Trump Presidency

[clakclak]

Ice agents are now allowed to enter homes without a warrant if they suspect that a migrant is hiding in the home according to a DOJ memo. It does not matter who owns the home.

https://dailyboulder.com/ice-can-now-en ... memo-says/

Here is what that looks like in practice.

[Vertigo 7]

I'll keep saying it. Arm yourselves. It's the only thing standing between you and being kidnapped and disappeared.

[clakclak]

I'll keep saying it. Arm yourselves. It's the only thing standing between you and being kidnapped and disappeared.

Won‘t that just lead to the government killing you? During the siege of Waco they brought in M1 tanks and Bradly IFVs and in 1985 they simply used an air dropped bomb on a densely populated neighborhood when evicting members of the MOVE movement failed in Philadelphia.

[Chips]

Ah yes, that universal American solution...

Guns.

Just provides yet more clarity that the current despot(s) are merely a manifestation of it's population.

For Observe (and everyone else) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at-smySDPNU
Jon Stewart talking to Rory Stewart (no relation, who is an ex-UK politician with quite a large number or roles) talking about "Trump's restructured global order".

[Vertigo 7]

I'll keep saying it. Arm yourselves. It's the only thing standing between you and being kidnapped and disappeared.

Won‘t that just lead to the government killing you? During the siege of Waco they brought in M1 tanks and Bradly IFVs and in 1985 they simply used an air dropped bomb on a densely populated neighborhood when evicting members of the MOVE movement failed in Philadelphia.

Maybe? But what's the alternative? They're not going to give you due process. They're not going to care if you actually broke the law or not. This is precisely what the 2nd amendment was meant to protect you from.

[clakclak]

I'll keep saying it. Arm yourselves. It's the only thing standing between you and being kidnapped and disappeared.

Won‘t that just lead to the government killing you? During the siege of Waco they brought in M1 tanks and Bradly IFVs and in 1985 they simply used an air dropped bomb on a densely populated neighborhood when evicting members of the MOVE movement failed in Philadelphia.

Maybe? But what's the alternative? They're not going to give you due process. They're not going to care if you actually broke the law or not. This is precisely what the 2nd amendment was meant to protect you from.

The alternative, in my opinion, would be not to wait till they come to your door, but to go out there, demonstrate, strike, vote, block, occupy and do everything you can to make your discontent heard before they show up at you doorstep. (This is not directed at you personally, I know your opinion about the current administration, but as a general rule of thumb.)

[Vertigo 7]

Won‘t that just lead to the government killing you? During the siege of Waco they brought in M1 tanks and Bradly IFVs and in 1985 they simply used an air dropped bomb on a densely populated neighborhood when evicting members of the MOVE movement failed in Philadelphia.

Maybe? But what's the alternative? They're not going to give you due process. They're not going to care if you actually broke the law or not. This is precisely what the 2nd amendment was meant to protect you from.

The alternative, in my opinion, would be not to wait till they come to your door, but to go out there, demonstrate, strike, vote, block, occupy and do everything you can to make your discontent heard before they show up at you doorstep. (This is not directed at you personally, I know your opinion about the current administration, but as a general rule of thumb.)

Thats great in theory, but did protests stop this 2 year old US CITIZEN from being deported by Trump's goons? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2- ... rcna203124

They're already at the door. So, the question is are you going to lay down and fill your pants while they kidnap you, like a certain "old school liberal" would have everyone do, or will you try to protect yourself?

[clakclak]

Maybe? But what's the alternative? They're not going to give you due process. They're not going to care if you actually broke the law or not. This is precisely what the 2nd amendment was meant to protect you from.

The alternative, in my opinion, would be not to wait till they come to your door, but to go out there, demonstrate, strike, vote, block, occupy and do everything you can to make your discontent heard before they show up at you doorstep. (This is not directed at you personally, I know your opinion about the current administration, but as a general rule of thumb.)

Thats great in theory, but did protests stop this 2 year old US CITIZEN from being deported by Trump's goons? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2- ... rcna203124

They're already at the door. So, the question is are you going to lay down and fill your pants while they kidnap you, like a certain "old school liberal" would have everyone do, or will you try to protect yourself?

I am not a liberal and not American. I never had to ask myself that question. The decision was made the first time someone got beaten into the hospital during a demonstration I organized by a political opponent. To me potentially being attacked, stabbed or having your house firebombed has been a reality for years.

[Chips]

Its alarming how extreme people get (and how quickly) with their beliefs and self justifications when they believe *their* opinion is in the right; suddenly exhibiting identical rhetoric as their "sworn enemy" that they previously questioned.

"TO THE GUNS!".

If that's *literally* the best that can be done, then it turns out the society (or members within) haven't really "advanced" since the 1780's, has it.

[jlehtone]

The alternative, in my opinion, would be not to wait till they come to your door, but to go out there, demonstrate, strike, vote, block, occupy and do everything you can to make your discontent heard before they show up at you doorstep.

Trump does squeeze universities, which did allow students to demonstrate (about something), doesn't he? It looks like if you don't demonstrate, then "they" might come to your door, but if you do demonstrate, then they definitely will. Soon.

However, it will not make world a better place if "good guys" get killed by "bad guys" in a "constitutional" shootout.

[chew-ie]

The sad reality is that no matter how the citizens act there will be "casualties". Our political systems in place to prevent that are underminded constantly (and in an accelerated manner for the last few years) which makes it even more infuriating that there are people out there who actively work against societies. All of them are tricked by the same human flaw which let's soldiers fight in wars (or enlist in the first place): the human brain is very capable of lying to itself ("I'm not the one affected by that"). Otherwise no human being would vote for something like Trump or other facist parties which WILL make the life of individuals miserable (either directly because "wrong ethnic group" or indirectly (e.g. by wrecking an economy)).

While I prefer clakclaks approach I don't see things going back to normal without some escalations like "vertigo 7's approach" happening.

[Vertigo 7]

Its alarming how extreme people get (and how quickly) with their beliefs and self justifications when they believe *their* opinion is in the right; suddenly exhibiting identical rhetoric as their "sworn enemy" that they previously questioned.

"TO THE GUNS!".

If that's *literally* the best that can be done, then it turns out the society (or members within) haven't really "advanced" since the 1780's, has it.

And what, wagging your fingers at them and acting high and mighty is going to save you if your government decides to kidnap you? If you have all the answers, lay it out. This is no longer a hypothetical scenario. People are being abducted and shipped off, never to be seen again by their family when they've done -nothing- illegal.

[clakclak]

They are now coming for the weakest an most vulnerable and by that I literally mean that you could not find a more at threat member of society than the ones they are going after now:

[…] Three U.S. citizen children from two different families were deported with their mothers by Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the early hours of Friday morning. One of them is a 4-year-old with Stage 4 cancer who was deported without medication or the ability to contact their doctors, the family’s lawyer said.[…]

This is a level of cruelty and evil that is truly hard to grasp.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigrat ... orted-ice/

[fiksal]

step one would be to get the power back from MSGA
step two should be punishment

about what Vertigo said

I don't like guns, I am for strict gun laws and against carry permits. But I get what he is saying.

US isn't the country that's can function without guns.

And in the current case one shouldn't just be arming, one should actively seeking membership in local like minded militia.

Which by the way is the intention of the second amendment

[Observe]

Its alarming how extreme people get (and how quickly) with their beliefs and self justifications when they believe *their* opinion is in the right; suddenly exhibiting identical rhetoric as their "sworn enemy" that they previously questioned.

"TO THE GUNS!".

If that's *literally* the best that can be done, then it turns out the society (or members within) haven't really "advanced" since the 1780's, has it.

The best I can come up with, is that since we can't choose our feelings, and arguably we can't choose our thoughts either, we are left with the belief that our opinions are correct and justifiable. This is our experience, our truth. Some people are extreme by nature, others more moderate. Sometimes a moderate will become extreme, depending on how they perceive and react to the circumstances at hand.

The result is that we are all condemned to witness the spectacle of existence, from within the prison of a mind that fabricates our thoughts and feelings without our consent.

At least that's my fabrication.

[Chips]

And what, wagging your fingers at them and acting high and mighty is going to save you if your government decides to kidnap you? If you have all the answers, lay it out. This is no longer a hypothetical scenario. People are being abducted and shipped off, never to be seen again by their family when they've done -nothing- illegal.

I don't need to have the solution; you are advocating the principle of "shoot the law representatives if you disagree with it". It's not even a slippery slope, it's a straight up call to anarchy and murder as the *only* resort. Once you are empowering yourself to be the "competent" decider in determining what law (if any) is relevant, then what's to say someone else's perception is wrong. e.g. regarding a parking fine or speeding ticket "BLAM!"

There's not even a remote "due process can and should be followed, we shall battle this in the courts, the media, the public - rally against the tyranny!" - it's just gone straight to "DEATH TO WHOM I DISAGREE WITH!"

People being shipped off may be bad, but murdering as the alternative is not acceptable in any society other than the anarchists handbook. Or, in the US, possibly the Police guidelines when dealing with minorities People aren't being "disappeared" (killed) by the authorities are they? So are there not avenues to pursue before heading towards the ultimate? Or is there still such a level of intransigence/inactivity in the US that this is carte blanch with the overwhelming majority.

And to think Musk tweeted "Civil war is inevitable" with regards to the UK over some riots last summer... mental. So I'm just pointing out "is this *really* what folks are intending?".

Being questioned on that, the result is doubling down or challenging with "give me an alternative"?

It's not about giving you solutions, it's about self examination of what is being said... don't start to normalise a call for murder as legitimately being the first, last, only possible response. Is this really, fundamentally, the views people now have? Or is it just the ill conceived rant-in-thread-online response to a current scenario. If it's the latter, then that's "normal" given the internet -- as is someone pointing out the actual implication/meaning. If it's the former, then that is frankly quite scary how fast people who'd obviously consider themselves "rational" have swung to... that.

[Observe]

- it's just gone straight to "DEATH TO WHOM I DISAGREE WITH!"

Both extremes have that militant attitude. They are indistinguishable in that regard. There was a time, when liberals were stereotypically characterized by peace, love, live and let live.

That element still exists among some liberals but seems to have been somewhat overtaken by an immature militant crowd characterized by the likes of Vertigo 7, who adopt the "I'll chop of my nose to spite my face" strategy. Eventually, if they survive, such people either get put in prison or they grow up, or both. The end result is that they do more damage to their own cause than their adversaries.

[Vertigo 7]

And what, wagging your fingers at them and acting high and mighty is going to save you if your government decides to kidnap you? If you have all the answers, lay it out. This is no longer a hypothetical scenario. People are being abducted and shipped off, never to be seen again by their family when they've done -nothing- illegal.

I don't need to have the solution; you are advocating the principle of "shoot the law representatives if you disagree with it". It's not even a slippery slope, it's a straight up call to anarchy and murder as the *only* resort. Once you are empowering yourself to be the "competent" decider in determining what law (if any) is relevant, then what's to say someone else's perception is wrong. e.g. regarding a parking fine or speeding ticket "BLAM!"

There's not even a remote "due process can and should be followed, we shall battle this in the courts, the media, the public - rally against the tyranny!" - it's just gone straight to "DEATH TO WHOM I DISAGREE WITH!"

People being shipped off may be bad, but murdering as the alternative is not acceptable in any society other than the anarchists handbook. Or, in the US, possibly the Police guidelines when dealing with minorities People aren't being "disappeared" (killed) by the authorities are they? So are there not avenues to pursue before heading towards the ultimate? Or is there still such a level of intransigence/inactivity in the US that this is carte blanch with the overwhelming majority.

And to think Musk tweeted "Civil war is inevitable" with regards to the UK over some riots last summer... mental. So I'm just pointing out "is this *really* what folks are intending?".

Being questioned on that, the result is doubling down or challenging with "give me an alternative"?

It's not about giving you solutions, it's about self examination of what is being said... don't start to normalise a call for murder as legitimately being the first, last, only possible response. Is this really, fundamentally, the views people now have? Or is it just the ill conceived rant-in-thread-online response to a current scenario. If it's the latter, then that's "normal" given the internet -- as is someone pointing out the actual implication/meaning. If it's the former, then that is frankly quite scary how fast people who'd obviously consider themselves "rational" have swung to... that.

I don't need to examine what is being said. I am advocating self-defense, apparently a completely foreign concept to some, in the face of no alternatives. There's no rallying or protesting or anything else that's going to stop anyone from being kidnapped when ICE comes kicking in doors - its far too late for that nonsense. So yes, murder, maim, dismember, do whatever it takes to the intruders if it means you get to live free for one more day. Just because they are wearing a badge, that doesn't make them right. And these abductees aren't being given a trial. Hell, if reporting is to be believed, Rwanda is now a target destination for these people being kidnapped.

What would you do if someone breaks into your house with the intent of kidnapping you or a member of your family?

- it's just gone straight to "DEATH TO WHOM I DISAGREE WITH!"

Both extremes have that militant attitude. They are indistinguishable in that regard. There was a time, when liberals were stereotypically characterized by peace, love, live and let live.

That element still exists among some liberals but seems to have been somewhat overtaken by an immature militant crowd characterized by the likes of Vertigo 7, who adopt the "I'll chop of my nose to spite my face" strategy. Eventually, if they survive, such people either get put in prison or they grow up, or both. The end result is that they do more damage to their own cause than their adversaries.

Ive sat here and watched for years while you advocated for Ukraines surrender to Russia while you sucked up to Putin and here you are doing it again to Trump. It ain't me that needs to change, bucko. Seriously, what is it about capitulating to fascist dictators that gets you all hot and bothered?

[clakclak]

@Chips and @Observe

I think the two of you are a bit nonchalant in dismissing what is going on as ‘just normal laws and those who don‘t follow them are anarchists‘. It sometimes feels like the two of you think your societies are somehow immune from sliding towards fascism, understandable as both America and the UK have long traditions of democracy, but the slope is indeed slippery at times.

While I may disagree withe Vertigo on practical questions,
I think the general idea of having a plan what to do if the situation worsens is correct. Inaction in the face of injustice will lead to violence anyway, the question is only who perpetuates it and if it is one sided or not. The Stolpersteine in my street serve as a daily reminder of that.

[Observe]

It sometimes feels like the two of you think your societies are somehow immune from sliding towards fascism, understandable as both America and the UK have long traditions of democracy, but the slope is indeed slippery at times.

The thing with fascism is that it can spring from either the left or the right. We have to keep an eye on all sides for its emergence.

In the case of the left, we see liberal ideals ("equality," "justice," "tolerance") becoming weaponized into authoritarian control, where dissenters are seen not just as wrong but as threats to society. It still talks like liberalism ("diversity," "inclusion," "democracy"), but it behaves like fascism (intolerance of dissent, state-corporate unity, mass mobilization, enforced loyalty).

In the case of the right, we see fear of cultural decline, demographic change, and "outsider influence" growing. Political opponents aren't just wrong - they are seen as traitors or enemies of the people. Calls for law and order become more aggressive, even at the cost of civil liberties. The media, universities, courts, and even elections are portrayed as corrupt and rigged against "real Americans".

I don't know about you, but I see plenty such examples on both sides. Ergo, I fear where either party will lead us. My preference is somewhere in the middle, but the one thing that both sides have in common, is their hatred of moderates.

I agree with you about the slippery slope. The only way to avoid falling down either side into the pit of fascism, is to somehow maintain a balance on that thin line of moderation. This is the job that is facing the whole world. So far, it is a shacky balance that appears to be dangerously teetering.