If he was in the hospital ICE would have gone to a judge and obtained a hospital order wherein they explained to the judge why he could not be brought to court for his initial court appearance. The judge then changed his/her mind after this situation continued for such a long time that he/she deemed it unreasonable given the state of the case. Your ignorance of criminal law has allowed you to be propagandized.
E-Verify is currently very easy to circumvent and would require an act of Congress, aka 60 senators, to fix. The current batch of senators cannot cobble together 60 who will vote for a clean continuing resolution because sunset provisions for a free money from the sky provision are going into effect.
There's a million ways he could've implemented the ICE program, and he chose one with the greatest optics of cruelty. Masked and armed bouncers dragging people away at gunpoint has horrible optics. There are documented cases of people being deported to random nations, a few people have been disappeared (from public tracking, limiting a family's visibility into where a loved one is) and there's a general allergy to due process. Horrible optics.
I dont think there is much evidence supporting this assertion. Arresting people is always going to generate the possibility of "bad optics" if the media wants to portray it as bad. Illegal immigrants are concentrated in cities that are run by Democrats. With not just passive resistance by Democratic governments, but often active participation in the thwarting of law enforcement actions, things would always have progressed to this point unless Trump just went along with the program and continued to not enforce immigration law. You had that judge in Wisconsin smuggling away an illegal in court, but court is the most orderly place to arrest ANYONE! They already went through a voluntary weapons screening and/or are already in custody and have been searched. So, no. He isn't going to the max, he's barely doing the minimum proscribed by law.
They were guilty, he was also guilty. The confession of the 6th person is the only exculpatory evidence for the CP5 and carries zero weight with me considering the situation he was already in.
Democrats don't want people to enjoy foreign food? Any time I go to DC all I get is swamped with claims that the locals (all Dems) know the best Ethiopian place in the world (of course all these places inevitably suck because they pick them based on it being a unique choice rather than good).
No no.
There is something I think that is adjacent to what you are talking about which is cultural appropriation, which is frowned upon. But that is basically me, a white guy, starting an Ethiopian food restaurant that is actually good and making profits from it. That is what would be frowned upon.
Calling them old church ladies is pretty unkind to old church ladies. My grandma is an old church lady. She frowns upon premarital sex and excessive drinking. I have found no real evidence that either of those activities are good in the long term. A progressive scold, from my perspective, is a sort of double negative. They frown upon scorning bad things, but rarely have strong opinions on what is actually good. An example is that they might be fit themselves, but are not open to criticizing fat people for being fat. Or they don't steal from retail establishments, but think criminal prosecution of retail theft is wrong.
All they have to do is check the box labeled “Ocasio-Cortez”. That’s it. Nothing can stop them if they decide to check the box.
That is the establishment. Has been for many years. There's nothing she says that Pelosi and Schumer do not, or isn't gospel at Harvard.
I you want actual left-populism you'd need Fetterman to make a magic-level recovery (likely he needs to be smarter and a better communicator than pre-stroke) and his wife to die in a mysterious boating accident. AOC is many things, she used to be hot, which was rare for a politician. She is loud in a fun way, which was rare for a politician before. But she has always marched lockstep with the establishment. Her primary challenge to Schumer, if it materializes, will be a "50 Stalins" primary, not an anti-establishment one. The critique will be that he is insufficiently Democrat, and of course it will not be true, but that is what it will be.
I don't think he's done any soul searching, he's done whatever is intended to get people like yourself to think he's done a soul searching.
This is the fellow who ran the Journo-List after all. You should require extensive and overwhelming evidence to convince you that he is not a malicious actor, he has not provided such evidence.
Instead, he has a shtick, which is talking in PBS voice, which makes him sound reasonable as he says unreasonable things. The most recent example I am aware of is his podcast episode entitled something like "Trump's Blue Scare". In said episode he scares his listeners into thinking Trump is going to use Charlie Kirk's death to fire half the federal work force for being Democrats, round a bunch of people into cages, etc. What happened after Ezra recorded that pod? Jimmy Kimell got back on air, and ICE facilities were attacked by sniper fire. Basically the opposite of what he predicted. He's completely disconnected from reality in a way that makes me suspect everything he says is simply an attempt to cynically convince suburbanites that the Democrats are worth voting for.
Which matters more, act or conviction?
The problem with these charities that get you into Ivies, is there is typically no "there" there. Rarely are these charities engaged in picking up litter, digging needed ditches, shoveling snow, or some other endeavor an unskilled 15 year old could plausibly producing productive labor. Instead there are dozens of make-work charities that exist for the purpose of bolstering college applications.
Somehow this post feels nearly maximally uncharitable to both parties and young men. Have Democrats become too conformist to be cool? I suppose. Are Republicans a party with an excess of unconstrained young male energy? I suppose. Do young men need an outlet for their energy? Yes.
But its not like the Democrats stumbled into being "lame" (your word). It was part of a calculated electoral strategy that prioritized other things, and necessarily excluded male interests, particularly those of noncriminal working males. That left the GOP with an opening that they seized on and since libertarianism has always been unpopular with voters since the franchise was expanded beyond a few landowning men in New England, discarding that in favor of a little paternalism that sounds more masculine was a winning message.
But Somalia's government isn't incapable of stopping pirates because theoretically. It doesn't care to because the people don't care to. And/or there aren't enough functional people in somalia to erect a state with that sort of state capacity.
If the new academic system can produce higher quality education and therefore better graduates, eventually it will be noticed that graduates of these institutions do better in the workforce than traditional college graduates.
Therein lies the problem. Universities are not about education, they are about selection. Until you can reliably demonstrate you are getting better admittees than Stanford, Stanford will be better than you. And no one will agree to go to your school instead of Stanford until you show you can place them...
So the burn it down plan is the only plan that has a chance of working. Once people are dubious about going to the current universities because they cant take out loans to go there and no one else can either, so why bother? Then something else can spring up.
Your hard status rankings seem way off fairly regularly, using your own definitions.
In what way is Prince William comparable to Michael Jordan (well I am at least kinda assuming we are talking prime age for both) in the Jungle? William is fine, and fit, but he's not to the FAR right. That is prime athletes with good looks, etc. I think Ray Lewis in his prime coming off the murder charge is a great example for your "caveman". And the women. By golly. How are you rating snooky higher on hard status than Marilyn Monroe? MM is hard to the right on that dimension, the tough question is how she balances on the princess/whore scale.
Also, come on. Is Ellen really more powerful than Oprah? No one thinks that.
I think you come with decent ideas, but need to workshop the actual rankings a little harder.
How would raining widespread destruction on Somalia even help prevent piracy?
If there are no Somalis and/or no Somali boats, there can be no Somali pirates.
The reason why the US and allies took up nation-building in the noughties was that the problems we were facing at the time originated in failed states, not rogue states.
Yes, and the inherent flaw in this was looking at the "failed states" as states that failed their people, as opposed to states which gave their people what they wanted and/or deserved. Somalia isn't failing Somalis, the Somalis are just failing all over. The Afghan government that lost the country to the Taliban in like 14 hours didn't fail Afghans, it gave them the government they wanted.
Why? The shoe isn't on the other foot, will not be on the other foot in our lifetimes (if ever), and if somehow the shoe did switch feet it would involve a Somalia so transformed that any comparison to present Somalia would be useless. "What would the Somalians do in this situation?" is irrelevant to what we should do in the situation we are dealing with.
Disagree. It is highly relevant when making moral calculations, which is part of what ROEs are supposed to do. If you are fighting someone who will knife you and your children when you're asleep it is very different than if you are fighting someone who would adopt your children and take good care of them if you die during your honorable duel.
Punishing people for the infractions of their hypothetical counterparts is counterproductive to your actual goals.
Asserted not only without evidence, but in contravention of mountains of evidence from past historical conflicts.
Sure, but the Chinese weren't even capable of annihilation of the Mongols almost all of the time. And its not like the Mongols were incapable of trade or cooperation.
Steppe people have little in common with modern dissident states. The mongols and huns, by way of example, were masters of modern (for the time) military technology such as husbandry, siege craft, etc. Pretending they are analogues to the Taliban or Somalian pirates, is acting like those people have fleets of aircraft carriers and a host of ICBMs.
It really depends on the enemy you are facing. If you are facing an organized state with citizens comparable to your own in intelligence and conscientiousness, your framing makes a lot of sense. This is, to be a bit reductive, the "thermostat" view of violence. And I agree it can be done in those situations. Of course, sometimes it leads to losing, such as when the English lost their American colonies. But losing in those limited situations is acceptable, after all, it worked out quite well for England. America has been its best ally since approximately 1813.
But, if you are dealing with loosely banded together warlords governing over mobs of unintelligent, spontaneous, people, this method does not work. You have to deal with that kind of violence with the on/off switch model. The on/off model is the one, correctly, used by law enforcement (ideally) because there is no thermostat in dealing with a crack addict who might have a knife. Progressive attempts to impose the thermostat model continually fail in that context. Often officers suffer either on the job or in the courtroom because of such poor models of reality. And the same is actually true of Somali pirates. You can't really deter them properly by judiciously arresting a few of them once in a while after the fact. The thing that actually works is just blowing them out of the water. And that same thing would have worked with the Taliban, but no one was willing to do that thing.
The US has a lot of concerns where total annihilation would be wildly excessive and counterproductive. Obliterating Somalia because some enterprising fishermen decided to moonlight as pirates would be silly on top of appalling. It's a level of deranged collective punishment that would instantly turn the rest of the world against the US because nobody is sure when we're going to make an absurd demand at nukepoint. And it wouldn't even work, because the strategy immediately fails against any sort of decentralized opponent.
Very few Somalis would share this sentiment if the shoe was on the other foot, which is the problem with modern ROE. They work when its Americans fighting Germans or the English. They fail wherever the enemy lacks sufficient honor.
Well since there would no longer be any annoying Afghanis, its basically like a new pioneer. America was basically built by people with pioneer spirit.
Did you reply to the wrong post?
I think that there exists a set of rules of engagement that are reasonable, that is not the set of rules of engagement that have been issued to American troops over the last 3 decades.
Why does it always come back to food?
Its low effort? I think that is it. Its difficult to articulate why Ethiopian culture is a boon to the District of Colombia if one is discussing civics, governance, literature, etc. That requires actual knowledge. Its easy (and in fact every time I visit DC, someone insists I go to their favorite Ethiopian restaurant with them) to throw down $50 for some food. It is similar to how most people who hate the Confederacy or Nazis don't know what Northerners or American Soldiers thought of said regimes in 1864 & 1944 respectively.
See, I think this argument fails even worse than you. If you go back to, say 1875, and read what the opponents to immigration were saying, they seem quite prescient. They would argue things like that immigrants would congregate in cities and be exploited/power corrupt political machines that would eventually spill into national politics and the whole constitutional order would be altered... which all happened and culminated in the New Deal.
That aside, I am a big fan of national ID cards. The US should have one, and so should every other country. I don't understand why the right is so opposed to it. It's the easiest way to control illegal immigration.
Because it will not be so used. We already have sanctuary cities which house most of the illegal immigrants in the nation. Their cops will be mandated to not check that, as they currently are in those jurisdictions.
If you actually look at the US laws, you would observe that it is seemingly a very strong immigration code that should already be easily able to deal with the illegal immigration problem. The reality is tens of millions of illegals in America. How? Sand in the gears. No law can get rid of the sand. You could try to mitigate it by hiring millions more ICE agents and immigration judges. The sand throwers would re-direct enough of their efforts to preventing that hiring to continue to stifle you.
Congress is doing its job of being partisan. Democrats do not want E-Verify to work, so they oppose legislation that would make it work. That isn't not doing your job, its just doing your job in a way that gets stagnant results. The fact that large numbers of Democratic voters prefer a functioning E-Verify, and overwhelming numbers of Republican voters prefer it is of no moment if they do not punish at the polls non-compliance with that desire. Republican voters have carried out that displeasure via Trump, Cotton, etc. Democrat voters have not punished this specific non-compliance with their expressed policy desires, so the elite Democratic party position remains unchallenged in law until enough voters get angry to put 60 yes votes in the senate.
More options
Context Copy link