will be even worse. Gradual change can be for the
| worse but also for the better, there's ample historical
| precedent for both. There's still a lot of ways this
| could go.
| malcolmgreaves wrote:
| Then what was the American revolution?
| ModernMech wrote:
| It was a fight against tyranny. It destroyed the rule of
| a king, thereby ushering in democracy and the rule of
| law.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| A bunch of rich, white, influential businessmen getting a
| better tax deal.
|
| America hasn't actually come that far.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| >but for good instead of evil
|
| A lot of people have decided that what Trump is doing is
| good. A lot have decided that it is evil. It is not so
| clear cut.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| > The planned decline of America won't be like other countries
| because of post-WW2 "super power" repositioning of country and
| it's critical role in global trade, communications and finance.
| All of humanity might suffer, at least that's my fear.
|
| Yeah, the decline of the British Empire is starting to look
| sedate and well-managed compared to this.
|
| I'm sure because the USA was there to pick up any slack that
| Britain dropped, in a way that China is not doing with the USA.
| dragochat wrote:
| > The planned decline of America won't be like other countries
|
| Maybe bc americans WON'T and SHOULDN'T settle for a decline -
| they should violently rebel against this mindset and claw they
| way UPWARDS - there's more room for more growth, even if you
| lose #1 status and have to settle for #2 for a while you can
| still catch up etc.
|
| It's good that at least the US and China are NOT infected with
| this degrowth and "cyclical history" mindvirus that seems to be
| doing the rounds in Europe and elsewhere... keep being a
| bastion of endless progress brothers, fight the good fight!
| There's a whole light cone to eat/infect (if not for us the for
| the successors we'll build)! Whoop, whoop!
|
| Jokes aside though, most of the open world we live in today
| owes its existence to ideas, mindsets, $$$ and tech exported
| from the US, and I'm sure there's way more cool stuff to come
| from you once you properly clean up the parasitic individuals
| and institutions that have infected your society. Purge on and
| keep growing, fight for a deservedly big chunk of the Dyson
| sphere and beyond!
| beyondHelp wrote:
| Nah, Everything has beginning and end and USA and others are
| very much near their end. You can't build anything new
| without destroying old. It is painful to live in "interesting
| times", but it is part of natural processes when corruption
| eats away society that is falling apart only this time it is
| very global.
|
| The signs are there, that this is global situation before WW1
| or WW2 - status quo has to change, balance of power has to
| change - USA does not want to start to implement any of those
| changes and those who are way smarter than me think that USA
| should stay away from epicenter of anything and join for the
| spoils only part.
| 1dom wrote:
| > All of humanity might suffer, at least that's my fear.
|
| Suffer compared to what? That's the alternative? Number 1 stays
| number 1?
|
| The world works in peaks and troughs, swings and roundabouts.
| What goes up must come down. Time marches on, change happens.
| This comes with suffering, but is also the definition of
| progress.
|
| Nothing is the best forever, and the one's at the top who don't
| acknowledge that are the ones with the hardest fall ahead. That
| applies to complacent SV leadership as much as it applies to
| the average American citizen.
|
| I can't fault this way of thinking about the world: change is
| inevitable, you have to roll with it. If I accept it though,
| the idea of "planned decline of America" is interesting to
| think about. If you're at the top, decline is inevitable, it's
| the only direction. What's the only thing you can do to
| mitigate the pain of the inevitable? Try plan to work with it.
| Not sure how I feel about this way of thinking, it feels
| pragmatic if nothing else.
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| death, lots of it. wars. famine. disease outbreaks,etc..
| usaid being dismantled alone will do that. economic
| depressions, mass unemployment and civil wars and civil
| unrest,etc... mid 20th century but x10.
|
| Decline is not inevitable. others like China can rise, there
| could be multiple successful and wealthy countries. heck,
| even in a decline, america can become like germany instead of
| like venezuela. the decline you're thinking of is a lot nicer
| than what I'm thinking of I think.
|
| Preventing a decline requires established institutions to
| function as designed. America is not declining because it's
| like the roman empire, it is declining because the corporate
| ruling class are strangling the nation for short term
| profits. It isn't "we the corporations of america" it is "we
| the people". They've assaulted the foundation of the
| wealthiest most powerful empire in history and it is
| collapsing as a result.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| If the Dems of 2020 understood that twitter is largely a fringe
| group of outspoken individuals, they probably would have won in
| landslide victories. Even if Biden had chosen a strong leader
| as VP rather than go with a diversity hire to appease the
| twitterites, we still could have probably avoided this.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > If the Dems of 2020 understood that twitter is largely a
| fringe group of outspoken individuals,
|
| And Elon Musk, former presidential vizir. There's clearly
| power in Twitter, but it leans right as well.
| aaronbaugher wrote:
| The irony is that, if they hadn't fortified (to use Time's
| winking term) the election in 2020 and let Trump stay in
| office, his second term would have been much like the first,
| bogged down by Pence and the rest of the establishment drones
| around him, including his own kids. In that timeline he
| doesn't spend four years defending himself against lawfare in
| kangaroo courts and ducking bullets, and decide to get
| serious in his second term. He would have gotten the full
| blame for Operation Warpspeed and the Covid mandates, instead
| of sharing it with Biden. Also, Elon doesn't buy Twitter and
| join forces with him, so Twitter remains a safe space for the
| left.
|
| Things could have been much different.
| croisillon wrote:
| how do you mean "let [him] stay in office" ? less people
| voted for trump than for his opponent, in both 2020 and
| 2016
| aaronbaugher wrote:
| Read the Time article[1] on how the US bureaucratic and
| corporate establishment teamed up to "fortify" the
| election to make sure Trump wouldn't win, which uses
| words like "conspiracy" and "shadow election"
| approvingly. He was expected to win coming into campaign
| season, since peacetime presidents with good economies
| almost never lose, so much so that the Democrats ran one
| of their old war-horses to let him pad his campaign chest
| in a losing effort, their version of a Dole or McCain.
| Then Covid brought on mail-in balloting and the
| opportunities that presented, and the establishment took
| advantage.
|
| However much you think that did or didn't cross the line
| from "fortification" to fraud isn't the point. The point
| is that if they hadn't done so much of it, Trump would
| have won the election (in the electoral college, which is
| what matters), and he would be a footnote now, after
| spending his second term building a few more miles of
| border wall and probably not a lot else.
|
| [1] https://time.com/magazine/us/5936018/february-15th-20
| 21-vol-...
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Replacing him with kamala was the stupidest thing the dnc has
| done in recent years. What a vote of no confidence towards
| your own party when you actually bend to trumps bullshit
| ageism rhetoric and replace him at the final hour with a pick
| no one voted for. I just do not understand the logic behind
| the move for the dnc at all. Especially in hindsight when
| whatever it was supposed to achieve did not work at all.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| First, they had to replace him after his disastrous debate
| performance. Second, who should they have picked? Biden
| only dropped out in the last minute, so there was hardly
| any time for building up a new candidate.
|
| Biden insisted on running for a second term, against
| earlier promises, and failed to build up a strong successor
| during his first term. The Dems were in a very difficult
| position. Biden and his inner circle are the ones to blame
| here. What a historic fuck up!
| JCattheATM wrote:
| > Replacing him with Kamala was the stupidest thing the dnc
| has done in recent years.
|
| Not really. The choice between her and 45 should have been
| clear as day. She might have not been everybody's first
| choice, but she was more than qualified, more than
| competent, _especially_ given the alternative. It shouldn
| 't have even been a question, at all. But with how rampant
| misinformation is and how rare critical thinking is, here
| we are.
| lordfrito wrote:
| > Politics aside, LA just can't seem to catch a break. Floods
| last year, fires earlier this year and now this.
|
| Reminds me of the old joke about California's 4 seasons:
| Earthquake, fire, riots, and drought.
| hunglee2 wrote:
| The irony is that one of the main rails upon which the MAGA train
| rides is States rights. But then, Trump was always going to be a
| rule breaker, not least to his own supporters, in the end all
| that will be left will be absolute fealty to the chief
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Does Newsom have the right to defederalize the National Guard?
| Put another way, who is currently the supreme commander of the
| California National Guard?
| jxjnskkzxxhx wrote:
| > The irony is that one of the main rails upon which the MAGA
| train rides is States rights.
|
| No it's not. They just like slavery. If it was about states
| rights they wouldn't support sending in the military.
|
| What I find shocking about comments like yours is the reminder
| that propaganda works. Someone in the republican party decided
| "guys, advocating for slavery openly doesn't go over well,
| let's tell them it's actually about states rights", and loads
| of people actually believed it.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > If it was about states rights they wouldn't support sending
| in the military.
|
| I'm not in support of administration or MAGA.
|
| But, to be pedantic, you can be for states' rights, but
| against states overstepping Federal powers.
|
| Immigration is, currently, a Federal power.
|
| Who is and is not a citizen is not a state's decision.
|
| Just because you're in favor of state's rights (I am), does
| not mean you think every single issue should be a state's
| issue.
|
| Maybe you'd like each state to fund their own SS and
| Medicare. But that's not how it is. And it's unlikely to ever
| happen.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| "States Rights" ,as a political slogan in the US, has always
| been code for the dominant White population's privilege to
| oppress others, originally primarily via slavery, but over
| time through other alternative means (mostly designed to
| approximate the effect of slavery without the precise legal
| condition.)
| avoutos wrote:
| > Someone in the republican party decided "guys, advocating
| for slavery openly doesn't go over well
|
| It was the Democratic party that historically supported
| slavery and opposed the civil rights movement. The "states
| rights" euphemism was invented by the Democratic party not
| the Republican party.
| vkou wrote:
| The only states rights they care about is the rights of _their_
| states when they control their legislatures.
|
| There's no need to give legitimacy to the lie.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| any ex-marines here? how would they actually take to the orders
| that everyone's worried about? "no questions asked"?
| mrj wrote:
| Yeah. So.. a big chunk of the Marine Corps are hard-right Trump
| supporters but not nearly all. The Marines are different in
| that the leadership is steeped in the history and tradition of
| the Corps from the start of bootcamp. They will know they can
| be punished for following illegal orders, and they will already
| know about the last time Marines were called into LA.
|
| In the end, it will come down to SNCOs and NCOs to make the
| decision because the Marines try to push down "battlefield"
| decisions to as close to the action as possible. Of any
| service, I expect your average Marine to be able to make
| independent decisions in the moment. That may or may not be a
| good thing.
| xeornet wrote:
| A lot of excuses for the behaviour of the people rioting. Clearly
| this is way out of control of the police.
| shakna wrote:
| The police shot a foreign reporter, on camera, standing nowhere
| near the protesters. What part of that behaviour is seeking to
| control, and not escalate?
| isleyaardvark wrote:
| The LAPD opposes the Marine deployment:
| https://newrepublic.com/post/196357/lapd-slams-trump-decisio...
| rwyinuse wrote:
| It's funny how so many Americans claim having loose gunrights is
| necessary to guarantee a free state, and protection against a
| federal army. Now same people have elected a government that
| really tries its best to turn that free state into an
| authoritarian dictatorship, using American military as its tool.
|
| We'll see how far Project 2025 will go within Trump's term. I'm
| not optimistic.
| CMay wrote:
| Everything is a constitutional crisis now, because nobody really
| knows what a constitutional crisis is. We're just numbing people
| down and normalizing the words until they mean nothing, because
| we aren't using them when they really matter. The details of this
| do not seem like they warrant calling it a constitutional crisis.
| When we actually face one, there won't be words we can use to
| describe it anymore, because we've wasted them.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Because the CNN article seems to have accidentally omitted it,
| allow me to paste the full text of 18 U.S. Code SS 1385, the
| Posse Comitatus Act:
|
| > Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly
| authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses
| any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force,
| or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute
| the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
| than two years, or both.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Presidents are immune from all charges and can pardon
| themselves in any case
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Presidents are immune from all charges and can pardon
| themselves_
|
| None of this is legally established.
| arunabha wrote:
| Didn't the supreme court determine that presidents have
| 'broad immunity' for 'official acts'? Of course, they gave
| future justices some wriggle room with the somewhat vague
| wording, but the _current_ court seems very sympathetic to
| the unitary executive theory.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Didn 't the supreme court determine that presidents
| have 'broad immunity' for 'official acts'?_
|
| Broad immunity for official acts, and absolute immunity
| for core Constitutional powers. Nothing about "all
| charges" or self or preemptive pardons.
|
| > _the current court seems very sympathetic to the
| unitary executive theory_
|
| UET concerns itself with how much power the President has
| to exercise executive power [1]. Not the boundaries of
| executive power _per se_.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theor
| y#Termi...
| Y-bar wrote:
| > for official acts
|
| True. But the kicker is that the president has an
| effective Carte Blanche to determine what is an official
| act.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _But the kicker is that the president has an effective
| Carte Blanche to determine what is an official act._
|
| I think this is where the interpretation of the ruling is
| wrong: common reading is that it gave the president more
| power.
|
| Textually, whether it does or doesn't entirely turns on
| the definition of an "official act" which the Supreme
| Court very notably left for lower courts to determine on
| a case by case basis.
|
| >> _The immunity [for official acts] the Court has
| recognized therefore extends to the "outer perimeter" of
| the President's official responsibilities, covering
| actions so long as they are "not manifestly or palpably
| beyond [his] authority." Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th
| 1, 13 (CADC)._
|
| Including in _Trump v United States_ , which was still
| ongoing at the time Trump won reelection.
|
| >> _On Trump's view, the alleged conduct [of contacting
| state and other election officials] qualifies as official
| because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and
| proper administration of the federal election. As the
| Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no
| plausible source of authority enabling the President to
| take such actions. Determining whose characterization may
| be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a
| fact-specific analysis of the indictment's extensive and
| interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands
| to the District Court to determine in the first instance
| whether Trump's conduct in this area qualifies as
| official or unofficial._
|
| >> _Whether the communications alleged in the indictment
| involve official conduct may depend on the content and
| context of each. This necessarily factbound analysis is
| best performed initially by the District Court. The Court
| therefore remands to the District Court to determine in
| the first instance whether this alleged conduct is
| official or unofficial._ [...] _Unlike Trump's alleged
| interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged
| conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a
| particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis
| is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of
| numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of
| state officials and private persons._
|
| https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.p
| df p5+, p24
|
| Since it was dismissed without prejudice, it's entirely
| possible a subsequent Department of Justice reopens it
| and proceeds with the District Court fact finding the
| Supreme Court directed.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Which makes sense or else every DA in the country would
| have effective veto power over the president.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Which makes sense or else every DA in the country
| would have effective veto power over the president_
|
| Trump v. United States was decided with respect to "a
| federal case that was ultimately dismissed by federal
| district court judge" [1]. It was about the limits of
| U.S. executive power. Not "every DA in the country."
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States
| ta1243 wrote:
| Do you think that matters?
|
| The _only_ check on presidential power that seems to exist
| is the impeachment process
| valleyer wrote:
| Even that one hasn't actually been tested to remove a US
| president.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Do you think that matters?_
|
| Yes. Abrego Garcia is back in America, isn't he?
| Bender wrote:
| To be charged for multiple felonies, do jail time and
| then be deported again.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _To be charged for multiple felonies, do jail time and
| then be deported again_
|
| By our courts. That is the difference between the
| President defying the courts to disappear a suspect and
| due process.
| Bender wrote:
| I would rather let his home country pay for that. The US
| have too many incarcerated as is. We should be focusing
| on dealing with our citizens.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _would rather let his home country pay for that. The US
| have too many incarcerated as is. We should be focusing
| on dealing with our citizens._
|
| Then you're empowering the President to detain someone
| solely on suspicion of being a noncitizen. Which will be
| mighty convenient for a future President when someone
| says or does something they don't like. (Irrespective of
| whether they are or are not a citizen.)
|
| Also, these Marines are being deployed against American
| citizens exercising their Constitutional right to
| assemble and speak. Whenever the bill comes in, it will
| easily have costed many orders of magnitude more than the
| cost of even a death-row inmate.
| givinguflac wrote:
| All human being have the right to due process in the US.
| Period.
| Bender wrote:
| That is not my understanding. If a person is a known
| illegal immigrant they can be deported without ever
| stepping foot in a courtroom. That has been the case for
| as long as I can remember.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If a person is a known illegal immigrant they can be
| deported without ever stepping foot in a courtroom. That
| has been the case for as long as I can remember._
|
| You're describing expedited removal, a power enacted by
| the IIRIRA of 1996 [1].
|
| It only applies to those who "make no claim to lawful
| permanent resident status, and do not seek asylum or
| express a fear of persecution." It requires specific
| procedures be followed that are absolutely not being
| followed by ICE right now.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal
| conartist6 wrote:
| If you're not willing to protect and defend the
| Constitution of the United States then you don't really
| deserve its protections for yourself, I think.
| trashtester wrote:
| Presidents may not be able to pardon themselves, but they
| ARE immune from prosecution through the regular legal
| system for any actions taken as part of the office as
| president.
|
| The only way to go after them (given the current SCOTUS,
| who made the ruling above), is impeachment. And for that,
| the president has to do something so bad that 67 senators
| are willing to find the president guilty.
| davidguetta wrote:
| > except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized
| by the Constitution or Act of Congress
|
| They are arguing there's an insurrenction in California.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| There isn't. So don't repeat this 'argument' like it has any
| substance whatsoever.
| wepple wrote:
| As someone who knows absolutely nothing about what's
| happening in LA, it is actually useful to hear what the
| govt is claiming as a justification, then the reader can
| judge how valid it is.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Not everyone will critically assess the validity of the
| government's claims. When the press repeats such
| statements without scrutiny or fact-checking, it does
| real harm. Many people will uncritically echo what the
| government says, simply because they already support
| them.
|
| A statement like "The government is scrambling to justify
| an unnecessary escalation, driven solely by a president
| who has praised violent authoritarian leaders, by
| labeling it an 'insurrection.' When asked for evidence,
| officials mocked reporters and threatened to exclude them
| from future briefings." offers verifiable context and
| reflects the serious threat posed by a leader who appears
| intent on pushing the country toward chaos.
| wepple wrote:
| Sure, but this is HN. The level of critical thinking is
| far higher IMO.
|
| I personally believe that especially on a forum such as
| this, it's fine to expose the administrations claims to
| daylight and let them be examined and criticized and even
| mocked.
| rythmshifter wrote:
| "My Mexican flag. Green, white, and red! That's my flag!
| Not this flag. Fuck this flag! I pledge allegiance to
| Mexico. Nobody else. Not this country."
| ethbr1 wrote:
| https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-
| transc...
|
| >> _Congress shall make no law respecting an
| establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
| exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
| of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
| assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
| grievances._
|
| People can _say_ whatever they want. Only violent actions
| qualify as insurrection.
| aredox wrote:
| "My Confederate flag. Blue, white, and red! That's my
| flag! Not this flag. Fuck this flag! I pledge allegiance
| to the Confederacy. Nobody else. Not this country."
|
| We have seen what happens to the traitors flying the
| Confederate flag.
|
| They are listened to, cuddled, and pardoned.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| Is there an official definition? I'm not American but I'm
| looking at images of locals and foreign nationals burning
| down cities flying the Mexican flag. ChatGPT tells me the
| following:
|
| > The authority for the President to use the military in
| cases of insurrection comes primarily from the Insurrection
| Act, codified in 10 U.S. Code SSSS 251-255. This act
| provides the statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus
| Act.
|
| > When unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages,
| or rebellion against the authority of the United States,
| make it impracticable to enforce federal laws in any state
| by ordinary judicial proceedings. (10 U.S.C. SS 252)
|
| > When an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful
| combination, or conspiracy in a state hinders the execution
| of state and federal laws, depriving people of their
| constitutional rights, and the state authorities are
| unable, fail, or refuse to protect those rights. (10 U.S.C.
| SS 253)
|
| > When an insurrection opposes or obstructs the execution
| of U.S. laws or impedes the course of justice under those
| laws. (10 U.S.C. SS 253)
|
| The last time this Act was used was in 1992 during the Los
| Angeles riots and it withstood all legal contests. This
| time around it is a stated intent of these rioters to
| specifically obstruct federal law enforcement efforts.
| That's their stated goal which they are very consistent and
| very loud about in interviews. This clearly satisfies the
| criteria for the Insurrection Act.
|
| I understand that this is a concerning action, but the law
| is black and white. If the U.S. and Congress and the House
| didn't want Presidents to have this power, the country has
| had more than 200 years to amend it.
| albedoa wrote:
| > Is there an official definition? > the law is
| black and white.
|
| You more than tipped your hand here. You flipped it over
| and announced it.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| I made a case and asked the other person if they had
| other information, ideas, or an argument. That's kind of
| how discussion used to work before we decided pithy
| soundbites was a suitable replacement for reasoned
| discussion.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > If the U.S. and Congress and the House didn't want
| Presidents to have this power, the country has had more
| than 200 years to amend it.
|
| Kind of like using the Insurrection Act to suspend
| _habeas corpus_ and then threatening judges if they dare
| to question its legality?
|
| > This time around it is a stated intent of these rioters
| to specifically obstruct federal law enforcement efforts.
|
| Or, one might argue, "petition the Government for a
| redress of grievances".
| Gareth321 wrote:
| > Kind of like using the Insurrection Act to suspend
| habeas corpus and then threatening judges if they dare to
| question its legality?
|
| The President does not have a legal right to suspend
| habeas corpus. Only Congress.
|
| > Or, one might argue, "petition the Government for a
| redress of grievances".
|
| No, a petition is a piece of paper or in verb form,
| lobbying politicians. Burning down cities and attacking
| officers does not fall under the definition.
| roenxi wrote:
| We can actually read the argument, I don't know why people
| are linking to CNN: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-
| actions/2025/06/depa...
|
| The argument seems to be more of a no-confidence move because
| the Californians can't keep order. They'll presumably treat
| the wording seriously but I think the "form of rebellion" is
| more a jab at the people who keep harping on about
| insurrections. Looks like a bad argument from any angle I can
| think of (they aren't invited and there isn't an actual
| rebellion to put down).
| leereeves wrote:
| That's from June 7th, before the deployment of Marines. It
| only justifies the federalization of the National Guard,
| but as far as that goes, it appears to be a very reasonable
| interpretation of the law:
|
| _Whenever...the President is unable with the regular
| forces to execute the laws of the United States; the
| President may call into Federal service members and units
| of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he
| considers necessary to ... execute those laws._
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406
| Brybry wrote:
| _Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the
| governors of the States_
| leereeves wrote:
| Notably, it doesn't say the governor has the right to
| refuse those "orders". If the governor had that right,
| they would be requests, not orders.
|
| A very interesting article about this situation from a
| Georgetown law professor was posted somewhere deep in
| this discussion and is well worth reading.
|
| The professor is strongly opposed to the deployment, and
| calls it "dangerous" and "pernicious" among other things.
| Nonetheless, he "thinks the federal government has both
| the constitutional and statutory authority to override
| local and state governments when it comes to law and
| order" and that "this [clause] is better understood as a
| purely administrative provision than it is as giving a
| substantive veto to the governor."
|
| https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/156-federalizing-the-
| californ...
| Brybry wrote:
| According to Governor Newsom he wasn't communicated with
| at all.
|
| _In an interview with All Things Considered host Juana
| Summers, Newsom said the mobilization order was not done
| with communication to or approval by his office._ [1]
|
| [1] https://www.npr.org/2025/06/09/nx-s1-5428342/per-
| california-...
| xdennis wrote:
| The President has authority to do so under the Insurrection Act
| of 1807. Note that President Eisenhower did the same thing when
| he forced desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957.
|
| I'm pretty sure you were aware of this but cite the Posse
| Comitatus Act to make it sound like what Trump is doing is
| illegal.
|
| You can absolutely argue that what he's doing is unnecessary,
| disproportional, evil, provocative, etc, but it's not illegal.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _The President has authority to do so under the
| Insurrection Act of 1807. Note that President Eisenhower did
| the same thing when he forced desegregation in Little Rock,
| Arkansas in 1957_
|
| Super unclear.
|
| Governor Wallace of Alabama was overtly rejecting a court
| order to desegregate. There was a law passed by the Congress.
| A U.S. court making an order. And the U.S. President
| enforcing it, including with the military. Wallace was
| defying the U.S., not just President Eisenhower.
|
| The facts and circumstances here are different. The
| immigration laws being enforced are clear. But the Marines
| aren't being deployed against illegal immigrants, they're
| being deployed against mostly-American protesters. There have
| been zero court actions specific to these protests. This is
| being entirely done by the President. Moreover, neither
| Newsom nor Bass are interfering with ICE. So it's a bit
| ridiculous to compare a former Confederate state's governor
| personally blocking a U.S. court decision to mostly-peaceful
| protesters (and where not, being processed by local and state
| law enforcement) exercising their Constutional rights to
| speech and assembly while ICE continues to do what it does
| relatively unimpeded.
| shakna wrote:
| The President has not invoked the Insurrection Act, as
| required, because they are using a different justification
| for their actions.
|
| Without invoking it, it just is not relevant here.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| > but it's not illegal
|
| This is where I find the extremely lawful mindset idiotic.
| Laws try to encode good behaviour, but can't define it.
| Bender wrote:
| Active duty can guard federal buildings and federal agents. Not
| sure that is how they will use them. When I was active duty I
| assisted in multiple weather related catastrophic events and I
| am glad they did not argue against our use. We helped many
| citizens in a time the national guard would not have been
| sufficient.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| That is a really hopeful read of the situation. But, all we
| have is hope.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| For a better article on the legal distinctions:
| https://www.reuters.com/world/us/does-us-law-allow-trump-
| sen...
|
| To fill in the negative side of authorities, Trump cannot use
| the mobilized Marines to enforce US laws (aka act in a law
| enforcement capacity).
|
| As you said, they are restricted to protecting federal
| buildings and federal agents.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| I'm sure you can agree there is a difference between disaster
| relief and "suppressing a rebellion".
|
| After the first Gulf War they sent us to Greensboro, NC to
| march in some parade and no one argued against that either
| because we weren't being used in any law enforcement
| capacity. Honestly, if we were there for 'riot control' I
| doubt they would have given us such a warm welcome.
| Bender wrote:
| Speaking of rebellion since you guys are experts on this I
| want to know who is bringing in all the violent rioters
| from other parts of the US and handing them the same size,
| shape Mexican flag that are all folded the same way _same
| creases_. Is it the same US taxpayer funded NGO 's that
| were smuggling them into the US? And why the Mexican flag?
| Isn't that the very place they are trying to stay out of
| and wouldn't a Mexican flag imply an invasion from Mexico?
| I would think they would want to wave around a US flag
| since they want to stay here. Several things are just off
| about all of this. It feel like I am watching a movie
| produced by really lazy script writers. Is it just me? I am
| fine with them burning the US flag since they are following
| the flag protocol of the United States of America, but it
| just doesn't make any sense to me.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Speaking of rebellion since you guys are experts on
| this I want to know who is bringing in all the violent
| protestors from other parts of the US and handing them
| the same size, shape Mexican flag that are all folded the
| same way.
|
| No one is bringing people in, the flags being waved
| aren't all Mexican and the Mexican flags are a variety of
| different sizes and the LA local community, including its
| ~3.5 _million_ residents of Mexican ethnicity, has quite
| a few Mexican flags of all shapes and sizes without
| needing any people or flags brought in from outside.
|
| > Isn't that the very place they are trying to stay out
| of and wouldn't a Mexican flag imply an invasion from
| Mexico?
|
| Mexican flags are a common symbol of pride in and
| solidarity with the community of Mexican ethnicity,
| rather than serving as agents of Mexico-the-republic,
| just as Confederate flags are a common symbol of pride in
| the White racist community, rather than serving as agents
| of the long-defunct putative regime.
|
| > It feel like I am watching a movie produced by really
| lazy script writers.
|
| Yeah, well, I won't comment on the "really lazy" part,
| but unless you are present watching it with your own
| eyes, you absolutely are watching something packaged for
| you as propaganda: everything you are seeing is edited to
| present a narrative by the people presenting it.
| Bender wrote:
| _everything you are seeing is edited to present a
| narrative by the people presenting it._
|
| That much I can agree with for sure. I've watched media
| that align left, center, right along with YT influencers
| that align left center and right. Each spin their own
| yarn. One would think they are all looking at different
| events but I can see what they are looking at.
| lenkite wrote:
| Marines have been sent several times to combat mass rioting and
| violence in the United States under several Presidents. Was
| done in LA earlier as well.
| internet_points wrote:
| https://bsky.app/profile/iwillnotbesilenced.bsky.social/post...
|
| The galaxy is watching.
| sam345 wrote:
| So what is the complaint that tear gas was used? It's used all
| the time it's a normal crowd control measure. The galaxy is
| watching? Please.
| regularjack wrote:
| I don't think people sitting in traffic qualify as a crowd
| that needs control.
| justinrubek wrote:
| This is not justification in itself. It's abused as a crowd
| control measure frequently. This rendition doesn't gain some
| special immunity to that abuse.
| laurent_du wrote:
| Funny that this "proud Mexican" has such a long story to tell
| but zero proof to show. Neither he nor his girlfriend were able
| to record any of that while sitting comfortably in their car?
| bradley13 wrote:
| Using the National Guard is clearly justified. Using the national
| military (in the case, the Marines) is...highly questionable.
|
| That said, California should have been on top of this situation.
| It looks like Newsom is willing to sacrifice the safety of his
| citizens in an attempt to score political points.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| The protests were all but entirely peaceful (as in, no more
| violent than your typical sports celebration) _until_ the
| National Guard showed up. Newsom 's far from my favorite
| person, but his handling of this situation was spot on, and
| he's bang on the money about deploying troops being a gross
| escalation.
| seydor wrote:
| "Putin does it, ergo I can do it"
| hypeatei wrote:
| If this is an "invasion" then Trump should invoke Article 5
| against all nations where the illegal immigrants originate from.
| technothrasher wrote:
| Article 5 isn't invoked "against" anybody. It is a call for
| help from a NATO member after being attacked, which each other
| member state can respond to by taking "such action as it deems
| necessary." Trump could certainly invoke Article 5, but the
| likely response from other NATO members would be, "no action
| necessary."
| pvdebbe wrote:
| Question from outsider: if a Marine uses lethal force against a
| civilian in this case, in what court will he be tried?
| technothrasher wrote:
| Outside of military installations, a member of the US military
| may be subject to prosecution for any crimes committed under
| both civilian criminal law and the UCMJ. DUI is the most common
| scenario for this.
| sph wrote:
| The one with the marsupials.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| They'll be prosecuted by Kevin Bacon, with Tom Cruise as their
| defense attorney, and with Jack Nicholson giving a rousing
| testimony in which he confesses that he is the one who gave the
| order to the marines to commit the crime.
| wewewedxfgdf wrote:
| Only in LA though.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| The way this is usually handled with smaller crimes (DUI) is
| that the local civilian court gets "dibs" but the military
| installation can ask to discipline someone under the military
| system (Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ). Usually the
| locals are happy to let a military person be disciplined by the
| military. It keeps the burden off the civilian system, which
| usually has plenty of other cases to get through. Plus, the
| military can do things that the civilian court can't, like
| reducing a person's rank.
|
| If the civilian court wants to make an example out of the
| military member they can opt to keep the case in their court.
| This can happen if the crime was egregious or there are some
| other circumstances. Plus, any additional civil suit brought by
| a victim or their family will always be a civilian lawsuit.
|
| There are times where things are different- in particular,
| there are times in which something is only a crime in one
| system but not the other. You can be court-martialled for
| failing to follow orders, but this is not a civilian crime.
|
| In terms of shooting a civilian, it probably depends on the
| circumstances. If the Marine was given an order to shoot and
| had some legitimate feeling reason to do so in the moment, the
| military would probably do their best to protect the marine,
| but it would probably be a civilian court trying them (the
| military won't take a case if they don't intend to follow
| through). Note that for this to be the case, there is probably
| now an officer who gave an illegal order and the officer would
| probably be tried for a crime. But there are conceivable ways
| in which a marine can shoot someone under lawful orders and not
| really have done anything wrong- self defense is the likely
| scenario. If a protestor starts shooting a gun toward a marine
| then they will get return fire.
|
| If the marine were to disregard his orders and shoot someone
| because he's trigger happy, then the military is probably going
| to ask to take the case, throw him in prison for life while
| demoting him down to E1 (the lowest rank), and generally ruin
| his life as much as they can. They really crack down on this
| kind of thing because they rely on discipline to make things
| work. Marines are generally trained to do as they are told, no
| matter how much it sucks. And marines that don't do as they're
| told get examples made out of them so that everyone else knows
| to follow orders.
|
| At least that's what would have happened in the past, but with
| the current president who knows how it would turn out. Because
| the state may choose not to let the case go- the president can
| pardon a federal/military crime, but not state crimes. So
| California might keep the case because then the president
| couldn't let him off easy.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| It depends. If they fire without orders, they will be brought
| before a court martial, and possibly before a civil court.
|
| If they have orders to fire, then there will be no court, they
| just have to fill out an after-action report detailing what
| happened.
| jakeinspace wrote:
| If it's deemed after the fact to be an illegal order which
| should have been ignored, I believe they can still face
| charges of some sort, no?
| ty6853 wrote:
| Sure. When the military murdered and/or raped 300+
| villagers in My Lai, it was a very serious offense. The
| commander (lieutenant) was ultimately charged 22 counts of
| murder, and served a very hard three years of _house
| arrest._
|
| As you can see, the charges are quite serious, which can
| exceed 3 days stuck in house per instance of illegal
| homicide.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| Don't forget the Epstein files, whilst all the current events
| play out.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| We'll never see them because Epstein is an Israeli asset.
| Democrats and Republicans have loyalty to Israel, they
| literally swear an oath to them.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Elon has a working relationship with the Israelis. If any of
| what you said is even remotely true, then why would Musk
| betray the Mossad to expose a sitting president? Why can't
| Trump go to Bibi and make him admit to fielding a (now dead)
| operative and exonerate the case entirely? That makes no
| sense.
|
| If you want to manufacture a wholesale lie like this, at
| least make it believable. I know it's hard to grapple with
| the fact that America elected a pedophile and convicted
| rapist as it's president, but you'll need more than tough
| words to blame it on Israel.
| spwa4 wrote:
| I always find it difficult to understand how the press sometimes
| misunderstands cause and effect. While this military intervention
| is being implemented now, it's not like there weren't protests
| before, or in other cities (including Trump's native New York).
|
| What happened immediately before Trump started sending in armed
| groups to the streets of Los Angeles was Trump getting credibly
| accused by Elon Musk of associating with Jeffrey Epstein.
|
| So the correct title here is "Marines deployed to LA in response
| to Trump's association with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein being
| widely discussed on Twitter".
|
| This allows people to correctly infer cause and effect, and most
| importantly, intent.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Riots, not protests.
|
| If they just protested, nobody would care at all.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| Let's not blame the victims here. LA had it's problems but it
| wasn't a warzone until militarized police showed up. All it
| takes for a protest to become a riot is one cop firing into the
| crowd, and that could be caused because of a trigger happy cop,
| or a single person throwing a rock at the police line.
| e40 wrote:
| You are naive to think police can't turn a peaceful protest
| into a TV photo op for Fox News.
|
| And, it's also naive to think that all the protesters are on
| the same side. Instigators are from either no side and the
| other side.
|
| During the George Floyd protests I was walking home and
| witnessed agitators turn a peaceful protest violent within
| minutes. There were at most 10 of them out of a crowd of 500.
| When I got home, the news described the protest as being a
| violent one.
|
| You and a lot of people here need to look more critically at
| what you are seeing online and in the news.
| noworriesnate wrote:
| It's a major vulnerability, but I think a valid solution
| would be for there to be an organization that wears uniforms
| and has a strict no-violence policy to perform peaceful
| protests.
|
| That way when agitators show up they can be seen as visually
| different and distinct.
| HamsterDan wrote:
| If 500 people can't stop 10 from causing violence, then those
| 500 never believed in peace to begin with.
| thinkingtoilet wrote:
| Colin Kaepernick protested very peacefully and people were
| irate. The vice president went out of his way to just to walk
| out of a game. Let's stop with the "I'd be ok if it was a
| peaceful protest" nonsense. The protests in LA were peaceful
| until the military showed up. It was intentionally escalated
| because they know people will believe anything they see on TV.
| The burning cars didn't happen until after the military started
| a war.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Did riot police attack Kaepernick for peacefully protesting?
| If not, then what the hell are you talking about?
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| No military assets were deployed in response to Colin
| Kaepernick's peaceful protests.
| thinkingtoilet wrote:
| The vice president was. And the head of the military said
| he should be physically assaulted. The same people calling
| for "peaceful protests" actively hated people for doing it.
| The calls are hollow. You know this, and you know what
| point I was making.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| they were peacefully protesting, then the cops showed up and
| escalated the situation. Then there were small amounts of
| disorder. Then the media does what it does, the rightwing media
| goes for hyperbole (it's a third word situation, the city is on
| fire, etc) the leftwing parrots what the cops say 'riots' (two
| waymos on fire is not a riot, it's a protest with agitators,
| arrest the agitators, no collection of thousands of people with
| their blood up is ever going to be perfect. How many fights
| outside of any stadium after any football game). Then it has
| spiraled from there. Deploying active duty military into a US
| city to quell 'riots' won't do anything but get people killed.
|
| During CHAZ/CHOP in seattle, I lived across town, if I didn't
| watch the news I wouldn't have known anything was happening. My
| GF lived within two blocks of the 'zone', it didn't effect her
| one bit. In fact it was a bit of a party atmosphere in the area
| with all the painting of street murals and all. Eventually some
| kids decided to agitate the situation by stealing a car (i
| think that's what the final determination was) and tear assing
| all over (like literally off roading into the park in and
| around occupied tents). This riled up the 2nd amendment types
| who declared themselves the CHOP/CHAZ police and they shot the
| kids. It was tragic and it sullied the whole situation.
|
| To watch the national news you would have thought that all of
| seattle was on literal fire and there were roving gangs all
| over the city. Don't trust the broadcast media narrative of
| these situations.
| csomar wrote:
| Yeah a couple Waymo being burned justifies endangering civil
| rights. Sure that will make the country safer knowing that
| there are hundreds of thousands of military personnel out
| there.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| So you agree they were riots.
|
| Now go and check the actual damage, not from the BS
| propaganda source you're watching. It's a lot more than "a
| couple Waymo".
| const_cast wrote:
| It's barely any damage. Most of the clips I've seen
| circulating aren't even from these protests - they're from
| BLM years ago and people are just recycling them and hoping
| nobody would notice. And, well... nobody notices. So.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Why are you lying?
|
| It's not just a few waymos. Whole stores broken in and
| looted, a bunch of cars burned, a bunch of police cars
| smashed, a bunch of police officers and ICE agents
| injured, sidewalks destroyed, streets blocked and are
| full of trash.
|
| Stop the gaslighting.
| const_cast wrote:
| I'm not lying - it's very overblown because of course it
| is. I have friends in LA right now. They're mostly just
| outside listening to music and dancing.
|
| Obviously, such a narrative is very boring. So we don't
| see it. In reality, though, the damage is quite small.
| Similar to BLM in the past, in which almost all protests
| saw no damage at all.
|
| And, elephant in the room - there's a 0% chance that the
| _fucking marines_ are going to de-escalate anything. You
| think Trump wants less violence, less destruction? No, he
| wants MORE of it.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| How many Waymos can be burned before the protests become
| riots. I agree that 1 burning Waymo is probably not worthy of
| a national guard deployment, but unsure above that
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Zero. As soon as you start destroying stuff that isn't
| yours, it's no longer a peaceful protest.
| righthand wrote:
| You should talk to the anti-protest side then because they will
| discourage any protest. Usually they criticize the size of the
| protest as a few people. They then will tell you that their
| cause is dumb because only a few people were there. Or they
| blocked traffic for a few hours, so their cause is dumb. There
| are plenty of people that care if people protest. There are
| people that hate the right to assembly so much they make laws
| about needing a protest permit...
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Made up and staged need for troops. Check.
|
| Hyped antagonism between both sides on purpose. Check.
|
| Remember Ghorman
| major505 wrote:
| Not everything you dont like is nazism.
|
| Burning the city? Check Incopetent mayor not doing its job?
| check Incopetent governor watching the caos unfold? Check.
| Hilift wrote:
| California has 25% of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in
| the US. Last year, while Biden attempted to promote an
| immigration bill that did not pass, California made Medicaid
| available to unauthorized immigrants. 22% of California residents
| are on Medicaid, requiring $85 billion per year in matching
| federal assistance. Now the state has a $12 billion deficit
| projection for 2026. Los Angeles city recently issued bonds to
| fund a $1 billion budget gap for the current year. It didn't take
| long to speed run all that success into the ground with a few
| criminals that hijack protests and destroyed over $1 million in
| taxpayer funds in destroyed city vehicles. Half the people
| cheering this on will probably be unemployed in a few months.
| major505 wrote:
| The problem is that people think that because they have a
| degree they will not be affect by the illegal imigration
| crisis.
|
| They think this is a problem only for blue collar workers, that
| they cannot empathize with.
| righthand wrote:
| 11 million is less than 5% of the population. What
| immigration crises? Less than 5% is a working system.
| aaronbaugher wrote:
| We've been hearing "11 million" for decades. No one really
| knows what the number is because no one in charge of
| finding out has wanted to know, but it's far higher.
| righthand wrote:
| No it's not. We know, we can calculate just like we can
| calculate the population from the census even though not
| everyone fills it out. You are a disgusting person
| spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. You've got zero
| proof of that and are trying to revert my comment to
| spread your fear campaign.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| How do you know it's higher without a count?
| const_cast wrote:
| 1. We can't just start making things up and working
| backwards. Okay, you think immigration is bad, _now prove
| it_. Y 'all are absolutely incapable of that so instead
| you're just gonna claim fake news, fake numbers, yadda
| yadda yadda. Come on, it's pathetic.
|
| 2. Even if it WAS 1 billion people or whatever - why is
| that bad? The magic question you can never answer.
|
| Is it bad because "white genocide"? Is it bad because
| jobs? Is it bad because those people are criminals?
| What's the threat here?
|
| Because, from where I'm standing, these people don't hurt
| anything. In fact, they're very productive members of
| society! They work hard, harder than fucking lazy fat
| white Americans, I'll tell you that. They're modest.
| They're kind. They don't commit crimes because they're
| scared shitless of being deported. So what's the problem?
| TheBigSalad wrote:
| "Half the people cheering this on will probably be unemployed
| in a few months." Why? California has a huge economy, a 1B
| deficit isn't that big of a problem. For context, they
| contribute 700B in federal taxes.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| You were talking about billions of dollars but now 1 million is
| a relevant amount of taxpayer money destroyed? Am I missing
| something? A million is money, no doubt, but not relevant on a
| wider scale to any degree.
| gmerc wrote:
| The hapless imperial waymo droids summoned into the middle of the
| uprising to provide the right visuals are a nice touch. "Who Are
| You? LA Edition"
| sam345 wrote:
| Exactly why is this HN appropriate? Nothing that is not already
| in the papers and nothing particularly interesting to the HN
| crowd per guidelines. I came here for HN and I got reddit.
|
| "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or
| celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new
| phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal
| pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
| "
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| bendigedig wrote:
| I think it's interesting to see how much panic, head burying,
| and fascist apologia there is around.
| anonfordays wrote:
| I think it's interesting to see how much panic, head burying,
| and Marxist apologia there is around.
| jl6 wrote:
| It's clear that many commenters here are operating from
| completely different factual bases, in terms of who did what, and
| in what order. Fog of war seems to be in effect.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| Correct. Lots of emotions in here too. I wonder if this is an
| appropriate HN post.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| Last I checked, emotions aren't banned from HN
| CSMastermind wrote:
| No but generally this place tries to encourage curious
| discussion and this thread seems to have moved squarely
| away from an attempt to learn or understand something into
| venting and flame war territory.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| Fog of war? Call it what it is: A misinformation campaign
| fueled by one of the most successful propaganda networks in
| history.
| laurent_du wrote:
| The funny thing is that it's impossible to know which side
| you belong to just by reading this one comment.
| thrance wrote:
| Yes it is. Funding of right-wing media is orders of
| magnitude more expensive than that of left-wing media.
| You're just muddying the waters.
| aaronbaugher wrote:
| It takes a lot of words to convince people not to believe what
| they can see for themselves in video.
| socalgal2 wrote:
| Everyone sees what they want to see.
|
| Some see a Mexican invasion as the protesters are carrying
| flags of Mexico. Not sure why they'd expect that to garner
| support.
|
| Some see violence against police / military
|
| Some see poor people being abused by people in power.
|
| Some see violence against powerless people
|
| Some see actors staging fake protests (see thread for proof
| that some people see this)
|
| Some see political posturing
| laurent_du wrote:
| Not really? These people will simply disregard the clips,
| claiming they are a piece of right-wing propaganda, and that
| the protest are peaceful, because how could it be otherwise?
| Of course fighting ICE, feds, and helping criminals (in some
| case drug dealers and even at least one murderer) is
| inherently peaceful, just like the BLM riots were.
| thrance wrote:
| You're one of them. Seen the protester getting trampled by
| LAPD on their horses? Seen the journalist getting shot
| gratuitously at point-blank by a cop? AFAIK, no was was
| hurt by protesters. The cops on the other hand...
|
| And let's not even mention the reason behind it all: ICE's
| torture center, and the multiple raids they carry in the
| city, to abduct _legal immigrants_.
| const_cast wrote:
| Because the BLM protests WERE peaceful. I went to some -
| man, we just walked around.
|
| What happened was that people took clips of events in
| specific cities at specific times and then tried to
| extrapolate that out. When, in reality, most protests had
| no violence. Meanwhile, police were shooting rubber bullets
| at people while the people were just standing there.
|
| Even now, with these "riots", most of the clips I'm seeing
| are actually from BLM protests years ago. Does anybody know
| this? Is anybody fact-checking anything? Apparently not.
| But, for gullible authoritarians that's all it takes. Show
| them a picture of a car on fire and their mind will hop and
| skip out of their ear.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > What happened was that people took clips of events in
| specific cities at specific times
|
| In many cases, "events" performed by people later (or
| concurrently, but to too little attention) unmasked as
| white supremacist provocateurs aiming to discredit the
| BLM protests and/or provoke violent racial conflict, not
| the actual BLM protestors.
| undersuit wrote:
| Which video? There were lots of videos. Lots of views of
| Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.
| beyondHelp wrote:
| No data can change Belief.
| distortionfield wrote:
| Not without it being received in earnest. You can't reason
| someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
| anonymid wrote:
| I agree - there seems to be talking past each other about some
| very fundamental things:
|
| How extensive is the violence of the protests? I saw some
| images shared of cars that were burned, maybe some buildings
| damaged. But also lots of images from other protests from
| previous years. Are the images of the same 3 cars and
| storefronts or many? Trump says the riots are out of control,
| Newsom says the protests are largely peaceful.
|
| A basic claude search suggests the overall level of violence is
| moderate, and smaller than many recent protests [link](https://
| claude.ai/public/artifacts/ef220c3d-c6d9-4b4b-bb3f-2...)
|
| How much of a strain do undocumented immigrants place on the
| US? You can answer this question from a financial and criminal
| point of view. From the point of view of crime, Trump and ICE
| are parading every violent undocumented immigrant they can, but
| that is not statistics. Do undocumented immigrants account for
| a significant portion of violent crime in the country?
|
| Studies overwhelmingly show that undocumented immigrants are
| significantly less violent than the general population [link](h
| ttps://claude.ai/public/artifacts/a92623b8-5c02-4c3a-84ae-f...)
|
| From a financial point of view, what resources are undocumented
| immigrants straining, and is it to a significant degree?
|
| The economic picture is much more nuanced. On the cost side, a
| criticized study (FAIR) reported the cost at about $182bn
| annually (this is likely an over-estimate). For comparison,
| undocumented immigrants pay about $100bn in taxes, boost the
| GDP, and create jobs. Mass deportation is estimated to cost
| $315Bn.
|
| Studies show that the impact on wages is small.
|
| The biggest cost factor ($78bn but estimates vary) seems to be
| K-12 education, and that is mostly born by states. [link](https
| ://claude.ai/public/artifacts/29f10fcf-c8a7-4655-979f-b...).
| jandrese wrote:
| From what I've seen the burned cars are Waymos, which have
| their own set of issues and the burning is probably more
| opportunistic than related to the protest in general. People
| have been protesting Waymo for years now, obstructing them
| with cones and other such vandalism. One big thing is that
| since Waymos are driverless the violence is not being
| perpetrated against people.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Its LA. When the dodgers won the world series they burned a
| metro bus in the streets. And those events were way bigger
| and drew a lot more chaos and crowds. But of course
| downplayed due to a lack of a political angle at the time
| to milk out of the event, unlike now.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| According to LaTimes, 5 waymos were burned, so Google
| temporarily stopped servicing the area affected by the
| protests.
| jasondigitized wrote:
| The key tell is.....CNN for example is mentioning with
| specificity how many cops and military are on the ground but
| only uses the word "large groups" when talking about how many
| protestors and rioters there are. Mentioning the actual small
| numbers of protestors / rioters doesn't allow them to
| sensationalize this.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| The police and military are giving numbers, so you can
| easily publish those. I don't think the protesters are
| counting themselves, or maybe you could use AI and drones
| to do a survey of how many protests are out?
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| More Americans think the US is on the right track than at any
| point during the Obama administration
|
| https://news.gallup.com/poll/1669/General-Mood-Country.aspx
| a_shovel wrote:
| 38% is still deep in "F" territory.
|
| The last time we got a "C" (70%) was December 2001. That
| probably means something regarding what this poll is measuring.
| drysine wrote:
| Time for a Russian diplomat to go to LA and give cookies to the
| protesters in show of support? [0]
|
| [0]
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/6/61/Victoria_Nula...
| croisillon wrote:
| this might come as a shock but Kyiv is not in Russia
| drysine wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27
| croisillon wrote:
| oh you meant Lithuania
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania
| lordfrito wrote:
| More and more I don't understand what's happening with all of
| these political articles making it to the front page of HN and
| stuffed full of charged comments and lots of grey.
|
| We may be smart techies but the arguments here about politics
| seem awfully reductive. We're out of our lane on most of this.
| What's with all the hate here?
|
| The commentary here _feels_ like its sliding it 's way towards
| Reddit. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it's accidental, or maybe it's
| on purpose?
|
| Hoping not to lose my faith in the quality of discourse on this
| website.
| LexiMax wrote:
| You are seeing the outcome of structural problems that plague
| any site that puts pseudo-moderation tools into its users
| hands. Voting and flagging has been weaponized on this site for
| far longer than most HN users would care to admit.
|
| In fact, I feel like HN is much worse about promoting echo
| chamber behavior than Reddit, due to the visibility differences
| between a comment being downvoted/flagged dead, as opposed to
| merely being greyed out and collapsed.
|
| If you haven't noticed it before now, it's because the
| incentive structure is weighed heavily in favor of the echo
| chamber. Those who engage in good faith eventually get tired of
| their comments being hidden by an unaccountable mob and leave -
| and to be clear, I am speaking in the past tense, as in this
| has already happened to HN several times over.
| spencerflem wrote:
| I think its reflective of broader society. For this issue in
| specific-
|
| You either think sending the military to break up protests
| against the wishes of the governor and mayor and against the
| bounds of the constituion is a problem, or you are insane.
|
| When ICE wears masks and whisks people off the street and sends
| them to overseas torture camps without warning or due process,
| you are either opposed or insane.
|
| There's honestly no room for nuance on this. We're reaching the
| point where Trump is sending the military to enforce his
| unconstitutional actions. Things are awful right now and are
| about to get so much worse.
|
| To be clear- if you support what's happening here: _you are a
| bad person_. i genuinely hate you.
| lordfrito wrote:
| > To be clear- if you support what's happening here: _you are
| a bad person_. i genuinely hate you.
|
| This is the kind of political reductionism I was referring
| to. It's not OK to "genuinely hate" a person (or group of
| people) you've never even met, based on a single binary
| opinion you hold.. that's some serious "othering" going on.
| People aren't so black and white.
|
| If your comment was meant as sarcasm I don't get it.
| spencerflem wrote:
| No its not sarcasm.
|
| And idk, but I'm just saying what I feel. I don't think its
| unique to this forum, more just what's going on in society.
|
| The issues happening are not the type of thing where we can
| agree to disagre. There isn't a middle road. The ideologies
| behind it are based on hate and fear and greed. America's
| not going to be a democracy much longer and friends of mine
| are in life threatening danger.
|
| I could not be friends with someone who supported this IRL
| or online.
| localghost3000 wrote:
| I live in LA and have been here for almost 30 years now. This
| stunt is a provocation designed to get a reaction. He wants an
| excuse to crack heads in a city he hates and that hates him back.
| He probably also wants us to forget about Musk outing him on the
| Epstein files.
|
| Watching this unfold here is reminding me strongly of the Ghorman
| plotline in Andor S2: "You need a resistance you can count on to
| do the wrong thing at the right time."
| yupitsme123 wrote:
| I don't disagree with you, but after all the damage that was
| done by riots in 2020, there should be a desire to nip violent
| protests in the bud.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Why does 2020 fundamentally alter the nature of protest?
| QuiEgo wrote:
| To become a hero, you need a villain.
| amai wrote:
| "Marines have not been mobilized within the US like they are in
| California now since the 1992 riots in Los Angeles."
|
| Seems to be some kind of tradition to send Marines every 33 years
| to LA.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-10 23:02 UTC)