3 ms·

The people elected the politicians who appointed the Supreme Court justices (the governed giving their consent). If the losing side wants to get politicians in

The people elected the politicians who appointed the Supreme Court justices (the governed giving their consent). If the losing side wants to get politicians into power who are more sympathetic to their causes, they should try to appeal to governed. We overwhelmingly voted for a government that would prioritize us over legal and illegal immigrants, H-2As, H2-Bs, and H-1Bs from countries where ethnic nepotism imported to be weaponized against us. Maybe it's not productive to compare immigration enforcement (law enforcement) to Nazis (who, by the way, mass murdered 75% of Europe's Jewish population). Maybe it hurts their credibility when the American middle class is obviously being priced out, and their solution it to vilify us, while they give sanctuary to people who broke the law and illegally entered (or overstayed), from the poorest countries in the world, to compete with the poorest Americans for work and for housing. Then they'll say "Americans don't want to do those jobs!" That's only partially right. Americans don't want to work for a wage that is on par with the minimum a Honduran illegal will take. Americans had no problem doing agricultural work in the 50's. My Grandpa is 93, and he still gets a pension from Hormel from his decades of work in a meat processing plant in Iowa. Americans always did this work, and every other type of work, until we were systematically pushed out of every blue collar profession by illegal immigrants (and now legal). And they're not stopping there, H-1Bs and other legal work visas are coming for the rest of us, too. Every single field from the lower to the upper middle class is being deliberately undercut by immigration. The absolutely nutty thing about all of this is that it's all just a giant show. Obama deported 420,000 illegals in 2013, which comes out to 35,000 per month. The most this administration has deported in any one month was 18,000 in June. Suddenly this admin is no longer "within the strict bounds of the law," and the biggest issue you take with all of this is that your rioters, activists, and misfits spent a day in jail for civil disobedience, and that the cops are wearing masks?

drewbug01 1y ago
> The people elected the politicians who appointed the Supreme Court justices (the governed giving their consent). I seem to recall a recent instance where a Supreme Court seat was stolen from the politician with the right to appoint them. But, sure, we all consented to these specific justices. Sure. > We overwhelmingly voted Ah… that is not at all how the vote went. The popular vote, as I’m sure you know, was a difference of less than 2%. The electoral college ensures that it looks “overwhelming,” but you and I both know that this administration was not elected with an “overwhelming” in any sense of the word. It’s propaganda. The middle of your rant is just kinda filled with dog-whistles and half-truths, so I’m not going to bother with that. > Suddenly this admin is no longer "within the strict bounds of the law," and the biggest issue you take with all of this is that your rioters, activists, and misfits spent a day in jail for civil disobedience, and that the cops are wearing masks? They’re arresting citizens on the street with no probable cause, and publicly lying about why the arrests were made and the circumstances around them. Yes, it is a huge issue. And yes, the masks bother me: accountability matters in law enforcement. The reason you don’t care is that you think somehow this cruelty will benefit you and people who look like you. It won’t.
- jimbo808 1y ago
  No probable cause? So you are truly convinced that out of hundreds of thousands of interactions with ICE, those 170 people who were actually arrested, didn't meet any of these criteria for arrest? Are you really that far gone? A protestor's actions are arrestable if they meet statutory elements: - Physically blocking police movement or access (e.g., surrounding a patrol car or blocking arrests). - Touching, grabbing, or standing too close after a lawful order to back away. - Ignoring a lawful dispersal order after being warned. - Using amplification or crowd behavior that prevents officers from issuing commands or making arrests. Officers typically move to arrest when: - They’ve given clear, repeated commands (e.g., “Move back,” “Clear the street”) that are ignored. - The person’s proximity or actions create a safety risk (blocking traffic, interfering with detainment). - A dispersal order is issued and disobeyed. - The crowd shifts from peaceful to physically obstructive or destructive. >> "The reason you don’t care is that you think somehow this cruelty will benefit you and people who look like you." This doesn't work anymore. If you're this committed to being a victim, and claiming racism whenever you experience cognitive dissonance, that's your problem. But I'm not going to lose sleep over it anymore, and it would probably do you and others like you a benefit to read the room.
  - drewbug01 1y ago
    > So you are truly convinced that out of hundreds of thousands of interactions with ICE What time frame are you thinking of here? It’s very easy to minimize problems if you’re defining the time frame to be years, or something. It’s better to focus on the stark changes in enforcement behavior more recently, I would think. > those 170 people who were actually arrested, didn't meet any of these criteria for arrest? Are you really that far gone? For starters, as the article notes - 170 was just the number of US citizens that were arrested, and specifically the number that ProPublica could verify independently, since the government does not keep the statistics themselves. I think that’s important to call out, since the scale of the problem is important. But the bigger problem is that you’re defining the “typical” behavior - and the “typical” behavior is not what’s happening. Just yesterday, for instance, a judge in IL stated that she was extremely concerned that ICE was not following her orders regarding tear gas - that it was being deployed with no warnings. And moreover, a different district court judge in IL and three different judges on appeal held that the stories coming out of DHS appear to be completely unreliable! So - yes, I actually feel pretty good about asserting there likely wasn’t a reason for those arrests. Perhaps there were in some cases, but the lies from the administration make it nearly impossible to tell. > This doesn't work anymore. If you're this committed to being a victim, and claiming racism whenever you experience cognitive dissonance, that's your problem. But I'm not going to lose sleep over it anymore, and it would probably do you and others like you a benefit to read the room. What doesn’t work, exactly? And when you say “others like you” - what do you mean by that? What kind of person do you think I am? Why do you assume I experience cognitive dissonance?

drewbug01 1y ago

> The people elected the politicians who appointed the Supreme Court justices (the governed giving their consent). I seem to recall a recent instance where a Supreme Court seat was stolen from the politician with the right to appoint them. But, sure, we all consented to these specific justices. Sure. > We overwhelmingly voted Ah… that is not at all how the vote went. The popular vote, as I’m sure you know, was a difference of less than 2%. The electoral college ensures that it looks “overwhelming,” but you and I both know that this administration was not elected with an “overwhelming” in any sense of the word. It’s propaganda. The middle of your rant is just kinda filled with dog-whistles and half-truths, so I’m not going to bother with that. > Suddenly this admin is no longer "within the strict bounds of the law," and the biggest issue you take with all of this is that your rioters, activists, and misfits spent a day in jail for civil disobedience, and that the cops are wearing masks? They’re arresting citizens on the street with no probable cause, and publicly lying about why the arrests were made and the circumstances around them. Yes, it is a huge issue. And yes, the masks bother me: accountability matters in law enforcement. The reason you don’t care is that you think somehow this cruelty will benefit you and people who look like you. It won’t.

jimbo808 1y ago
No probable cause? So you are truly convinced that out of hundreds of thousands of interactions with ICE, those 170 people who were actually arrested, didn't meet any of these criteria for arrest? Are you really that far gone? A protestor's actions are arrestable if they meet statutory elements: - Physically blocking police movement or access (e.g., surrounding a patrol car or blocking arrests). - Touching, grabbing, or standing too close after a lawful order to back away. - Ignoring a lawful dispersal order after being warned. - Using amplification or crowd behavior that prevents officers from issuing commands or making arrests. Officers typically move to arrest when: - They’ve given clear, repeated commands (e.g., “Move back,” “Clear the street”) that are ignored. - The person’s proximity or actions create a safety risk (blocking traffic, interfering with detainment). - A dispersal order is issued and disobeyed. - The crowd shifts from peaceful to physically obstructive or destructive. >> "The reason you don’t care is that you think somehow this cruelty will benefit you and people who look like you." This doesn't work anymore. If you're this committed to being a victim, and claiming racism whenever you experience cognitive dissonance, that's your problem. But I'm not going to lose sleep over it anymore, and it would probably do you and others like you a benefit to read the room.
- drewbug01 1y ago
  > So you are truly convinced that out of hundreds of thousands of interactions with ICE What time frame are you thinking of here? It’s very easy to minimize problems if you’re defining the time frame to be years, or something. It’s better to focus on the stark changes in enforcement behavior more recently, I would think. > those 170 people who were actually arrested, didn't meet any of these criteria for arrest? Are you really that far gone? For starters, as the article notes - 170 was just the number of US citizens that were arrested, and specifically the number that ProPublica could verify independently, since the government does not keep the statistics themselves. I think that’s important to call out, since the scale of the problem is important. But the bigger problem is that you’re defining the “typical” behavior - and the “typical” behavior is not what’s happening. Just yesterday, for instance, a judge in IL stated that she was extremely concerned that ICE was not following her orders regarding tear gas - that it was being deployed with no warnings. And moreover, a different district court judge in IL and three different judges on appeal held that the stories coming out of DHS appear to be completely unreliable! So - yes, I actually feel pretty good about asserting there likely wasn’t a reason for those arrests. Perhaps there were in some cases, but the lies from the administration make it nearly impossible to tell. > This doesn't work anymore. If you're this committed to being a victim, and claiming racism whenever you experience cognitive dissonance, that's your problem. But I'm not going to lose sleep over it anymore, and it would probably do you and others like you a benefit to read the room. What doesn’t work, exactly? And when you say “others like you” - what do you mean by that? What kind of person do you think I am? Why do you assume I experience cognitive dissonance?