cheesecake_llama
No bio...
User ID: 1354
cheesecake_llama
9mo ago
The rallying cry of the pro-Abrego Garcia camp is: "If they can do it to him, they can do it to any of us." In other words, they see no meaningful difference between him and a legal US citizen
No, that is literally Trump's position as of this morning.
The government can negotiate for the release of a citizen imprisoned by another country, but nobody would argue that the government is legally obligated to do this.
I think plenty of people might argue this if the US government initiates and continues to fund a citizen's foreign imprisonment, after admitting that it was done in error.
On the other hand, the government can drone-strike a citizen abroad without due process.
Putting aside the merits of this in particular, there is an obvious difference between drone striking a citizen who is residing outside the United States to avoid capture, and the US government deporting a citizen from the United States to a different country and then killing him.
But of course the pro-Trump immigration hawks see no need to take it up, because even if these protests have no effect, this does not in any way diminish their confidence that if a citizen were to be treated in the same way, then the backlash would be swift, universal, and sufficient to compel the citizen's return
I eagerly await the "swift, universal" backlash to the President's comments this morning.
Prior to anything else in the political life of a nation, there must be near-universal agreement on who constitutes the body politic for whose benefit the government exists and to whom they are accountable. If there is factional dispute over this basic question, then morally speaking there is no nation, but multiple distinct nations that happen to find themselves all mixed up in the same land.
This entire post is completely backward, because you somehow miss that this is expressly not about factionalism. It is a legitimate concern over the exercise and limitations of executive power. The administration argues (explicitly!) that it can apply this power to anyone it chooses. That should concern everyone in the body politic, no matter who precisely you think comprises it.
Similar to "a country without borders isn't a country" and other such thought-terminating cliches, “...morally speaking there is no nation...” is an equivocation—confusing sociopolitical fragmentation with moral illegitimacy—to avoid confronting the actual argument being made here.
cheesecake_llama
9mo ago
Trying to reverse outcomes through exceptionalism (“these cases are too urgent for due process”) invites mission creep fast. If you jettison due process for gangbangers, it won’t take long before that logic gets used on political enemies more broadly. The left has shown that too.
You can argue that the current “law” is functionally illegitimate—but that doesn’t mean lawlessness restores legitimacy. It usually just accelerates collapse. Procedural justice that enshrines substantive injustice will eventually be seen as a mask, not a shield. But burning the mask doesn’t make you noble, it just means you’re no longer pretending.
cheesecake_llama
9mo ago
I hear “a country without borders isn’t a country” all the time, but clearly a country with open borders still has borders. The border still delineates where the police and military can operate, it determines jurisdictional issues, etc. States have open borders, but nobody is suggesting there’s no difference between California and Texas.
So if by “no borders” you actually only mean “open borders,” then the claim “a country with no borders is not a country, it’s an economic zone” is plainly false.
cheesecake_llama
9mo ago
It’s so interesting seeing the justifications change in real time at such breakneck as speeds. I’m no political strategist, but “make ourselves poorer because we’re simply so rich and prosperous that it’s made us soft and lazy” does not seem like an argument that will resonate with anyone outside the true believers.
cheesecake_llama
10mo ago
Look, you think the Biden White House wasn't an absolute fucking shit show?
I think that the shitshow-level of the current administration is appreciably larger than the last, both in frequency and spectacle. Trump administration fuck ups often do have some parallels to fuck ups from previous administrations, but more often than not, the comparisons obscure just how strange some of these people act.
It’s not just the fuck up, but the whole response: total refusal to accept any responsibility, blatant lying about what happened, the defensiveness, which comes off as childish rather than masculine. None of this is surprising, given that Trump filled his administration this time around with sycophants and media personalities. It makes for great TV though.
cheesecake_llama
10mo ago
Does “making themselves part of American politics” mean “engaging in any visible form of political expression whatsoever”?
cheesecake_llama
10mo ago
I don’t know how much of this matters coming from a repugnant blue-triber, but this level of nihilistic fatalism deeply saddens me. I have spent much, much more time arguing against the excesses and abuses of “my team” than I have spent opposing yours. The antifa apologetics, calls for violence against Trump and Musk, the Covid-era abuses of institutional power—all of it deeply disgusts me.
But I don’t believe collapse is inevitable. I don’t believe that a national divorce—whatever that might entail—is the way forward. After all, we live in a society whose socio-political dynamics ultimately flow from individual choices. The Constitution will die only if we kill it. This country has survived much worse.
I’m encouraged by more and more blue tribers openly rejecting the poison of identity politics. While TDS definitely was (and is) a real thing, I believe Trump’s enduring electoral successes is resulting in a more moderate, reasonable blue tribe (although there is a long way to go yet). This has been mirrored by what has been, in my opinion, clear excesses on the right—either in MAGA’s jubilant vindictiveness or in the fatalism exhibited by your post. Even though this also concerns me, I believe that this too will eventually temper and mature, but only if we don’t give in to the destructive impulses of the worst on our side nor feed those of the other. The Constitution’s survival depends on citizens demanding its enforcement; tribal coexistence requires rejecting the premise that opponents are inhuman. To paraphrase Madison in Federalist 10: The cure for factionalism is not homogeneity but pluralism managed through structured conflict.
The path forward is neither blind optimism nor radical dissolution but clear-eyed engagement. If the Constitution is “dead,” it is because we’ve ceased resuscitating it—not because it lacks the capacity to endure.
cheesecake_llama
10mo ago
What a weird statement to make. Obviously, US deportation logistics are limited by certain legal and ethical boundaries that did not constrain the Nazis at all.
cheesecake_llama
10mo ago
What’s the limiting principle here? What principles could Trump violate that would give you pause? Or is your judgment based solely on whether he is, at any given moment, helping the people you like and hurting the people you hate?
cheesecake_llama
10mo ago
The relevant question is whether the decision is correct. There is an appeals process to decide that. Disobeying an order because you don’t like it has far more destructive downstream effects.
cheesecake_llama
10mo ago
That’s an obvious strawman of Hanania’s argument
cheesecake_llama
10mo ago
I don’t see how posting a (imo substantive) criticism of one particular person constitutes “boo outgroup.”
cheesecake_llama
10mo ago
This analysis reminds me of how humanities and “soft” sciences often try to use mathematics to dress up arguments that are really nothing more than vibes. Why should judicial impeachments be poisson distributed? Even if they are, how do you infer the correct parameter? Using the small number of known occurrences is going to yield huge variance. I mean just look at the interesting choice of y-axis in the first chart. The numbers of impeachments are so small that you really have to strain yourself to make a coherent argument with any amount of rigor.
cheesecake_llama
11mo ago
I believe that’s the joke.
cheesecake_llama
11mo ago
You guys are whipped up in a frenzy over mere speculation. Is there any actual evidence to suggest corruption here? Trump constantly engages in brazenly corrupt behavior, but all I hear from the acolytes here are apologetics that strain the limits of credulity.
cheesecake_llama
11mo ago
There is nothing “pro constitutional” about attempting to abrogate birthright citizenship via executive order. Whether or not the administration’s interpretation of the 14th amendment—which strains the limits of legal credulity—is actually valid, the idea that the executive can just decide one day that clear Supreme Court precedent actually isn’t binding anymore because “I really don’t like it!” is monarchist, not republican.
cheesecake_llama
1yr ago
I’m not asking if it’s a good idea as a matter of public policy. Just that, as a strictly economic matter, the states would be better off if they didn’t trade with each other according to your thesis.
cheesecake_llama
1yr ago
Why are you in favor of free trade between states? Wouldn’t a state want to keep all the “value” inside its borders?
I am so frustrated by this argument. It's always "he's just joking/trolling/taunting, your TDS is showing" right up until he does it. Then, it's immediately "he's been saying this all along, what did you expect?! This is what we voted for." I don't know if this quotidian gaslighting is invisible to those who engage in it, or if they do so willingly because triggering the libs is fun. Either way, it's absolute poison to discourse and the sharing of sincerely held ideas.
More options
Context Copy link