Political Posts

[Spekulatius]

11 hours ago, Sweet said:

Many illegals immigrants don’t follow the process Parsad, otherwise they’d just leave the country.  It’s why ICE are doing what they are doing in the first place.  If you apply for asylum and it’s rejected you leave.  If you don’t you get booted from the country.  If you entered the country illegally, you get deported.  That is the process.

How about legal residents (with Green cards) who get now randomly picked for past transgressions (traffic violations, Marijuana possession dismissed 10 years ago) and now deported for these pretend reasons. What is the purpose of doing so ? What are they trying to accomplish ?

Edited October 31, 2025 by Spekulatius

[Mephistopheles]

1 hour ago, Parsad said:

 

LOL!  He never did that...no...not him.  And Trump also never said "Hitler did some good things".  Cheers!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/16/jd-vance-political-views-trump

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-said-hitler-did-some-good-things-and-wanted-generals-like-the-nazis-former-chief-of-staff-kelly-claims

 

 

Apparently POTUS’s bedtime reading was Hitler’s speeches according to his wife (the one buried in the golf course)

 

But I’m sure it was because he admired Hitler’s orator skills and nothing more

Edited October 31, 2025 by Mephistopheles

[John Hjorth]

4 hours ago, Mephistopheles said:

All: so sorry for referring to ICE as Gestapo. I must have the same case of TDS that JD Vance has in comparing Trump to Hitler.

 - This will make my day! - Hey, it's now Friday here!

[Sweet]

7 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

If you pay your auto insurance monthly in the UK, most insurers provide a 7-14 day grace period on a missed payment.  Cheers!

I pay yearly so maybe that’s why I’ve never seen it.  

[Sweet]

5 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

How an out legal residents (with Green cards) who get now randomly picked for past transgressions (traffic violations, Marijuana possession dismissed 10 years ago) and now deported for these pretend reasons. What is the purpose of doing so ? What are they trying to accomplish ?

Why are we cherry picking a handful of cases when the vast majority are not like this.

 

Greencard holders may be there legally but they aren’t citizens and their status can be revoked.  They face extra scrutiny because they fall under normal criminal law but also immigration law which is applied differentially.  They have fewer constitutional protections than ordinary citizens.

 

I don’t know the case you are talking about, what’s true, what’s exaggeration.  However I know that if it was me I’d be on my very best behaviour because I’m a legal guest.

[Cigarbutt]

23 hours ago, KJP said:

These issues don't seem unique to the United States.  They also don't seem new or unique for the United states; we have a long history of vitriolic politics. 

Perhaps I'm naive, but I remain an optimist because I think there is still a large centrist core in the country and they still provide the government with necessary feedback via elections.  The fact that elections still have consequences in the US is a good thing, in my view.  And I don't think we're going to stop having elections.

Fair enough, thanks again for the thoughtful feedback.

Maybe it's just my unusual focus on downside protection and margin of safety.

As a simpleton unable to think through first principles, during free times, i will continue to look for analogies in history (Civil War, Germany early 30s); but it's not the naivete that may be different this time, it's the apathy?

[KJP]

49 minutes ago, Cigarbutt said:

Fair enough, thanks again for the thoughtful feedback.

Maybe it's just my unusual focus on downside protection and margin of safety.

As a simpleton unable to think through first principles, during free times, i will continue to look for analogies in history (Civil War, Germany early 30s); but it's not the naivete that may be different this time, it's the apathy?

 

I don't agree there is apathy in the United States.  Some data points:

 

1) I believe turnout among the voting eligible population in the last two presidential elections is significantly higher than at any time in the last 50 years.  See right-hand column:  https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/voter-turnout-in-presidential-elections

 

2) Current betting odds (probably the most accurate prediction method), put the Democrats at a 57.5% chance to win control of the House in the mid-terms:  https://electionbettingodds.com/House-Control-2026.html

That's not consistent with "end of democracy," etc.

 

3) Turning to the qualitative, U.S. media (both mainstream and social) is saturated with politics in a way that was not the case 25 years ago.  (One anecdote:  my pre-9/11 college campus was practically apolitical.)  And casual conversations often turn to politics in a way they wouldn't 20-25 years ago.  People to me seem quite aware and have opinions, though you may not always like what you hear!

 

Regarding the instances of terrible conduct you can find posted here and elsewhere, I don't doubt that they happen and that they are wrong.  But we're also a country with ~350 million people and approximately (according to ChatGPT) 1.35 million federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel.  The job is inherently attractive to certain types of people (but not only those types of people!).  So, if even only 1% are bad apples, that is 13,500 bad apples in uniform.  I think it is useful to keep numbers like that in mind when you read about specific instances of bad conduct.

 

There are also ~400,000 deportations a year, and many more cases than that in the immigration system.  How many mistakes can reasonably be expected from even a well functioning system operating at that volume?  Even if the goal is zero, I do not expect that outcome, just like it would be naive to believe there are no innocent people imprisoned for a very, very long time.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Mephistopheles]

39 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

So, if even only 1% are bad apples, that is 13,500 bad apples in uniform.  I think it is useful to keep numbers like that in mind when you read about specific instances of bad conduct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure if it's 1% or more. But, just IMO, this is not the only sign that's concerning. Ok, so you have some bad ICE apples, that can be a premise. Or the other premise is that this is some stage of fascism. Then you just look at all the other evidence of the latter, and then suddenly these seem part of a broader pattern.

 

But this is like that blue vs gray dress meme from ~10 years ago, you either see the blue or you see the grey and you think the other side is nuts!

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Regarding the instances of terrible conduct you can find posted here and elsewhere, I don't doubt that they happen and that they are wrong.  But we're also a country with ~350 million people and approximately (according to ChatGPT) 1.35 million federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel.  The job is inherently attractive to certain types of people (but not only those types of people!).  So, if even only 1% are bad apples, that is 13,500 bad apples in uniform.  I think it is useful to keep numbers like that in mind when you read about specific instances of bad conduct.

 

There are also ~400,000 deportations a year, and many more cases than that in the immigration system.  How many mistakes can reasonably be expected from even a well functioning system operating at that volume?  Even if the goal is zero, I do not expect that outcome, just like it would be naive to believe there are no innocent people imprisoned for a very, very long time.  

Exactly

[LC]

12 hours ago, KJP said:

So, if even only 1% are bad apples, that is 13,500 bad apples in uniform.  I think it is useful to keep numbers like that in mind when you read about specific instances of bad conduct.

 

There are also ~400,000 deportations a year, and many more cases than that in the immigration system.  How many mistakes can reasonably be expected from even a well functioning system operating at that volume? 

 

The underlying issue is that the policy the are enforcing is unconstitutional. 

 

The fact that they suck at execution is just irony. 

[KJP]

8 hours ago, LC said:

 

The underlying issue is that the policy the are enforcing is unconstitutional. 

 

The fact that they suck at execution is just irony. 

 

You may be right, but to continue the discussion it would help to know the precise "policy" you are referring to.

[Marco Van Basten]

21 hours ago, Mephistopheles said:

 

I'm not sure if it's 1% or more. But, just IMO, this is not the only sign that's concerning. Ok, so you have some bad ICE apples, that can be a premise. Or the other premise is that this is some stage of fascism. Then you just look at all the other evidence of the latter, and then suddenly these seem part of a broader pattern.

 

But this is like that blue vs gray dress meme from ~10 years ago, you either see the blue or you see the grey and you think the other side is nuts!

Fascism is what Democrats did when they censored: Hunter Biden's laptop story, the theory that Covid originated in a Chinese lab, forced little kids to get vaccinated for Covid, any views that disagreed with Fauici.  Forcing people to wear masks in the parks and on the beaches, etc...

[cubsfan]

48 minutes ago, Marco Van Basten said:

Fascism is what Democrats did when they censored: Hunter Biden's laptop story, the theory that Covid originated in a Chinese lab, forced little kids to get vaccinated for Covid, any views that disagreed with Fauici.  Forcing people to wear masks in the parks and on the beaches, etc...

 

Baghdad Bob would have been proud of the Democratic Party.

[LC]

5 hours ago, KJP said:

 

You may be right, but to continue the discussion it would help to know the precise "policy" you are referring to.

 

Great question since it could apply to multiple actions/positions/policies (call it what you will) taken by this administration. I was referring to ICE's blatant violation of the  4th Amendment. Even a middle school student would agree that race alone is not a valid reason to arrest someone. But our corrupt supreme court disagrees. Not that they would ever let oral and written arguments see the light of day and allow their corruption come to light. No, their corruption must be kept behind the shadows. 

 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

 

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.

Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President … The Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.

 

KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. PEDRO
VASQUEZ PERDOMO, ET AL.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf

 

Based on the evidence before
it, the court held that the Government was stopping indi-
viduals based solely on four factors: (1) their apparent race
or ethnicity; (2) whether they spoke Spanish or English
with an accent; (3) the type of location at which they were
found (such as a car wash or bus stop); and (4) the type of
job they appeared to work. Concluding that stops based on
these four factors alone, even when taken together, could
not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reason-
able suspicion, the District Court temporarily enjoined the
Government from continuing its pattern of unlawful mass
arrests while it considered whether longer-term relief was
appropriate.
Instead of allowing the District Court to consider these
troubling allegations in the normal course, a majority of
this Court decides to take the once-extraordinary step of
staying the District Court’s order. That decision is yet an-
other grave misuse of our emergency docket. We should not
have to live in a country where the Government can seize
anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to
work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our
constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2025 by LC

[cubsfan]

The large majority of those arrested are felons or have outstanding deportation orders that they have chosen to ignore. But the LEFT or media won't tell you that.

 

[KJP]

1 hour ago, LC said:

 

Great question since it could apply to multiple actions/positions/policies (call it what you will) taken by this administration. I was referring to ICE's blatant violation of the  4th Amendment. Even a middle school student would agree that race alone is not a valid reason to arrest someone. But our corrupt supreme court disagrees. Not that they would ever let oral and written arguments see the light of day and allow their corruption come to light. 

 

 

I think you're pointing to real issues that all Americans should think carefully about.  But you're making several statements that do not seem to be correct based on what I know, though I acknowledge I don't follow this area very carefully.  For example:

 

1.  I'm not sure what you mean about "not letting oral and written arguments see the light of day."  All Supreme Court briefing and oral argument transcripts are publicly available.  Here is, for example, the briefing on the application to stay in the Noem v. Perdomo case:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a169.html

 

2. Noem v. Perdomo addresses so-called Terry stops (after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) -- not arrests -- that immigration officers are specifically empowered to make under the INA.  See 8 USC 1357(a)(1) and its implementing regulations.  Under the Fourth Amendment, a Terry stop can be made on "reasonable suspicion," whereas an arrest typically requires "probable cause".  "Reasonable suspicion" is notoriously murky, and many have argued that it's too loose a standard and gives cover to racist policing, etc.  But I believe everyone agrees -- and the government did not argue -- that race alone cannot create "reasonable suspicion" for a Terry stop under the INA.  Rather, I believe the question was whether, under the current (alleged) conditions in the Central District of California, some combination of the following four factors could create sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop under the INA:  "apparent race or ethnicity; speaking in Spanish or accented English; presence at a location where illegal aliens are known to gather; and working or appearing to work in a particular type of job," e.g., construction.  See Kavanaugh Op. at 2-3; Sotomayor dissent at 1.

 

So, to my knowledge, at least at the Supreme Court, no one is contending that "race alone" even justifies a Terry stop, much less an arrest.  I think a fairer characterization of the question is "to what extent, if at all, may apparent race or ethnicity be a factor that, either alone or in combination with others, creates sufficient 'reasonable suspicion' of an INA violation to warrant a Terry stop in a jurisdiction that (the government claims!) has a very large number of illegal immigrants of Latino ethnicity and who speak Spanish and who tend to work in certain industries?

 

As I said at the outset, that is a serious question that all Americans should think hard about.  But I don't think that discussion is advanced by recharacterizing that question as one about "arrest based on race alone."

 

I encourage everyone to read both the Kavanaugh opinion and the dissenting opinion, which are available here:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf  You will see some examples described in the dissent that talk about quite suspicious arrests rather than Terry stops, but the injunction entered by the district court that was on appeal appears to have been directed to Terry stops.

 

I also acknowledge that what the Solicitor General argues before the Supreme Court could be quite different that what is happening on the ground at a particular time and place.  And I perhaps I am naive, but I believe there is very large supermajority of Americans who would reject an "arrest based on race alone" policy if any administration tried to implement it.

Edited November 1, 2025 by KJP

[LC]

26 minutes ago, KJP said:

1.  I'm not sure what you mean about "not letting oral and written arguments see the light of day."  All Supreme Court briefing and oral argument transcripts are publicly available.  Here is, for example, the briefing on the application to stay in the Noem v. Perdomo case:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a169.html

Noem vs perdomo was decided via emergency docket. 

Find me the oral arguments for this case. You can't, because they do not exist.

https://browngold.com/blog/noem-v-vasquez-perdomo-the-supreme-courts-green-light-for-racial-profiling/

 

In Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, the Court granted the government’s emergency request on its so-called “shadow docket,” with no oral argument, no briefing, and no warning to the public.

 

 

 

Quote

So, to my knowledge, at least at the Supreme Court, no one is contending that "race alone" even justifies a Terry stop, much less an arrest.  I think a fairer characterization of the question is "to what extent, if at all, may apparent race or ethnicity be a factor that, either alone or in combination with others, creates sufficient 'reasonable suspicion' of an INA violation to warrant a Terry stop in a jurisdiction that (the government claims!) has a very large number of illegal immigrants of Latino ethnicity and who speak Spanish and who tend to work in certain industries?

 

Justice Kavanaugh insisted ethnicity “alone” cannot justify a stop. But by allowing it as a “relevant factor” alongside language, job, and location, the Court created a blueprint for racial profiling without naming it as such. 

 

If you buy Kavanaugh’s rationale, then you have adopted a probabilistic theory of reasonable suspicion, and you are abandoning a requirement of individualized suspicion before you detain someone.

I think a general probabilistic theory of reasonable suspicion would be a significant departure from prior Fourth Amendment doctrine.

 

I'd suggest reading the analysis provided here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/roving-patrols-reasonable-suspicion-and-perdomo/

 

I'd also note that the Supreme Court does not have the cojones to actually rule on Kavanaugh's rationale. They simply lifted a lower court's restraining order.

 

In other words, the SC is saying "we know this is unconstitutional, but we don't have the guts to come out and say it. In fact, we're going to allow it for a temporary time period until it achieves the administration's aims, and then we'll forget all about it and pretend this never happened".

 

Also known as: Chickenshit

 

Quote

And I perhaps I am naive, but I believe there is very large supermajority of Americans who would reject an "arrest based on race alone" policy if any administration tried to implement it.

 

I cannot DISAGREE emphatically enough.

This is what the administration is, in essence, already doing.

Edited November 1, 2025 by LC

[Spekulatius]

9 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

Fascism is what Democrats did when they censored: Hunter Biden's laptop story, the theory that Covid originated in a Chinese lab, forced little kids to get vaccinated for Covid, any views that disagreed with Fauici.  Forcing people to wear masks in the parks and on the beaches, etc...

Hunter Biden’s  laptop story was not censored. Fox reported about it as well as other sources.The fact that CNN did not run this as a frontside story doesn’t mean it was censored.

 

The current admins efforts to kick reporters out that they don’t like from the White House , Trump personal lawsuits to news channels/ sources including Reuters for personal gains, threatening to pull broadcasting  licenses , personal vendettas to get reporters fired are new and never occurred under Biden.

 

He is running the White House office like his personal business  just like the run of the mill autocrat. 

Edited November 1, 2025 by Spekulatius

[Parsad]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

Hunter Biden’s  laptop story was not censored. Fox reported about it as well as other sources.The fact that CNN did not run this as a frontside story doesn’t mean it was censored.

 

The current admins efforts to kick reporters out that they don’t like from the White House , Trump personal lawsuits to news channels/ sources including Reuters for personal gains, threatening to pull broadcasting  licenses , personal vendettas to get reporters fired are new and never occurred under Biden.

 

He is running the White House office like his personal business  just like the run of the mill autocrat. 

 

+1!  Cheers!

[John Hjorth]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Hunter Biden’s  laptop story was not censored. Fox reported about it as well as other sources.The fact that CNN did not run this as a frontside story doesn’t mean it was censored.

 

The current admins efforts to kick reporters out that they don’t like from the White House , Trump personal lawsuits to news channels/ sources including Reuters for personal gains, threatening to pull broadcasting  licenses , personal vendettas to get reporters fired are new and never occurred under Biden.

 

He is running the White House office like his personal business  just like the run of the mill autocrat. 

 

Awesome post, and very concerning! - But likely you and I are now here in this topic destined to be diagnosed here on CofB&F with TDS.

[Marco Van Basten]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Hunter Biden’s  laptop story was not censored. Fox reported about it as well as other sources.The fact that CNN did not run this as a frontside story doesn’t mean it was censored.

 

The current admins efforts to kick reporters out that they don’t like from the White House , Trump personal lawsuits to news channels/ sources including Reuters for personal gains, threatening to pull broadcasting  licenses , personal vendettas to get reporters fired are new and never occurred under Biden.

 

He is running the White House office like his personal business  just like the run of the mill autocrat. 

Facebook censored it, NYT published a letter from a bunch of ex-CIA liars that claimed it was all a hoax and nothing about the info on laptop itself.  Washington Post ignored it as well.   Can you point to any article skeptical of mass vaccination of kids or shutting down of the economy in NYT or WP in 2020?

[Gregmal]

15 minutes ago, Marco Van Basten said:

Facebook censored it, NYT published a letter from a bunch of ex-CIA liars that claimed it was all a hoax and nothing about the info on laptop itself.  Washington Post ignored it as well.   Can you point to any article skeptical of mass vaccination of kids or shutting down of the economy in NYT or WP in 2020?

Yup. But 3 people who always seem to agree with each other +1 it, so whom are we to argue?

[Gregmal]

I’ll actually make the distinction that was conveniently left out in the “I agree” fest….so technically, you could argue against, tradition “censorship”. It wasn’t a direct order from the government in the sense of an official declaration(such as Speks referenced license pull threats)….it was government agencies and MSM colluding behind the scenes to hide a story for the purposes of influencing the election! Yes, the same charge of “influencing the election” that these fruitcakes and hypocrites spent the previous 5 years railing against and claiming were a threat to democracy! 
 

No, it wasn’t technically a “censorship”, but the majority of news networks and social media outlets refused to report “news”, banned and blocked people from sharing the story, and when it started getting enough light, they willingly published a counter narrative from a group of liars(whom instead of being presented as scumbags were labeled “experts”). 
 

End of the day…cry me a river, you reap what you sow.

[Parsad]

1 hour ago, Marco Van Basten said:

Facebook censored it, NYT published a letter from a bunch of ex-CIA liars that claimed it was all a hoax and nothing about the info on laptop itself.  Washington Post ignored it as well.   Can you point to any article skeptical of mass vaccination of kids or shutting down of the economy in NYT or WP in 2020?

 

Because there was nothing to be skeptical about in terms of vaccines.  This is still a fucking falsehood pushed by the retard supporters.  While children didn't need mandatory vaccines, the vaccines added no additional risk to children.  That falsehood will actually hurt and kill many children going forward that didn't need to get sick or die.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

54 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Yup. But 3 people who always seem to agree with each other +1 it, so whom are we to argue?

 

Literally the same for the other side...same three people who support each other!    Cheers!