[flagged]
I don't think anyone wants a timeline where tanks are patrolling the roads. There's a reason our military outside the national guard doesn't focus on domestic action unless there's a dire emergency.
>They see some dude with a criminal record and face tattoos and think "this person probably shouldn't be in our country". You could disagree but this is the normie take.
The US doesn't exile people. Pretty sure that's illegal and it makes no sense anyway. Who's going to take in a legal US Citizen who does not want to leave the country? People's feelings do not supercede the law of the land.
>A lot of people in a big city just see filth and people sleeping on the street and are annoyed that things have gotten like this.
clearly not annoyed enough to figure out why things got like this as they keep pushing for zoning laws and defunding shelters.
This was mentioned a few decades ago (in 2004, the post-9/11 environment) by Battlestar Galactica:
> There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnZ53lPPsF0
* https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/8/14/6002211/battlestar-gala...
Rich people in safe neighborhoods very commonly turn down police because they don't want their local taxes to go up. It's as simple as that. You can also add to the fact that they don't want their children slammed into the pavement for minor infractions such as having an open container beverage or doing 35 in a 25 mph zone.
Its always been rules for thee but not for me.
The thing is that they are more likely than non-wealthy citizens to be agitating city hall anyway. They'd just rather decrease taxes and have more control of their money than do anything to improve the city as a whole. If it gets too bad they just leave the city.
Rich people can count on being treated differently by police.
This is what I'm talking about. Completely delusional about what police do, or at least the perception of police in rich neighborhoods.
It is a problem of recent creation.
Recent observation I came across: folks like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers stopped marching ever since the ICE raids started.
>But as I said, this isn’t about crime. It’s about paranoid conspiracy theories and an attempt to dismantle democracy.
Most people don't think of 'normal law enforcement', they just see crime, people in the country illegally and others trying to make law enforcements job harder. They don't care about these types of arguments about how this is different from "normal" law enforcement.
You can care about these arguments , and a small percentage of people do, but if you want to be persuasive to the overwhelming majority, you have to put it in concrete terms how more police and law enforcement is actually bad.
Persuading the voters is seen as a last resort, a distasteful task that really shouldn't be necessary, if we could just get the right systems in place to keep them pacified and voting for more of the same.
It is for this reason that so many young people, left and right, are latching onto non or even anti-democratic political ideologies. The systems themselves have become the highest good as opposed to what they were originally designed for. Due process no longer means a swift and fair trial, it means endless shifting paperwork and appeals that make our judiciary collapse on itself. Building anything is no longer about the funds and means to build it but about the willpower to trudge through 5+ layers of approval from councils and faceless agencies. All the while, elite overproduction has created a whole class of "expert" who cannot understand the world 3 inches from their face but are supposed to be trusted at all times to make the best decision on our behalf.
I'm OK with that sentiment of yours, but I'm also OK with the article itself and the direction it implies this administration is going.
Normies don't persuade easy, that's why they're normies. Trump has worked out how to persuade them: by lying hyperbolically and providing the 'circus' of the bread and circus method. But it's a dark circus, and its involuntary audience are only those already lost to Trump.
That's where I disagree with you. Normies persuade very easily. Just give them a better life. Tell them you'll make their life materially better and they'll be persuaded to support it.
See those tents on the street? I'll get rid of them.
Don't like to step over needles? I'll clean it up.
Are you annoyed by having stores put shampoo behind lock and key? I'll start arresting and prosecuting the <1% of people stealing.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/30/politics/trump-poll-immig...
> "Do you think Donald Trump has gone too far, has been about right, or has not gone far enough when it comes to deporting immigrants living in the United States illegally?"
52% said too far.
If you phrased the question something like "do you think the federal government has done enough, too much or not enough to deport illegal immigrants" you would get much different results. Or even including Donald Trump in the question is leading. And using "immigrants living in the US illegally" gives you a much different response as illegal aliens. All surveys are biased, but this one could be improved on so many levels.
Look at a much simpler survey about law enforcement attitudes and you'll see, especially in high crime neighborhoods, people want more policing not less:
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/88476/...
It’s much shakier than that.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-...