Political Posts

[Castanza]

21 hours ago, dealraker said:

Cubs not sure the last two paragraphs are worth your time to type repeatedly, I never think about much in the over-the-top-absolute terms like you do.  For instance today I just went out for an hour road cycle with friends while my home is being re-roofed by (of course) those undocumented types (I asked the foreman...all 9 of his workers today are undocumented) ---- while at the same time I'm not for open borders and know few if any (none is the actual figure) who are.  My re-roof cost $3000 some 25 years ago, today is is about $16,000...and if it wasn't for the un-doc's it would likely be $30k.

 

Life is great...if you can stand it!

 

I had my roof completed two years ago by a local company. All White and African American citizens. Cost 16k for sheeting, shingles etc. 

 

The Amish would have done it for 14k. 

 

The argument that we should allow illegal immigration because it gives us cheaper prices is a bad argument. To me it reads, "we only support these people because they provide us with cheap labor and goods." Most people support legal immigration, but if you're truly claiming to be an advocate for these people to have a better life then you should also be advocating for them to make wages on par with their prospective citizen counterparts and actually have a better life. Otherwise you're really just putting glass ceilings in place and really saying "you're only this good"... Most people live a very insulated life in America and have no idea how much "muck" there is out there for people below the average income. 

 

@LC @Sweet I do agree with LC that even if illegal, the individuals do have the right to due process and are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. I have no problem with the masks...it's personal protection for the agents families. I also think many underestimate how difficult the job is for police and these agents. It's a massive undertaking. There is no perfect way to handle this and many mistakes will be made. But that does not mean it's not a worthy endeavor. Walk in their shoes before judging them on how things are handled. 

 

As a society we cannot have our cake and eat it to. Americans either need to digest illegal immigration (no thanks) or accept higher prices and support a more efficient immigration system. The later is a much better solution. If you really care, then globally you should be supporting better working conditions for all of our trade partners subjective to their cost of living etc. But as a country it is okay to have a border and have laws protecting those borders. Every modern nation on earth has these laws. If I overstay my stay in Canada (90 days) I will be arrested and removed. 

 

America has gone through many of these situations and we will recover as well. A really interesting one is the post WWI era  (Adam Hochschild has a really solid book "American Midnight" on these years that covers a really wild period most people don't know about)...some others are during and post WWI, McCarthyism, Civil Rights, post Agrarian society, post Vietnam, now....and the list goes on)

 

Growing pains with an upward trajectory

 

Suggestion: If you're going to talk the talk you should be walking the walk. And that means more than just cutting a charity check every year for your tax deduction. 

[Sweet]

29 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Dude, anytime you are trying to parse the difference between what is considered rape what is not considered rape, you’ve probably already lost the argument.  But keep up the good fight for your dear leader.

Nah, I’m pretty sure I know the difference between rape and sexual assault.  It’s one side broadening the definition.  I also know the broad difference between civil and criminal liability.

[cubsfan]

4 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

I had my roof completed two years ago by a local company. All White and African American citizens. Cost 16k for sheeting, shingles etc. 

 

The Amish would have done it for 14k. 

 

The argument that we should allow illegal immigration because it gives us cheaper prices is a bad argument. To me it reads, "we only support these people because they provide us with cheap labor and goods." Most people support legal immigration, but if you're truly claiming to be an advocate for these people to have a better life then you should also be advocating for them to make wages on par with their prospective citizen counterparts and actually have a better life. Otherwise you're really just putting glass ceilings in place and really saying "you're only this good"... Most people live a very insulated life in America and have no idea how much "muck" there is out there for people below the average income. 

 

@LC @Sweet I do agree with LC that even if illegal, the individuals do have the right to due process and are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. I have no problem with the masks...it's personal protection for the agents families. I also think many underestimate how difficult the job is for police and these agents. It's a massive undertaking. There is no perfect way to handle this and many mistakes will be made. But that does not mean it's not a worthy endeavor. Walk in their shoes before judging them on how things are handled. 

 

As a society we cannot have our cake and eat it to. Americans either need to digest illegal immigration (no thanks) or accept higher prices and support a more efficient immigration system. The later is a much better solution. If you really care, then globally you should be supporting better working conditions for all of our trade partners subjective to their cost of living etc. But as a country it is okay to have a border and have laws protecting those borders. Every modern nation on earth has these laws. If I overstay my stay in Canada (90 days) I will be arrested and removed. 

 

America has gone through many of these situations and we will recover as well. A really interesting one is the post WWI era  (Adam Hochschild has a really solid book "American Midnight" on these years that covers a really wild period most people don't know about)...some others are during and post WWI, McCarthyism, Civil Rights, post Agrarian society, post Vietnam, now....and the list goes on)

 

Growing pains with an upward trajectory

 

Suggestion: If you're going to talk the talk you should be walking the walk. And that means more than just cutting a charity check every year for your tax deduction. 

 

What a great post - way too much common sense!

 

RE: The illegal immigrant labor issue --- sounds way too much like the Southern Plantation owner:  "We can't free the slaves, who will pick our cotton!!"

[dwy000]

6 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Yeah, those that love the Kangaroo court of NYC will believe exactly what they want to believe.  

Everyone in the country knows that trial was a friggin' joke.

 

But, hey, it's all you got to hang your hat on these days!

No, only the true koolaid'ers believe it was a joke. A trial by jury held up in multiple appeals is not a conspiracy, its how the justice system works. 

[Sweet]

7 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 I do agree with LC that even if illegal, the individuals do have the right to due process and are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. I have no problem with the masks...it's personal protection for the agents families. I also think many underestimate how difficult the job is for police and these agents. It's a massive undertaking. There is no perfect way to handle this and many mistakes will be made. But that does not mean it's not a worthy endeavor. Walk in their shoes before judging them on how things are handled

But they are illegal.  They are supposed to be stopped at the border.  The whole reason why ICE are having to take people off the streets is because the proper process for stopping, detaining and deporting illegals was not implemented.  There really isn’t another way to do this that doesn’t massively slow and impede efforts that I’m aware of.

[Sweet]

19 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

I had my roof completed two years ago by a local company. All White and African American citizens. Cost 16k for sheeting, shingles etc. 

 

The Amish would have done it for 14k. 

 

The argument that we should allow illegal immigration because it gives us cheaper prices is a bad argument. To me it reads, "we only support these people because they provide us with cheap labor and goods." Most people support legal immigration, but if you're truly claiming to be an advocate for these people to have a better life then you should also be advocating for them to make wages on par with their prospective citizen counterparts and actually have a better life. Otherwise you're really just putting glass ceilings in place and really saying "you're only this good"... Most people live a very insulated life in America and have no idea how much "muck" there is out there for people below the average income. 

 

@LC @Sweet I do agree with LC that even if illegal, the individuals do have the right to due process and are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. I have no problem with the masks...it's personal protection for the agents families. I also think many underestimate how difficult the job is for police and these agents. It's a massive undertaking. There is no perfect way to handle this and many mistakes will be made. But that does not mean it's not a worthy endeavor. Walk in their shoes before judging them on how things are handled. 

 

As a society we cannot have our cake and eat it to. Americans either need to digest illegal immigration (no thanks) or accept higher prices and support a more efficient immigration system. The later is a much better solution. If you really care, then globally you should be supporting better working conditions for all of our trade partners subjective to their cost of living etc. But as a country it is okay to have a border and have laws protecting those borders. Every modern nation on earth has these laws. If I overstay my stay in Canada (90 days) I will be arrested and removed. 

 

America has gone through many of these situations and we will recover as well. A really interesting one is the post WWI era  (Adam Hochschild has a really solid book "American Midnight" on these years that covers a really wild period most people don't know about)...some others are during and post WWI, McCarthyism, Civil Rights, post Agrarian society, post Vietnam, now....and the list goes on)

 

Growing pains with an upward trajectory

 

Suggestion: If you're going to talk the talk you should be walking the walk. And that means more than just cutting a charity check every year for your tax deduction. 

Agree overall.  Although I’d add, that the West accepting doctors, nurses, engineers etc also has a massive impact on the development of their native countries.  To give an example, I read that the UK has something like 30 times more doctors per head of population than countries in Africa.  Those who are ‘pro’ this type of immigration because it’s good for ‘us’ oddly don’t seem to care what is good people in the developing world.  One mitigation to the immigration problem is originating countries becoming more developed.

 

Edited July 22, 2025 by Sweet

[cubsfan]

25 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

No, only the true koolaid'ers believe it was a joke. A trial by jury held up in multiple appeals is not a conspiracy, its how the justice system works. 

 

It's real simple when your jury pool is NYC, which hates Trump.

 

It worked wonderfully for O.J. Simpson!

 

Unfortunately, that's how the justice system works sometimes!

[dwy000]

3 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

It's real simple when your jury pool is NYC, which hates Trump.

 

It worked wonderfully for O.J. Simpson!

 

Unfortunately, that's how the justice system works sometimes!

No that's how the system works all the time. Its doesnt only work when you win. The verdict was upheld under multiple appeals. The guy was guilty. Got found guilty.  And now has to pay a lot of money. Thats how it works. 

[Red Lion]

35 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

What a great post - way too much common sense!

 

RE: The illegal immigrant labor issue --- sounds way too much like the Southern Plantation owner:  "We can't free the slaves, who will pick our cotton!!"

Who said the democrats don’t stick to their roots? 

[LC]

9 hours ago, Sweet said:

Ah yes, the rape that wasn’t a rape by New York’s own definition, but the judge say is was kinda rape.  In a civil trial no less, not even criminal, likely because it couldn’t possibly hold up to a criminal standard.

Criminal statute of limitations had passed. 

 

If you don't think putting your fingers inside a person's without consent is rape, that's on you. 

 

38 minutes ago, Sweet said:

But they are illegal.  They are supposed to be stopped at the border.  The whole reason why ICE are having to take people off the streets is because the proper process for stopping, detaining and deporting illegals was not implemented.  There really isn’t another way to do this that doesn’t massively slow and impede efforts that I’m aware of.

 

I've got no problem with more border control to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country. 

 

But that doesn't mean you get to crap all over the Constitution to correct for illegal immigrants already in the country.  

 

@Castanza Do you think judges and prosecutors should be allowed to wear masks and conceal their identity? What about legislators? Military generals? The President? These people and their families all get threats of violence and death on a regular basis, and have upheld the transparency of the judicial and legislative systems for years. 

[73 Reds]

47 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

I had my roof completed two years ago by a local company. All White and African American citizens. Cost 16k for sheeting, shingles etc. 

 

The Amish would have done it for 14k. 

 

The argument that we should allow illegal immigration because it gives us cheaper prices is a bad argument. To me it reads, "we only support these people because they provide us with cheap labor and goods." Most people support legal immigration, but if you're truly claiming to be an advocate for these people to have a better life then you should also be advocating for them to make wages on par with their prospective citizen counterparts and actually have a better life. Otherwise you're really just putting glass ceilings in place and really saying "you're only this good"... Most people live a very insulated life in America and have no idea how much "muck" there is out there for people below the average income. 

 

@LC @Sweet I do agree with LC that even if illegal, the individuals do have the right to due process and are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. I have no problem with the masks...it's personal protection for the agents families. I also think many underestimate how difficult the job is for police and these agents. It's a massive undertaking. There is no perfect way to handle this and many mistakes will be made. But that does not mean it's not a worthy endeavor. Walk in their shoes before judging them on how things are handled. 

 

As a society we cannot have our cake and eat it to. Americans either need to digest illegal immigration (no thanks) or accept higher prices and support a more efficient immigration system. The later is a much better solution. If you really care, then globally you should be supporting better working conditions for all of our trade partners subjective to their cost of living etc. But as a country it is okay to have a border and have laws protecting those borders. Every modern nation on earth has these laws. If I overstay my stay in Canada (90 days) I will be arrested and removed. 

 

America has gone through many of these situations and we will recover as well. A really interesting one is the post WWI era  (Adam Hochschild has a really solid book "American Midnight" on these years that covers a really wild period most people don't know about)...some others are during and post WWI, McCarthyism, Civil Rights, post Agrarian society, post Vietnam, now....and the list goes on)

 

Growing pains with an upward trajectory

 

Suggestion: If you're going to talk the talk you should be walking the walk. And that means more than just cutting a charity check every year for your tax deduction. 

@Castanza Well said.  There is another alternative of course, that is revise immigration laws to create extended stays for work purposes conditioned upon proper identification within our borders, along with pathways to citizenship for those who demonstrate a true desire to be here and behave in accordance with our laws, morals and values.  Until now this has been politically impossible because it was simply not a priority for anyone.  But those on the Left couldn't leave well enough alone; instead they used political passivity to create open borders, sanctuary cities, defunding of police, and attacks on law enforcement, among many counterproductive and harmful positions that continue to cost them votes and credibility.  Their own stupid stunts have now made the issue a priority.  Hopefully something positive gets done.

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, Castanza said:

The argument that we should allow illegal immigration because it gives us cheaper prices is a bad argument. To me it reads, "we only support these people because they provide us with cheap labor and goods."

 

Nobody should be for illegal immigration - and nobody should be for legal migration as mechanism by which to drive down labor costs......legal migration should IMO always be about addressing skills deficits and/or labor deficits..... I'm familiar with some rural towns I visit frequently and stay in hotels there....and in speaking to hotel managers there....it is not a question of cheap versus expensive labor for the cleaning ladies they have on staff......he has attempted advertising cleaning jobs at much much higher salaries to the local community......and he's indicated that if it weren't for immigrants it would be simply impossible to get cleaning ladies for the hotel rooms.......migrants aren't competing with domestic labor here and driving down prices.......domestic labor has completely withdrawn its supply from this job category and my hotel manager friend has run the experiment (offering way above minimum wage to attract domestic staff)......

[Castanza]

12 minutes ago, LC said:

Do you think judges and prosecutors should be allowed to wear masks and conceal their identity? What about legislators? Military generals? The President? These people and their families all get threats of violence and death on a regular basis, and have upheld the transparency of the judicial and legislative systems for years. 

 

Receiving threats of violence while you live in your gated community is one thing. Living in the apartment next door or the next block over to the house you raided the previous weekend is another. You're really over emphasizing the symbolism of the masks in my opinion. The Cartel or other potentially connected crime organizations aren't going to target a US judge or some other high level judicial demagogues because it brings a whole new level of shit down on them. But they will target the families of the officers and agents doing the actual raids. 

 

Some of those ICE agents could also be undercover during their day job. I know two individuals who have done undercover work for the FBI and local police. It was a major pita to do work because they had to watch everything they did in public and make sure they didn't go certain areas, shop at certain places, etc. Masking or even erasing your identity is quite common in law enforcement and military work. 

 

Today its easy to identify someone. Agents that have this volume of work might as well hand out their business card if they aren't going to take measures to protect their identity. 

 

I guess I'm not really sure what you are suggesting the purpose of the masks is and why you want them to not wear them? Do you think the masks are allowing them to treat targets worse or are you hoping agents are easier to be targeted in their private lives?  

 

[Sweet]

27 minutes ago, LC said:

Criminal statute of limitations had passed. 

 

If you don't think putting your fingers inside a person's without consent is rape, that's on you. 

 

 

I've got no problem with more border control to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country. 

 

But that doesn't mean you get to crap all over the Constitution to correct for illegal immigrants already in the country.  

 

@Castanza Do you think judges and prosecutors should be allowed to wear masks and conceal their identity? What about legislators? Military generals? The President? These people and their families all get threats of violence and death on a regular basis, and have upheld the transparency of the judicial and legislative systems for years. 

LC, perhaps you should take issue with the definition of rape, it’s not like I wrote it.

 

And with regard with the trial, it was her word against his.  Yeh there were other ‘witnesses’ but none of them actually saw anything.

 

And with respect to judges courts etc.  In the UK during, particularly Northern Ireland, a new type of ‘Diplock courts’ which had all sorts of mitigations to prevent threatening, assault and sometimes murder of judges and members of the jury testifying against paramilitary gangs.  Sometimes there is no other way.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2025 by Sweet

[dealraker]

1 hour ago, Castanza said:

 

I had my roof completed two years ago by a local company. All White and African American citizens. Cost 16k for sheeting, shingles etc. 

 

The Amish would have done it for 14k. 

 

The argument that we should allow illegal immigration because it gives us cheaper prices is a bad argument. To me it reads, "we only support these people because they provide us with cheap labor and goods." Most people support legal immigration, but if you're truly claiming to be an advocate for these people to have a better life then you should also be advocating for them to make wages on par with their prospective citizen counterparts and actually have a better life. Otherwise you're really just putting glass ceilings in place and really saying "you're only this good"... Most people live a very insulated life in America and have no idea how much "muck" there is out there for people below the average income. 

 

@LC @Sweet I do agree with LC that even if illegal, the individuals do have the right to due process and are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. I have no problem with the masks...it's personal protection for the agents families. I also think many underestimate how difficult the job is for police and these agents. It's a massive undertaking. There is no perfect way to handle this and many mistakes will be made. But that does not mean it's not a worthy endeavor. Walk in their shoes before judging them on how things are handled. 

 

As a society we cannot have our cake and eat it to. Americans either need to digest illegal immigration (no thanks) or accept higher prices and support a more efficient immigration system. The later is a much better solution. If you really care, then globally you should be supporting better working conditions for all of our trade partners subjective to their cost of living etc. But as a country it is okay to have a border and have laws protecting those borders. Every modern nation on earth has these laws. If I overstay my stay in Canada (90 days) I will be arrested and removed. 

 

America has gone through many of these situations and we will recover as well. A really interesting one is the post WWI era  (Adam Hochschild has a really solid book "American Midnight" on these years that covers a really wild period most people don't know about)...some others are during and post WWI, McCarthyism, Civil Rights, post Agrarian society, post Vietnam, now....and the list goes on)

 

Growing pains with an upward trajectory

 

Suggestion: If you're going to talk the talk you should be walking the walk. And that means more than just cutting a charity check every year for your tax deduction. 

Completely irrelevant to anything I wrote. 

 

I hired the standard legal entity/people (2 co-owned) to roof my home; the foreman was legal; the workers I had no clue about.  I did not shop around for the lowest price, this company is generally thought to have higher than normal prices because they are well-known to do fabulous work.

 

You too are using services and products of those you desperately want to run out of the country --- as is Trump.  80% of those in my area are Trumpers, they all use the same companies with undocumented workers.   And they love the service and the work ethic of these guys.  All the local contractors here are Trumpers, they all use subs dominated by illegals.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2025 by dealraker

[LC]

40 minutes ago, Castanza said:

I guess I'm not really sure what you are suggesting the purpose of the masks is and why you want them to not wear them? Do you think the masks are allowing them to treat targets worse or are you hoping agents are easier to be targeted in their private lives?  

 

I don't think judges, prosecutors etc are living in gated communities (I mean, obviously some are). In fact I knew many who lived in the same area of Brooklyn (Flatbush) as I did - they were my friends. I lost count of how many shootings I heard in the 10 years I lived there.

 

And I looked for news instances of ICE agents being doxxed and harmed - the worst I found was someone dumping trash on an ICE agent's front yard. The DHS says there is an 830% increase in assaults on ICE officers, but they don't release volume (was it 1 assult -> 8 assaults?) and it was during the line of duty, not violence done outside the line of duty.

 

 So I don't buy that argument, neither on its merits nor in practice. 

 

Regardless whether you agree with that or not - I think it's a bad idea for law enforcement to wear masks. Symbolically and practically.  I think the NYC BAR association has written a reasonable rebuttal on hiding the identity of LE officers, I agree with their arguments:

https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/statement-on-wearing-of-masks-by-ice-agents/

 

There was a NYC precinct commander who also wrote a piece, much in the similar vein:

 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/face-covering-masks-ice-officers/683392/

 

And the libertarian Cato institute has a similar blog post:

https://www.cato.org/blog/ice-agents-seizing-people-now-routinely-wear-masks-thats-wrong

 

I think the argument generally comes down to this:

"The driving principle here is obvious: In a free society, people should know who is policing them...

 

Hiding your face from the public as a federal agent undermines the legitimacy of our nation’s police, and can be mistaken for cowardice. Although the risks of showing your face as you police America’s streets are not negligible, they’re worth taking, because the consequences of concealment are more dire. This is why the hazards of policing are morally different from those of being, say, a lumberjack, even though felling trees is statistically more dangerous than making arrests. In policing a free society, some of the risks arise from protecting freedom itself, so even if you can reduce those risks, you often shouldn’t...

 

Descending on a person in public, laying hands on them, and taking them to a distant prison is a naked expression of state power. For it to be tolerated in a democracy committed to an inalienable right to liberty, it must be just that: naked. It cannot be done by shadowy, masked agents. "

 

 

As a  side note: it is pretty funny that 3 years ago, much of law enforcement was vehemently against wearing COVID masks. Maybe now they're all afraid of the flu? 

 

But I think they know what they're doing is unconstitutional and IMO morally wrong in some cases, and they'd rather hide their face versus take ownership of their behavior

Edited July 22, 2025 by LC

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

Yeah, those that love the Kangaroo court of NYC will believe exactly what they want to believe.  

Everyone in the country knows that trial was a friggin' joke.

 

But, hey, it's all you got to hang your hat on these days!

Oh geez, this isn’t about me Cubs. I’m not the one trying to make the argument between what is considered rape and what is not considered rape….just thought it was a weird argument for Sweet to be making on a public investing forum in support of his dear leader. 
 

If it’s all so obvious, you and he (I assume Sweet’s a he/him) should tell your wife/daughter/Mom or girlfriend about the argument you are trying to make and see what their response is. 
 

At least you two do seem to draw the line somewhere between sexual assault and rape, so you do have that to hang your hats on.  

Edited July 22, 2025 by Buckeye

[LC]

51 minutes ago, Sweet said:

And with respect to judges courts etc.  In the UK during, particularly Northern Ireland, a new type of ‘Diplock courts’ which had all sorts of mitigations to prevent threatening, assault and sometimes murder of judges and members of the jury testifying against paramilitary gangs.  Sometimes there is no other way.

 

Yeah I can admit there are certainly cases where identities should be concealed - not denying that at all. But those are special circumstances - not the entire DHS, border patrol, ICE, etc. who are tasked with making 3,000 arrests per day, operating around the entire country, without much evidence from doxxing-based violence...it's not like this is a special arrest and trial of Pablo Escobar or whatnot.

 

I just think it's a bad idea for LEO to be masked in a free society, for reasons I quoted in the response to Castanza above.

Edited July 22, 2025 by LC

[whiskybravo]

2 hours ago, dwy000 said:

No that's how the system works all the time. Its doesnt only work when you win. The verdict was upheld under multiple appeals. The guy was guilty. Got found guilty.  And now has to pay a lot of money. Thats how it works. 

How about the civil fraud case brought by Letitia James.  $364M in penalties approved by the lovely judge Engoran, which ballooned to $450M between ruling and enforcement.

 

No bank or lender reported financial loss from doing business with Trump, and none sued him or claimed they were defrauded.

 

if it hips like a kangaroo and it hops like a kangaroo, well you’re intelligent you draw the conclusion.

[dwy000]

11 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

How about the civil fraud case brought by Letitia James.  $364M in penalties approved by the lovely judge Engoran, which ballooned to $450M between ruling and enforcement.

 

No bank or lender reported financial loss from doing business with Trump, and none sued him or claimed they were defrauded.

 

if it hips like a kangaroo and it hops like a kangaroo, well you’re intelligent you draw the conclusion.

Thats how the American legal system works. Thats why there are multiple avenues of appeal.  Just because Dear Leader lost doesnt mean the entire system is rigged.  Why does nobody make the argument when he wins cases?

[Castanza]

1 hour ago, LC said:

 

I don't think judges, prosecutors etc are living in gated communities (I mean, obviously some are). In fact I knew many who lived in the same area of Brooklyn (Flatbush) as I did - they were my friends. I lost count of how many shootings I heard in the 10 years I lived there.

 

And I looked for news instances of ICE agents being doxxed and harmed - the worst I found was someone dumping trash on an ICE agent's front yard. The DHS says there is an 830% increase in assaults on ICE officers, but they don't release volume (was it 1 assult -> 8 assaults?) and it was during the line of duty, not violence done outside the line of duty.

 

 So I don't buy that argument, neither on its merits nor in practice. 

 

Regardless whether you agree with that or not - I think it's a bad idea for law enforcement to wear masks. Symbolically and practically.  I think the NYC BAR association has written a reasonable rebuttal on hiding the identity of LE officers, I agree with their arguments:

https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/statement-on-wearing-of-masks-by-ice-agents/

 

There was a NYC precinct commander who also wrote a piece, much in the similar vein:

 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/face-covering-masks-ice-officers/683392/

 

And the libertarian Cato institute has a similar blog post:

https://www.cato.org/blog/ice-agents-seizing-people-now-routinely-wear-masks-thats-wrong

 

I think the argument generally comes down to this:

"The driving principle here is obvious: In a free society, people should know who is policing them...

 

Hiding your face from the public as a federal agent undermines the legitimacy of our nation’s police, and can be mistaken for cowardice. Although the risks of showing your face as you police America’s streets are not negligible, they’re worth taking, because the consequences of concealment are more dire. This is why the hazards of policing are morally different from those of being, say, a lumberjack, even though felling trees is statistically more dangerous than making arrests. In policing a free society, some of the risks arise from protecting freedom itself, so even if you can reduce those risks, you often shouldn’t...

 

Descending on a person in public, laying hands on them, and taking them to a distant prison is a naked expression of state power. For it to be tolerated in a democracy committed to an inalienable right to liberty, it must be just that: naked. It cannot be done by shadowy, masked agents. "

 

 

As a  side note: it is pretty funny that 3 years ago, much of law enforcement was vehemently against wearing COVID masks. Maybe now they're all afraid of the flu? 

 

But I think they know what they're doing is unconstitutional and IMO morally wrong in some cases, and they'd rather hide their face versus take ownership of their behavior

 

LC I do understand your point and I don't disagree with much of it. But I do think there is some nuance with this situation since agents are targeting illegal immigrants which is highly politicized regardless of the legality of operations. I mean as far as I am aware, we are not seeing police officers in mass wearing masks while stopping and frisking random people on the street or searching cars at traffic stops (which they already do). Believe me I have a lot of problems with Law Enforcement in this country....but I also understand how difficult of a job it is and how even those with the best intentions can succumb to pressure or make mistakes that can cost them or others dearly. It's the reality we live in.  

 

edit: On the doxxing how would you even find evidence of that? They aren't afraid of being doxxed by media...they are afraid of being doxxed by criminals with long memories. With the cartel that IS a concern. And I'm not saying every illegal has ties to the cartel. It's probably less than 10%...if that. But I am saying that if they are doxxed, that info is going to be kept close to the cuff....not pushed on some media outlet. 

 

Edited July 22, 2025 by Castanza

[changegonnacome]

44 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

No bank or lender reported financial loss from doing business with Trump misrepresenting his financial position to them

 

You are correct.

 

However that argument is like a kindergarten level understanding of the interconnected nature of the financial system & why we have laws around bank fraud.

 

Misrepresentation of your financial position to get credit on more favorable terms is illegal because (a) it risks the fidelity of the risk based systems which allows credit to flow through the economy & (b) your financial statements need to be legally correct to ensure a level playing field where those who are misrepresenting their finances do not receive loans INSTEAD of those that are being truthful but get denied....because at the end of the day the supply of credit available is finite....financial institutions pick people or companies to give credit too at the expense of others they don't. You want a rules based financial system where credit flows to its highest and best use.....that exercise starts with a legal disclosure regime which prioritizes truthfulness and accuracy....on top of which underwriting decisions are made. Its not hyperbole to say a legalized credit disclosure regime is one of the bedrocks of the credit system.....we saw in 2008 what happens when its cleverly circumvented. 

 

So the victim of Trump's financial misrepresentation - was another more deserving capitalist enterprise that Deutsche Bank did NOT extend credit to for their project versus the Donald's.....which is to say a deserving deal fell apart because it was truthful....and Donald's deal proceeded because he lied. Ex-post arguments that it all worked on Donald's deal and DB never lost money is the wrong framing.

 

So lets be clear Donald broke law.......an important law which is an important part of our capitalist system. He deserves to be castigated for his business behaviors and they are unbecoming of a President.

 

However the crime was so long ago, the pursuit of it so politically motivated that I am happy to admit that it amounts to the lawfare label that was placed on it. Frankly apart from anything else the Democrats who pursued the case only served to feed Trump's outsider image and so the lawfare backed fired spectacularly....cause in the olden days discovered bank fraud by a Presidential candidate would have been enough for voters to abandon that candidate as not being fit for office.....but we aren't in the olden days......the level of distrust in the system has risen such that the old rules of political pedigree and character dont apply anymore........the Democrats we're playing a game that doesn't exist anymore........disgust had risen so much in the system that anybody (even a person of low character) who could claim he was an outsider to that system and was bold enough to change it could cobble together a winning majority for the Presidency.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2025 by changegonnacome

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, dealraker said:

Completely irrelevant to anything I wrote. 

 

I hired the standard legal entity/people (2 co-owned) to roof my home; the foreman was legal; the workers I had no clue about.  I did not shop around for the lowest price, this company is generally thought to have higher than normal prices because they are well-known to do fabulous work.

 

You too are using services and products of those you desperately want to run out of the country --- as is Trump.  80% of those in my area are Trumpers, they all use the same companies with undocumented workers.   And they love the service and the work ethic of these guys.  All the local contractors here are Trumpers, they all use subs dominated by illegals.  

 

You left out the best part:  Trump is the ONLY one trying to change the system.

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, LC said:

And I looked for news instances of ICE agents being doxxed and harmed - the worst I found was someone dumping trash on an ICE agent's front yard. The DHS says there is an 830% increase in assaults on ICE offices

 

You obviously are not paying attention.

 

Tom Holman has had umpteen death threats. Kristy Noem, the same.

 

Holman and his wife/children live apart, his family in an undisclosed location because of the death threats.

 

ICE agents wear masks because there families are being doxxed & threaten with protesters showing up at their homes.

 

I think this is going to end soon, as Trump has lost his patience and told Homan to prosecute any of the idiots that throw rocks, shoot at ICE, toss canisters/molitov cocktails --- into federal prison. 

 

When the losers start getting jailed, unlike 2020 when they were all set free, the violence against ICE is going way down.

[whiskybravo]

22 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

So let’s be clear Donald broke law.......an important law which is an important part of our capitalist system. He deserves to be casitgated for his business behaviours and they are unbecoming of a President.

 

However the crime was so long ago, the pursuit of it so politically motivated that I am happy to admit that it amounts to the lawfare label that was placed on it. Frankly apart from anything else the Democrats who pursued the case only served to feed Trump's outsider image and so the lawfare backed fired spectacularly. 

 

 

I don’t disagree with the principle that financial disclosures must be truthful to preserve the integrity of the credit system. A lie that helps one borrower get financing over another is a distortion, even if the lender isn’t directly harmed.

 

That said, the remedy here was ridiculously disproportionate—especially in light of the absence of actual financial harm, no victim complaints, and the fact that these were sophisticated institutions with their own underwriting processes. Penalizing inflated estimates is legitimate, but $450 million and executive bans is the kind of punishment typically reserved for cases where harm was not only possible but actually occurred.

 

You’re right, ultimately it helped him politically.
 

 

Edited July 23, 2025 by whiskybravo