5 ms·

Thats not an argument to get rid of the courts. Quite the opposite. Trump is trying to sideline them, but ultimately it will fail becausethe population wont acc

Thats not an argument to get rid of the courts. Quite the opposite. Trump is trying to sideline them, but ultimately it will fail becausethe population wont accept it. The US isnt China or Russia, and Trump may have to learn that.

raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
The population is accepting it right now. 40% of the people still approve of everything Trump is doing. If you have 10 friends and you ask them what they want to eat for dinner and 6 say let’s go to a Mexican restaurant and 4 say let’s kill Bob and eat him, you still need to worry about your friend group. Right this second ICE agents are killing people with impunity and police for the longest have had qualified immunity to kill people unjustly. The country voted for this knowing exactly what they were going to get. Don’t believe the Michelle Obama “this is not who we are” this is who this country has always been
- Alive-in-2025 9mo ago
  The country voted for it but it wasn't a rational choice. Half the country lives in insane false world, pushed by Fox news. But it's a near-majority every election.
- _heimdall 9mo ago
  What poll have you seen that asks people to approve of everything any president does? I live in a very red part of the country, and in a very red, rural area that voted ~90% for Trump. I don't know anyone that is okay with everything he has done. Some take issue with Venezuela, some with the handling of the Epstein files or the federal budget. Some don't like sabre rattling over Greenland. Most people I know that do vote Republican are one issue voters. At least here people voted because they always vote republican, support the second amendment, think the republicans actually want a balanced budget, or just hated Clinton/Biden. It isn't about supporting whatever Trump does, though I'm sure some small percentage does. People regardless of party or region don't think critically often enough and can't set aside their own personal beliefs. We've made our country bipolar and we're seeing the repercussions. It isn't a problem with any one party or person, and the answer isn't to tear down the fundamentals of our system. We need to actually get back to the fundamentals because of late both parties have been going the way of socialism and authoritarianism.
  - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
    Trump’s approval rating is still around 40% https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
    - _heimdall 9mo ago
      > 40% of the people still approve of everything Trump is doing. Someone saying to a pollster that they approve of Trump is very different from them saying they approve of everything he is doing.
      - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
        59% say ICE is too aggressive - meaning that 41% approve https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-59-voters-say-ice-too-aggressive-up-10-points-since-julyIt https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-59-voters-say...
        Forgeties79 9mo ago
        No it means 41% don’t necessarily think they’re too aggressive.
        raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
        Isn’t that agreeing with him? HN loves to make excuses for the voters. If killing someone isn’t too aggressive what is? Killing and eating his kids? They think that is fine
        Forgeties79 9mo ago
        Let me be very clear: I think ICE is wildly out of bounds and killing/terrorizing people. I do not support them. I do not support the republican party or Trump. Quite the opposite. All of that being said: that is how polling works. You are inferring too far beyond the actual question posed. For instance, somebody could think they are acting too aggressively, but completely agree with the final outcome/objective. Or somebody could disagree with the objective, but think that they’re not acting too aggressively because perhaps they’re sympathetic to LEO’s having to make snap judgments in the field (an excuse I do not agree with but many do). I think the general sentiment that the question tells you something about how people support or don’t support ICE is valid, but the exact number and statement you’re throwing out cannot be assumed and is likely wrong, even if it’s maybe close. And that’s not even getting into how different people will have different ideas of what “too aggressive” even means. 59% think they’re being too aggressive, assuming the polling is decent quality, means you can credibly say 41% do not think ICE is being too aggressive.
- trimethylpurine 9mo ago
  There are so many rulings, just in the last 25 years even, where SCOTUS has reaffirmed that warrantless search is not okay. This one is very much in line with the topic, in fact. Carpenter v. United States (2018) This country has never been what you're saying. We have some over policing happening. That seems to come and go in every country and doesn't say anything by itself about what a county is about, especially where it's trending over a 25 year timeline in the opposite direction from what you're describing. Let it go to court, at least, before you flip your lid and turn on your countrymen. Please.
  - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
    As people are getting shot by ICE today. Today on HN on the front page there was an article about someone being forced to use their biometric security to unlock their phone. And then to say this country has never been what I’m saying is to ignore Jim Crow, sundown towns that were prevalent into the mid 80s, etc.
    - trimethylpurine 9mo ago
      Democrats (the South) always said that this country was always about slavery. They used that rhetoric to argue FOR slavery for decades after it was abolished. This is all documented in supreme court cases from the 18th century on up through the civil war. Some of the founding fathers argued as attorneys in some of those cases in fact, stating firmly that slavery was always illegal in the United States. Republicans (Lincoln included) pointed to the Constitution as evidence that slavery was always illegal and that the southern states had a limited time to abolish it (that's factually written in the Constitution, a concession made in order to earn their support in the revolution). The disagreement on that is exactly what led to the civil war. The South refused to live up to the Constitution's terms and end slavery, counter to the law. The Republicans won that war. We live in that country that won. Not the one you're describing. Jim Crow was a Southern state thing. The North never allowed it. We live in the North. The South is gone and it was never part of this country because it violated the laws that would have made it so. They rebelled against anti slavery laws from the beginning and they finally got what they deserved, to be conquered by the United States that we live in today. And then they still argued to keep slavery and the Supreme Court kept slapping it down. Over and over and over. If you believe that the United States was ever about slavery, then you carry the rhetoric of the very party that created Jim Crow and that supported slavery, and you make them the good guy in the story. You support their version, where it was always legal and they got screwed by the lying North. The irony... Don't ignore the writings of Washington, Franklin, Hancock, etc. All wrote to say that slavery has no place in this country. And it never did! Their letters are preserved for you to read. They are available online or in one of the museums in DC. Probably the National Archive? Someone can correct me if they know. Anyway, that some people refuse to follow the law, isn't a reflection of the country as a whole. Similarly, when someone is killed in Norway, I don't jump to conclude that Norwegians are murderers. That wouldn't make any sense. Did you go to high school in the South somewhere? The revisionist's history of the US seems to stem from that part of the country. I'm just curious if it tracks.

raw_anon_1111 9mo ago

The population is accepting it right now. 40% of the people still approve of everything Trump is doing. If you have 10 friends and you ask them what they want to eat for dinner and 6 say let’s go to a Mexican restaurant and 4 say let’s kill Bob and eat him, you still need to worry about your friend group. Right this second ICE agents are killing people with impunity and police for the longest have had qualified immunity to kill people unjustly. The country voted for this knowing exactly what they were going to get. Don’t believe the Michelle Obama “this is not who we are” this is who this country has always been

Alive-in-2025 9mo ago
The country voted for it but it wasn't a rational choice. Half the country lives in insane false world, pushed by Fox news. But it's a near-majority every election.
_heimdall 9mo ago
What poll have you seen that asks people to approve of everything any president does? I live in a very red part of the country, and in a very red, rural area that voted ~90% for Trump. I don't know anyone that is okay with everything he has done. Some take issue with Venezuela, some with the handling of the Epstein files or the federal budget. Some don't like sabre rattling over Greenland. Most people I know that do vote Republican are one issue voters. At least here people voted because they always vote republican, support the second amendment, think the republicans actually want a balanced budget, or just hated Clinton/Biden. It isn't about supporting whatever Trump does, though I'm sure some small percentage does. People regardless of party or region don't think critically often enough and can't set aside their own personal beliefs. We've made our country bipolar and we're seeing the repercussions. It isn't a problem with any one party or person, and the answer isn't to tear down the fundamentals of our system. We need to actually get back to the fundamentals because of late both parties have been going the way of socialism and authoritarianism.
- raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
  Trump’s approval rating is still around 40% https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
  - _heimdall 9mo ago
    > 40% of the people still approve of everything Trump is doing. Someone saying to a pollster that they approve of Trump is very different from them saying they approve of everything he is doing.
    - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
      59% say ICE is too aggressive - meaning that 41% approve https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-59-voters-say-ice-too-aggressive-up-10-points-since-julyIt https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-59-voters-say...
      - Forgeties79 9mo ago
        No it means 41% don’t necessarily think they’re too aggressive.
        raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
        Isn’t that agreeing with him? HN loves to make excuses for the voters. If killing someone isn’t too aggressive what is? Killing and eating his kids? They think that is fine
        Forgeties79 9mo ago
        Let me be very clear: I think ICE is wildly out of bounds and killing/terrorizing people. I do not support them. I do not support the republican party or Trump. Quite the opposite. All of that being said: that is how polling works. You are inferring too far beyond the actual question posed. For instance, somebody could think they are acting too aggressively, but completely agree with the final outcome/objective. Or somebody could disagree with the objective, but think that they’re not acting too aggressively because perhaps they’re sympathetic to LEO’s having to make snap judgments in the field (an excuse I do not agree with but many do). I think the general sentiment that the question tells you something about how people support or don’t support ICE is valid, but the exact number and statement you’re throwing out cannot be assumed and is likely wrong, even if it’s maybe close. And that’s not even getting into how different people will have different ideas of what “too aggressive” even means. 59% think they’re being too aggressive, assuming the polling is decent quality, means you can credibly say 41% do not think ICE is being too aggressive.
trimethylpurine 9mo ago
There are so many rulings, just in the last 25 years even, where SCOTUS has reaffirmed that warrantless search is not okay. This one is very much in line with the topic, in fact. Carpenter v. United States (2018) This country has never been what you're saying. We have some over policing happening. That seems to come and go in every country and doesn't say anything by itself about what a county is about, especially where it's trending over a 25 year timeline in the opposite direction from what you're describing. Let it go to court, at least, before you flip your lid and turn on your countrymen. Please.
- raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
  As people are getting shot by ICE today. Today on HN on the front page there was an article about someone being forced to use their biometric security to unlock their phone. And then to say this country has never been what I’m saying is to ignore Jim Crow, sundown towns that were prevalent into the mid 80s, etc.
  - trimethylpurine 9mo ago
    Democrats (the South) always said that this country was always about slavery. They used that rhetoric to argue FOR slavery for decades after it was abolished. This is all documented in supreme court cases from the 18th century on up through the civil war. Some of the founding fathers argued as attorneys in some of those cases in fact, stating firmly that slavery was always illegal in the United States. Republicans (Lincoln included) pointed to the Constitution as evidence that slavery was always illegal and that the southern states had a limited time to abolish it (that's factually written in the Constitution, a concession made in order to earn their support in the revolution). The disagreement on that is exactly what led to the civil war. The South refused to live up to the Constitution's terms and end slavery, counter to the law. The Republicans won that war. We live in that country that won. Not the one you're describing. Jim Crow was a Southern state thing. The North never allowed it. We live in the North. The South is gone and it was never part of this country because it violated the laws that would have made it so. They rebelled against anti slavery laws from the beginning and they finally got what they deserved, to be conquered by the United States that we live in today. And then they still argued to keep slavery and the Supreme Court kept slapping it down. Over and over and over. If you believe that the United States was ever about slavery, then you carry the rhetoric of the very party that created Jim Crow and that supported slavery, and you make them the good guy in the story. You support their version, where it was always legal and they got screwed by the lying North. The irony... Don't ignore the writings of Washington, Franklin, Hancock, etc. All wrote to say that slavery has no place in this country. And it never did! Their letters are preserved for you to read. They are available online or in one of the museums in DC. Probably the National Archive? Someone can correct me if they know. Anyway, that some people refuse to follow the law, isn't a reflection of the country as a whole. Similarly, when someone is killed in Norway, I don't jump to conclude that Norwegians are murderers. That wouldn't make any sense. Did you go to high school in the South somewhere? The revisionist's history of the US seems to stem from that part of the country. I'm just curious if it tracks.