Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Glad to hear it. As a good first step, please stop voting for the party that has spent decades making it easy to mix money and politics.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
And you’re implying that wanting to acquire Greenland is so bizarre
Mick, the fact that you’re even pretending this is all perfectly normal is mind blowing. I mean WTF? I don’t even know if this warrants much of a response.
Trump says U.S. will ‘get Greenland,’ military force may not be needed but not ruled out
Do I really need to explain why this is fucking bonkers?
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Mick. It sounds like we agree then. Let’s get rid of money in politics.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen just proposed an amendment to do exactly this:
Amendment to End the Domination of Big Money in Politics Introduced in U.S. Senate
I hope you and all the others here who are concerned about big business being “in the bag” for Democrats will get on board with this. Or do you not actually care about money in politics — but just care about it when it is given to Democrats?
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
We as a country should not be violating human rights and deporting people to gulags in the first place, much less because it’s too expensive to give them a hearing. These guys were already being detained. It took Reuters about ten seconds to verify the legal status, criminal record, and other detail. Is legal justice now too expensive? Should we dismantle our criminal justice system and fire all the prosecutors and defense lawyers, as well?
You mention Guantanamo. At least with Guantanamo the U.S. government kept the detainees on a base we control. That meant the courts got involved and there was some level of public scrutiny. Lawyers could visit. The media could report. Human rights groups were watching. I guess that’s the point of El Salvador — Guantanamo was too nice, apparently, if you no longer believe in human rights.
With our new arrangement we can just vanish people into a system with no rules, no recourse, no transparency.
By way, you mention that nobody seems to dispute that these guys entered the country illegally. That’s actually not true:
A 35-year-old former professional soccer player, Jerce legally entered the U.S. in 2024 seeking asylum after reportedly being detained and tortured by the Maduro regime. Despite a pending asylum hearing scheduled for April 17, 2025, he was deported based on a Real Madrid tattoo, which authorities misinterpreted as a gang symbol.
After fleeing persecution in Venezuela to Colombia, “E.M.” and his girlfriend were granted refugee status in the U.S. Upon arrival in Houston on January 8, he was detained due to tattoos—a crown, a soccer ball, and a palm tree—that were suspected gang symbols. Despite no criminal record in Venezuela or Colombia, he was deported to El Salvador on March 15 and imprisoned.
The gay Venezuelan asylum seeker and makeup artist I mentioned –Andry — legally entered the U.S. seeking protection from persecution. Despite no gang affiliations, he was deported to El Salvador and incarcerated in a mega-prison.
A 26-year-old barber, Franco entered the U.S. in 2023, requesting asylum. He was detained during a routine check-in with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in February 2025 and later deported, despite documents indicating he had no criminal record.
You distrust the media, and think maybe those guys are actually worse than portrayed. But you have no evidence. Because how could you? They weren’t given a hearing. Who is even making these decisions?
You don’t want to believe the media? Ok. Give them a hearing and believe the courts, a judge, or the administrative process that concludes affirmatively, with some evidence, that they are gang members.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Mick — you do realize that conservatives voted every step of the way to weaken the laws and rules around money & politics. Every lawsuit, Supreme Court decision, legislation, etc. was championed by conservatives.
Imagine spending decades advocating for steroids in sports — and then complaining that the other teams are using steroids.
Over the past 25 years, the legal barriers separating money from politics in the U.S. have been systematically dismantled—primarily through a series of Supreme Court rulings driven by conservative majorities. The most pivotal decision was Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which held that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures, framing such spending as protected free speech. This opened the door to Super PACs and dark money. That same year, SpeechNow.org v. FEC allowed for unlimited contributions to Super PACs, while McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) struck down aggregate limits on how much individuals could donate across all federal candidates. More recently, FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate (2022) made it easier for wealthy candidates to be repaid by donors after elections. Together, these decisions turned campaign finance law into Swiss cheese.
Politically, these changes were overwhelmingly championed by conservatives and the Republican Party. Conservative legal groups like the Federalist Society, libertarian think tanks, and GOP-aligned donors pushed the idea that campaign finance restrictions violated the First Amendment. Republican leadership in Congress, particularly people like Mitch McConnell, fought vigorously against contribution limits and transparency laws. Democrats, by contrast, generally supported stricter campaign finance rules and sought to pass legislation like the DISCLOSE Act, though some benefited from the same dark money system in practice.
The irony is sharp when conservatives complain about the influence of money in politics today. I was on the CEB long enough to remember many of you poo pooing any arguments against some of these things. Because “freedom”, money is speech, etc.
Meanwhile you have Elon Musk – the richest guy in the world — literally taking questions from the Oval Office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyqB3t91quQ
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by .
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Deicy Aldana, 26, said her husband, 26-year-old Colombian-Venezuelan dual citizen Andres Guillermo Morales, had a legal work permit in the United States as part of his U.S. asylum application when he was arrested by ICE in early February. His work authorization was verified independently by Reuters.
Aldana shared paperwork showing her husband, who has a Colombian mother and was raised along the two countries’ border, has no criminal convictions in Colombia. Reuters confirmed the authenticity of the document with its own records search.Reuters was not able to immediately find any U.S. criminal convictions for Morales either.Morales, who worked for an air conditioning company and then a cement company, had multiple tattoos, Aldana said, but none were connected to any gang. He had his parents’ names on his arms, with a clock next to his father’s, as well as a star and music notes on his neck and a Bible verse on his ribs.When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Sad story about one of the disappeared people. If you read the story, he is a gay make-up artist with some tattoos. Does that sound like a gang member to you? Maybe he is. I doubt it, but how would we actually know without a hearing?
He waited months in detention for an immigration court hearing on March 13, but instead was put one of three planes with 237 other migrants and deported.
Another story about a guy with an “Autism Awareness” tattoo sent to this gulag. Is that the new profile of a Venezuelan gang member?
https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/trump-sends-innocent-man-el-34945042
the sister of Neri Jose Alvarado Borges—a 24-year-old of Venezuelan descent deported to El Salvador this month—said relatives suspect that Immigration and Custom Enforcement officials used his tattoos, one showing the name of his autistic younger brother and another showing a rainbow-colored ribbon of the autism acceptance movement, to justify his illegal ousting from the US.
Montilla said her brother wasn’t in any gang. Instead, he had been a psychology student who dropped out of school to come to America nine months ago due to the upheaval of the Venezuelan economy.
Are you guys seriously arguing this is not only ok, but good?
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
And how do you know if they really are criminals? Is this just a “trust me bro” scenario? Even criminals are allowed human rights.
We don’t even know if these are all criminals. They are simply alleged criminals. And even criminals are entitled to human rights and due process. Or do we as a country not believe in that anymore?
GR, I’m surprised to see you on the wrong side of this. As you well know, there are ways of keeping court proceedings anonymous.
You can withhold juror names, you can keep juror addresses, workplaces, or demographic data confidential, you can sequester the jury.
A court can seal proceedings or certain filings to protect the identity of witnesses, victims, informants, even parties in civil cases (e.g., Doe v. Roe cases).
Judges can issue protective orders under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or equivalent state rules.
There are laws and procedures for keeping details of the judges confidential, as well.
The U.S. Constitution deliberately uses the term “person” rather than “citizen” in key provisions such as the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause, and the 4th, 6th, and 1st Amendments. These rights—protection against unlawful searches and seizures, the right to a fair trial, freedom of speech and religion, and equal protection under the law—apply to anyone on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld this interpretation. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Court confirmed that constitutional protections extend to all persons within the country. In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), it ruled that even undocumented immigrants cannot be detained indefinitely without due process. While non-citizens don’t have full political rights like voting or holding certain public offices, they are still protected from arbitrary detention, discrimination, and abuse. U.S. courts have repeatedly affirmed that the rule of law does not depend on citizenship.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
These are incentives to do business in California. But perhaps we can agree that increasing income and capital gains taxes on rich individuals makes sense.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
@Legend, is this part of the gambit?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/24/politics/us-joins-russia-ukraine-un-vote/index.html
For those who keep harping on Crimea, it’s a ridiculous analogy. Neither Ukraine nor the West was prepared for the annexation. It was basically a fait accompli and would have required starting a war to reverse it. The invasion ten years later was a war thrust upon Ukrainians whether we wanted it or not. It is happening. We can support the pro democracy side and pro West side, or act like cowards and Neville Chamberlain, allowing naked aggression, terrorism, kidnapping, murder, rape, genocide, and blatant illegal annexation of a European country.
How is it that Republicans are on the wrong side of almost every major war? You were cheering on Bush when I was protesting that idiocy. Now you’re slinking away from the most important conflict in Europe in all of our lives. Insane.
Russia is weak. Putin can be defeated. Ukraine has been standing up to them with one arm tied behind its back and the bare minimum support.
What would I have done? The answer is, I would have given more support than Biden — though I don’t entirely blame him. Recall that Congress dithered for seven months last year before even bringing a vote to give Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine aid. I had hoped for someone more competent than Biden, but you guys voted in dipshit Russian stooge who makes Biden look like a hero. The bar was so low, but you found someone who is even worse.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I never figured so many Republicans would side with Putin. The rot goes deep.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Amazing we both read the same news and you guys think it’s the dawn of greatness.
It may be apocryphal, but I’m reminded that Mussolini got the trains running on time. Xi built an amazing high speed rail system, among many things.
I’m astonished intelligent people can look at what Trump is doing and celebrate.
i wish I had time to write more. Suffice to say, I think you guys have lost your minds. I always wondered how a well educated country like Germany could fall into madness in the 1930s. I never thought it would happen here. I’m not saying we are turning into a Nazi country, but it’s hard to find the right analogy. Maybe Spain in the 1930s? They suffered repression and stagnation until reforming 70 years later. Maybe a bit of Chinese Cultural Revolution with massive disinformation on social media, lobotomizing the country. A bit of Venezuela over the last 25 years, implementing insane economic policies.
We are our own unique case. There’s no perfect analogy. I’m sure some of it will look ok on the surface, at the expense of our civil society, democracy, rule of law, etc.
We have entered a dark chapter in American history. I am astonished you guys don’t see it. But it was obvious to most people who before the election who weren’t balls deep into Twitter and right wing propaganda. And it seems obvious now as it’s happening.
Maybe I’m the one who is too deep in my own news echo chambers. But I don’t think so. I hope one or two of you who consider yourselves informed and intelligent will have an epiphany one of these days and see the dismantling of our great country. We weren’t perfect. But you don’t throw away the whole system. It’s apparently easier than I thought, though , to break the whole thing. It’s not so easy to rebuild it.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
It has nothing to do with not “getting my way for a week”. I could have written all of that (and had been thinking about it) long before the inauguration.
The crap you suggest ‘my side’ has been doing is pure BS or had very reasonable justification. I do not consider myself progressive per se. I consider myself to on the side of pro-democracy and pro rule of law. I know you think I’m some kind of libtard, but most of the talking heads I listen to are former Republicans and people who think of themselves as conservatives.
By the way, I made some predictions. But not everything I said was conjecture. Trump is grifting on a massive scale. The oligarchs are afraid of him (Bezos intervened to halt the newspaper’s planned endorsement of Harris , Zuck has done a 180 and started spouting nonsense to please Trump, etc.). The media is falling in line. The courts have betrayed obvious corruption in favor of Trump. Red and purple states are enacting endless laws targeting liberals to make it harder for them to vote.
These aren’t hypotheticals. It’s bad already and will get far worse soon.
Yes, I made some predictions, as well. I hope I’m wrong about them, but there is enough evidence to expect most of them will come true. Or, if they don’t, it won’t be for a lack of trying on the MAGA side.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
“YOU MEAN LIKE THE COUP HE STAGED AFTER BIDEN WON?”
Yess. I do mean that. It was an attempted coup. It failed because there were enough people with integrity to keep it from succeeding (judges, Pence, Secretaries of States, etc.). The fact that it didn’t succeed does not mean it was any less of a coup attempt. If I try to rob a bank but don’t succeed, you still prosecute.
I’m happy to review some of the major themes for you:
You do realize Trump asked Pence not to count the legally certified ballots from each state, and instead count the fraudulent electors they cooked up. His lawyer, John Eastman, is on record saying this was the plan — on the ‘theory’ that Pence had the authority to reject certain states’ electoral votes. Eastman admitted privately that it was completely unconstitutional and wouldn’t work, but it was a major theme in Trump’s efforts to argue that overturning the results had a “legal” basis. To his credit, Mike Pence did not go along with this. I don’t agree with Pence’s view of the world, but I respect him for his pro-democracy stance.
And of course we know now that Trump sat in his room, watching the mob of Trumpers attack the Capitol for 3+ hours before lifting a finger to do anything about it — until it was clear that it wouldn’t succeed in delaying the vote beyond Jan 6th. By some accounts he was pretty thrilled to see what was going on while the mob was smearing shit on the walls, breaking into the buildings, trying to hunt down Pelosi and “hang Mike Pence”.
He was asked about the “hang Mike Pence” chants, by the way, and he reportedly reacted with indifference, if not approval. Testimony during the House January 6 Committee hearings, from former White House aides, indicated that he responded with something along the lines of, “Maybe our supporters have the right idea,” or “Mike deserves it.”
Trump’s team also tried the “Green Bay Sweep” strategy, where (according to his advisor, Peter Navarro) the was a plan to delay certification by having Congressional allies object to the electoral votes from swing states. The goal was to trigger hours of debate for each objection, delaying certification long enough to send the contested states’ results back to their legislatures for review, where Trump hoped Republican-led legislatures would change or reject their state’s election outcome.
He tried to pressure the DOJ to legitimize claims of election fraud. He tried to get then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen to announce investigations into baseless allegations of widespread election fraud — hoping it would give states grounds to decertify results.
He spread endless lies (to this day) that the 2020 election was stolen, fueling anger and skepticism among large swaths of the country (some of you still buy that bullshit despite no shred of evidence to this day. These statements were obviously aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the election and setting the stage for rejecting its outcome by any means.
He and his team promoted widespread disinformation about the election, including unfounded claims of voting machine tampering, ballot “dumps,” and illegal votes. Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss (spelling?) successfully sued Rudy Giuliani since he had obviously edited the video in a misleading way. Fox News also settled for nearly a billion dollars because of all the lies they spread to further Trump’s bullshit.
In a Banana Republic move, he called multiple state officials in swing states, including Secretaries of States like Brad Raffensperger, urging them to reject their results and “find” more votes for himself. Having the most powerful man in the country call you up and pressure you to do that is completely anti-democratic, as you all well know, if you’re honest with yourselves. You would have an aneurism if Biden or Obama had done anything like that.
The through-line to all of this, of course, is that Trump tried to throw out all the votes of 158 million Americans based on bullshit. Call it whatever you want, but it was an attempted coup using multiple strategies. Thank god none of them worked.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by .
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
