10 ms·

Venezuela was literally the only thing Trump has done that made me sick with a feeling of "this is going to be well received by most people". (Distinct from the

Venezuela was literally the only thing Trump has done that made me sick with a feeling of "this is going to be well received by most people". (Distinct from the feeling that something should be poorly received, but then seeing the useful idiots lap it up anyway. The instances of this have been unenumerable) Hopefully if they do attack Cuba, it will play a little differently with one huge quagmire (or loss, depending on perspective) already on the table.

rayiner 5mo ago
> Venezuela was literally the only thing Trump has done that made me sick with a feeling of "this is going to be well received by most people". You didn't think Trump's border policy was going to be well received? That seems... out of touch give how prominent an issue it was in the election. People remain quite positive on Trump's immigration policy; with Iran and inflation being his big weak spots: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/HHP_Apr2026_KeyResults.pdf https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/HHP... (pp. 25, 26). I don’t know how invading Cuba would be received. I feel like the biggest source of consternation about Iran is the effect on gas prices. That’s not at issue in Cuba.
- mindslight 5mo ago
  It might not run afoul of yours, but I assume that deploying domestic terrorists to attack American cities impinges upon most people's sense of morality in a way that attacking foreign countries (unfortunately) does not. This puts it in the second category I mentioned.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    I was actually surprised about that in the other direction. Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country. I would have thought ICE would get the benefit of that sentiment. But in the Harvard-Harris polling above, police are +39 net favorability, while ICE is -6. The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have committed crimes) is polling at 55-45. What other way do people think there is to deport 20+ million people?
    - mindslight 5mo ago
      For starters they mainly don't. The whole reason TV personality leadership is en vogue is because most people don't actually think through the implications of what they're buying into. I sure wish they did! But also, it's quite straightforward to envision a different ICE carrying out its goal slower, more deliberately, with transparency and legal accountability. There's zero need for them to operate as a masked terror squad that is above the law. For example Renee Good's executioner could be behind bars where criminals belong, while his former coworkers who didn't set up a pretext to execute a woman continue on with their job of deporting illegal immigrants. These things are not inherently in conflict. (Yes, I am aware the rot in the organization has been brewing well before Trump. But terrible needlessly divisive leadership that aims to maximize cruelty (ie spectacle) has accelerated it, and has made it seem like these things are in conflict)
      - deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
      - pstuart 5mo ago
        ICE existed before before Trump and under Obama and Biden was doing the work ICE is intended to do. But under Trump it's been different in several different ways: 1. Encouraged aggressive and lawless behavior by its agents with a promise of zero accountability for their behavior (or lawlessness) 2. A quota system designed to incentive detaining anybody at any cost for any reason 3. Disregard for due process and the legal system -- arresting and detaining people when they show up for immigration hearings *following the legal process fully* 4. Killing innocent US citizens. 5. Detaining US citizens. 6. Enhanced "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" where they take detainees to another state and then release them there And all of this follows from the president's rallys where the crowds are whipped up to demand the removal of all non whites who are "taking over this country". Pro tip: any policies that are designed to welcome or even encourage harm to those that it applies to are inherently evil. The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats it's most vulnerable members, and ICE as it exists today is a shameful stain on our country.
    - pstuart 5mo ago
  - pstuart 5mo ago
    After the killings in Minnesota I tried reaching out to a MAGA acquaintance I've tried to engage with to find any sort of common ground (so far without any success). I was ignored, and I'm assuming that he's been taught that those were domestic terrorists and got what they deserved.
    - rayiner 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - mindslight 5mo ago
        It would help if these fundamental disagreements were ever explained rather than just vaguely handwaved. Is this disagreement about whether governments should be subservient to the People, and the idea of Constitutional rights and the rule of law in general? Or is it more philosophical like the people who were killed are now in the afterlife so their deaths aren't really a big deal? Or is it less universal like the people who were killed are of a different tribe so their being killed is right and just? Those are the avenues I can think of. If I am missing one please volunteer it!
        rayiner 5mo ago
        For example, if citizens don't like a law enforcement policy, are they entitled to physically confront law enforcement to exercise a "heckler's veto" over the policy? And how should the predictable consequences of such confrontations be weighed against the state's legitimate interest in carrying out the law enforcement priorities of the democratically elected government? Similarly: Whether you think collateral risk is acceptable depends very heavily on your view of the urgency of the particular law enforcement mission. In a country the size of the U.S., fatalities are inevitable in any large-scale law enforcement operation. Civilians and officers are regularly killed when officers respond to domestic violence incidents. But hardly anybody argues we should stop responding to domestic violence calls because of that. If we had, for example, a large-scale gun confiscation in this country, lots of civilians would get killed. But I suspect many people would resist the argument that a few such deaths would be a reason to abandon the program.
  - Rekindle8090 5mo ago
    [dead]

rayiner 5mo ago

> Venezuela was literally the only thing Trump has done that made me sick with a feeling of "this is going to be well received by most people". You didn't think Trump's border policy was going to be well received? That seems... out of touch give how prominent an issue it was in the election. People remain quite positive on Trump's immigration policy; with Iran and inflation being his big weak spots: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/HHP_Apr2026_KeyResults.pdf https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/HHP... (pp. 25, 26). I don’t know how invading Cuba would be received. I feel like the biggest source of consternation about Iran is the effect on gas prices. That’s not at issue in Cuba.

mindslight 5mo ago
It might not run afoul of yours, but I assume that deploying domestic terrorists to attack American cities impinges upon most people's sense of morality in a way that attacking foreign countries (unfortunately) does not. This puts it in the second category I mentioned.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  I was actually surprised about that in the other direction. Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country. I would have thought ICE would get the benefit of that sentiment. But in the Harvard-Harris polling above, police are +39 net favorability, while ICE is -6. The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have committed crimes) is polling at 55-45. What other way do people think there is to deport 20+ million people?
  - mindslight 5mo ago
    For starters they mainly don't. The whole reason TV personality leadership is en vogue is because most people don't actually think through the implications of what they're buying into. I sure wish they did! But also, it's quite straightforward to envision a different ICE carrying out its goal slower, more deliberately, with transparency and legal accountability. There's zero need for them to operate as a masked terror squad that is above the law. For example Renee Good's executioner could be behind bars where criminals belong, while his former coworkers who didn't set up a pretext to execute a woman continue on with their job of deporting illegal immigrants. These things are not inherently in conflict. (Yes, I am aware the rot in the organization has been brewing well before Trump. But terrible needlessly divisive leadership that aims to maximize cruelty (ie spectacle) has accelerated it, and has made it seem like these things are in conflict)
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - pstuart 5mo ago
      ICE existed before before Trump and under Obama and Biden was doing the work ICE is intended to do. But under Trump it's been different in several different ways: 1. Encouraged aggressive and lawless behavior by its agents with a promise of zero accountability for their behavior (or lawlessness) 2. A quota system designed to incentive detaining anybody at any cost for any reason 3. Disregard for due process and the legal system -- arresting and detaining people when they show up for immigration hearings *following the legal process fully* 4. Killing innocent US citizens. 5. Detaining US citizens. 6. Enhanced "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" where they take detainees to another state and then release them there And all of this follows from the president's rallys where the crowds are whipped up to demand the removal of all non whites who are "taking over this country". Pro tip: any policies that are designed to welcome or even encourage harm to those that it applies to are inherently evil. The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats it's most vulnerable members, and ICE as it exists today is a shameful stain on our country.
  - pstuart 5mo ago
- pstuart 5mo ago
  After the killings in Minnesota I tried reaching out to a MAGA acquaintance I've tried to engage with to find any sort of common ground (so far without any success). I was ignored, and I'm assuming that he's been taught that those were domestic terrorists and got what they deserved.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - mindslight 5mo ago
      It would help if these fundamental disagreements were ever explained rather than just vaguely handwaved. Is this disagreement about whether governments should be subservient to the People, and the idea of Constitutional rights and the rule of law in general? Or is it more philosophical like the people who were killed are now in the afterlife so their deaths aren't really a big deal? Or is it less universal like the people who were killed are of a different tribe so their being killed is right and just? Those are the avenues I can think of. If I am missing one please volunteer it!
      - rayiner 5mo ago
        For example, if citizens don't like a law enforcement policy, are they entitled to physically confront law enforcement to exercise a "heckler's veto" over the policy? And how should the predictable consequences of such confrontations be weighed against the state's legitimate interest in carrying out the law enforcement priorities of the democratically elected government? Similarly: Whether you think collateral risk is acceptable depends very heavily on your view of the urgency of the particular law enforcement mission. In a country the size of the U.S., fatalities are inevitable in any large-scale law enforcement operation. Civilians and officers are regularly killed when officers respond to domestic violence incidents. But hardly anybody argues we should stop responding to domestic violence calls because of that. If we had, for example, a large-scale gun confiscation in this country, lots of civilians would get killed. But I suspect many people would resist the argument that a few such deaths would be a reason to abandon the program.
- Rekindle8090 5mo ago
  [dead]