US could ask foreign tourists for five-year social media history before entry
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Almost the only thing I have is LinkedIn, which is always only as up to date as the last time I changed jobs, which I don't do often.
No Facebook, insta, snap, twitter, tiktok. I subscribe to maybe five channels on YouTube.
My HN account isn't linked to my main 'identity' email address so I could hide it just by having a clean phone (which I do for international travel anyway).
I feel like I'd be suspicious due to the lack of traceability. I've had work colleagues say that they couldn't find a trace of me online (although that was a while ago now, and not colleagues who are adept at online sleuthing).
My age may be just enough to be believably not terminally online.
My guess from the outside, is that none of these actions are actually meant to "capture" or even "detect" any of those things, the methods are likely to inefficient and small to be able to do so.
What they're trying to do, is make those people not even consider going to the US in the first place, because they're scared of getting caught. Same as a lot of the ICE actions and other things going on. They're not meant to be efficiently solving some concrete issue with their action, they're meant to scare the rest of the populace into being docile and accepting more and more control over time.
The Trump Administrations actions read like a checklist of things you'd do if you wanted to destroy the US's power to protect itself and its allies and promote the well-being of its people.
40% of the population still support Trump.
If you have 10 friends and ask them where they want to meet for dinner and 6 say let’s go to a Mexican restaurant and the other 4 say “let’s kill Bob and eat him”, you still need to be concerned about your friend group.
53% think he’s doing a better job than Biden (page 18)
His approval rating in his second term is tracking about the same or a bit higher than Obama’s at the same time: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/trump-obama-...
- 39% say the country is on the right track
- 36% say the economy is good
- 53% say the economy is weak
- 33% say their personal outlook is improving.
In the survey the only one that reaches 50% are about “values”
A senile old man during better than another senile old man is not exactly a raving endorsement.
Yes, people are upset the economy. But I assume the people complaining about “fascism” on here are upset about Trump’s “values,” which, as you note is at 50%, not his failure to meet his stupid promise to turn back the last few years of inflation.
What do you think the percentage of people would be in favor of using the national guard would be if they were deployed to rural America to stop the meth problem or they were deployed to Memphis, Houston, anywhere in Mississippi and Alabama?
Don’t you find it surprising that you don’t have the same type of ICE raids targeting the red border states but you have them targeting blue cities?
Why is Trump going to war with Venezuela instead of Mexico and Colombia where the drugs actually are? It’s all optics and meant not to upset his base.
Right now, for instance he is trying to pay off his “socialism bad” base of farmers - who he never targets with ICE raids - who are hurting because of his tarriffs.
And most of his ICE raids on farms were in blue states where he could care less about farmers since because of the electoral college, there votes don’t matter.
https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/11/immigration-californi...
As far as Memphis, the rest of mostly Red Tenessee could care less what happens to black people in Memphis. He was invited in by the governor to save face.
On the other hand, if you expect me to argue that most of America gives two shits about what happens to minorities, you are arguing with the wrong person.
Of course as someone who sees a minority every time he looks into the mirror and he whose still living parents grew up in the segregationist south, I have never had any illusions about the US.
I’ve been able to navigate it quite successfully though
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/15/state-department-vi...
How easy is it to set up a <any social network> account under someone else's name, post a bunch of inflammatory opinions, AI some photos of them at a Free Palestine rally, and then sit back and await the inevitable border crossing horror story?
Mental note: Research yourself (and your traveling companions) thoroughly before visiting the US.
https://www.404media.co/the-200-sites-an-ice-surveillance-co... ("The 200+ Sites an ICE Surveillance Contractor is Monitoring")
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VyAaJaWCutyJyMiTXuDH...
Those people wouldn't want to travel to a police state anyway.
I’m on the same boat and told management at work that I won’t be traveling to the US while Trump is in power, which they seem to be fine with, but who knows if that’ll last.
I fall into this camp (little to no social media besides LinkedIn) and I've had no issues traveling to the EU or UK or really any other police state for that matter. Plan to do more this upcoming year.
Am I not allowed to say that?
As an enemy to free speech, you wont be allowed in.
Besides, why would you want to come if you don’t like it here?
- Jordan Parlour for Facebook posts that were deemed ‘hateful.’
- Bernadette Spofforth for a post with a “mild inaccuracy”
- Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, after raising concerns in a private parents’ WhatsApp group about the hiring process of their daughter’s school
- Lucy Connolly, for a post calling for mass deportation and to set fire to hotels housing immigrants
- Norbert Gyurcsik, for having “extreme right wing music”
Germany, you too.
- Jon Richelieu-Booth was investigated for stalking and making threats. The gun photo was not part of the police investigation.
- Jordan Parlour was charged for suggesting attacking hotels housing asylum seekers.
- Bernadette Spofforth was investigated for distributing misinformation with the intent to incite violence.
- Lucy Connolly for exactly what you say, inciting violence
- Norbert Gyurcsik had and was selling terrorist materials. (Just because you pair something illegal in a melody doesn't change its content...)
(With the exception of Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, which was an unlawful arrest and they were had restitution for it.)
A quick search suggests that the photo with the gun wasn't the sole cause of the arrest, given there were stalking allegations "involving serious alarm or distress" from someone he had a conflict with, where the gun was one part of what caused the complainint to (claim to) feel threatened. Police may well have overreacted due to the gun post, but your framing leaves out rather relevant details.
> - Jordan Parlour for Facebook posts that were deemed ‘hateful.’
Appears to have incited violence by advocating an attack on a hotel, something he pleaded guilty to.
> - Bernadette Spofforth for a post with a “mild inaccuracy”
Was arrested for posting a fake name for an attacker, but released and faced no further action.
Calling potentially putting a target on the back of someone innocent by connecting them to a violent crime a "mild inaccuracy" is at best wildly misleading.
> Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine
These people did get a wrongful arrest payout, but the claim was most certainly not just raising concerns in a private parent's WhatsApp group. The claims including harassment, and causing a nuisance on the school premises. The claim was still wrong, and the payout reflects that the police should not have been so quick to believe the allegations before making an arrest. But your claim is still hyperbole.
> - Lucy Connolly, for a post calling for mass deportation and to set fire to hotels housing immigrants
At least in this one you admitted the arrest was over incitement to violence.
> - Norbert Gyurcsik, for having “extreme right wing music”
No, for buying and distributing albums whose lyrics breach terrorism legislation and intended to incite racial hatred.
I have plenty of issues with UK terror legislation, which I believe is being abused to shut down legitimate speech at times, but framing this the way you did is again wildly misleading and hyperbolic.
But even if none of your claims were wildly misleading, none of them support your initial claim:
> You are allowed to say it. Unlike UK, you won’t be arrested. But you won’t be allowed in.
... about a comment referring to criticism of the government.
None of the cases above were relevant to that. Most of them are relating to classes of speech that are not protected in the US either.
Family, work, others in the group who enjoy it, the level of enjoyment might still be above the level of frustration, wanting to help, emergencies, etc. I could think of many reasons one would want to go to a country even though you disagree with ~50% the population + current leaders.
I've been in North Korea as an example, but I'd never claim to support the ideas and politics of their leader(s).
What makes you say that? Granted, I'm just an outside observer trying to see what's going on, but since the majority isn't protesting as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem like the majority doesn't care too much currently. Probably most people are in a dire enough situation that they cannot afford to protest, and are busy enough trying to figure out how to re-organize their living situation.
What is your mental model of the median American citizen?
Seems most independent analysts highlight the large swaths of people unable to get basic necessities, just one example of many: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/in-every-corner-of-the-co...
> The nation’s affordability crisis has not spared middle-class families, one-third of which struggle to afford basic necessities such as food, housing, and child care.
> Across the 160 U.S. metro areas studied, at least 20% of middle-class earners cannot afford to live in that place, after adjusting for local income ranges and price variations.
When you don't know how to afford food for the week or pay the next rent, you're hardly interested in going out on the street and protest. Been there and done that, and politics, no matter how aggressive or "against you" it can feel, is really the last thing on your mind in those situations.
This is not a good description of the median American. Your article is about the income required to afford a "comfortable life," which is a vague target. You can get a concrete idea of what this target seems to mean by looking at the calculator they use: https://www.epi.org/resources/budget/.
For a 2 adult/2 child household in the Baltimore metro area, the calculator estimates you need a household income of $126,000 to meet this "comfortable life" benchmark. For a single person with no kids, the standard is $54,000 a year. It does not make sense to say that someone making $50,000 a year or a family making $100,000 a year in Baltimore (which is a cheap area) is "struggling." My sister-in-law's friend, a 20-something who works as a nanny, probably makes less than that and she has time and money to go out, travel, etc.
The basic error in this analysis is that it bakes in a number of assumptions about standard of living. It assumes that people with significantly below-median incomes (it defines middle class as the middle 60%, so someone at the 25th percentile is counted as middle class) can live alone in a median house, etc., send their kids to corporate daycares, etc. But people with below-median incomes live in below-median houses, they have roommates, they rely on family for childcare, etc. My sister-in-law's friend has roommates, which frees up a lot of money to go do stuff.
If you applied this standard to Europe, you would probably conclude that people are quite desperate there, though of course they are not. In Spain and Italy, half of adults 25-34 live with their parents. They probably couldn't afford to live by themselves in a median-priced apartment. But does that mean they're struggling and would have no time to protest?
A lot of it's that. Our GDP is inflated by bullshit like over-paying for healthcare to the tune of double-digit percentages of total GDP, among other things, so we're flat-out not as rich as we look on paper, as a country. Our social safety net is really bad, government retirement systems and disability are sub-par by OECD standards, and we may have as few as zero paid vacation days or ability to refuse a shift (without being fired for it).
Anyone under the top 20% or so in the US is struggling, or at least stressed out by knowing that one bad month can mess them up for years and years and ruin any long-term plans they had.
We're also a lot more spread out than most countries. It's a lot more expensive and time-consuming to go protest in DC when you live in, say, Colorado, than it is for someone in Marseilles to go attend a protest in Paris. So they go to some local protest with 50 people instead, or maybe to one in Denver with a couple thousand, and you never hear about it. And the protests don't get rowdy (they might get teargassed anyway, of course) because see above about the "one bad month" thing—an arrest without charges of a working adult can easily end up making their family homeless, because they lose their job and can't get another one fast enough (and it's much, much worse if even very low-level charges are filed, even if the charges don't stick or are dropped—our legal system is great at eating thousands of dollars for what ends up being nothing, besides further schedule disruption bringing further risk to employment)
Because Trump hasn't gotten prices to pre-Biden levels like he promised, not because of what he's doing at the border. Trump has a 49% approval rating on immigration, 50% on "returning America to its values," and 51% on "fighting crime in America's cities." https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/HHP... (page 9).
51% of the country, including 32% of democrats, support "us[ing] the National Guard and active-duty military to police American cities and stop crime and disorder." (Page 23)
A "vast majority"... where? On bluesky? In Europe? Cuz it sure as hell ain't here
This lack of nuance is exactly one of the major flaws of American society, it's either team red or blue, in-group or out-group, black-and-white thinking is rather childish...
Personally I wouldn’t bother though. We were considering a trip to Florida next year but decided on France instead due to the widespread xenophobia.
Freedom to not let people in with other opinions, and freedom to force your opinion onto other countries. Really great.
Yeah, that's more or less what it means to have a border.
> and freedom to force your opinion onto other countries. Really great.
They are free to reject it, as we have theirs. You should be happy USAID was shut down.
Half things people criticize the current administration for enforcing wouldn't fly in China either (and more), but the real and final blackpill is we really should be copying them in more ways than one.
And we don't even have things like hidden police officers stalking influencers that conveniently drop by to check on them when they show something problematic on stream. (See: Hasan's recent trip to China, where officers surrounded him to check his phone within 30 seconds of him showing a Xi Jinping meme to his stream)
There's a difference between saying that you disagree with the way that a country is being run, and wanting to be violent or pursue criminal activity against that country or its people.
What you're missing is that the former should be legal in any democracy (and is in the UK), and the latter shouldn't be legal anywhere (and isn't in the UK).
You're claiming the UK lacks "freedom of speech" because it doesn't allow people to incite violence online, while saying the USA has free speech, despite it seemingly rejecting visitors for legal political speech.
I know which side of the pond I'd rather be on.
Voicing support for the group Palestine Action has been met with quite harsh responses in the UK, even though that group is arguably non-violent in that its criminal actions are directed towards property with the aim of slowing actual violence.
There are other similar developments in UK state policy.
That was my opinion. However one of them was alleged at a recent trial to have hit and injured a policewoman with a sledgehammer.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-obhMBSWi4c
BBC reporting:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dzq41n4l9o
The accused person claims to have panicked due to how the police were interfering. If I understand the article correctly the cop was off work for three months due to the injury.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/12/the-filton-t...
Free speech means the country must tolerate what citizens say; it does not mean the country can't exercise its discretion over its borders to bar entry to foreigners who say things citizens don't like.
It's the basis of democracy, and a healthy democracy does not reject a visitor just because they criticized its government.
I understand your point, I just have a different theory of rights. Just because something is logically conistent doesn't mean I agree with the starting premises.
Personally, are any of your beliefs or statements things that could ban you for entry into the US? Because I have quite a few things that I have said on social media which would likely prevent my entry. It certainly doesn't make me feel like a "member of a body politic" when that body treats my beliefs as intrusive and foreign.
I view America as a hot cup of coffee, and the outside world as lukewarm day old coffee. I’m not worried about how hot or cold individual molecules inside America are—the average will work out. My concern is about dumping lukewarm coffee from the outside into the cup.
As a person looking for a cool drink of water, or who might be okay with drinking an iced coffee as the world burns, I am more concerned that the people I live around think that I should be prevented from drinking as I choose. And that's something that has happened here, often, historically, in other places, with many people.
So you can tell me that my concern isn't warranted; I get that all the time. It starts with "you're being hyperbolic" and ends with "well, we are glad they are gone because they weren't 'real people' anyhow."
The reality is that I'm not being hyperbolic in my concern.
Culture is not race. Children should be required to write that 100 times on a chalkboard. The third world is the way it is because of the culture of the people who built those societies. Nobody would be more thrilled than me if the only difference between Iowans and Bangladeshis was that we don’t need to spend money on sunscreen. (Except a little for my feet, which burn easily.) But that’s a fantasy world. It’s a fantasy that persists because most Americans have little personal contact with immigrants and can’t see how Bangladeshi mothers raise their children differently than Iowan mothers. Immigrants, meanwhile, actually have limited insight into the inner mechanics of Americans—they can see the results, the institutions, the rule of law, the order. But can’t see the inputs that lead to that. And obviously they have a vested interest in believing flattering falsehoods about what makes societies the way they are.
> I am more concerned that the people I live around think that I should be prevented from drinking as I choose.
You can drink as you choose. What I’m trying to avoid, because we’re all in this cup together, is drowning in the lukewarm coffee that my parents worked so hard to escape. We’re both trying to prevent the world from burning, we just disagree about where the fire is coming from.
The idea you'll be arrested for mere criticism of the government in the UK is utter nonsense.
... that you know of.
I like plenty of folks in, for instance, Texas. I still think the government there is illegitimate in foundation and criminal in action.
Good ol "if you don't love it, leave it" argument. Nothing beats that!
Edit: Ah, and of course, I forgot the most obvious pointer; being against fascism in the US literally labels you as a "domestic terrorist" for some reason, although the US traditionally been against fascism up until this point. What, why and how people are accepting the whole "If you're against fascists, you're a terrorist" charade will probably forever be a mystery to me. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/desi...
(And you are misled by assumptions of privilege, any readers who think this could never happen to you. Your social non-conformity (rejection of social media) is quirky and geeky and completely harmless; and surely the nice government man will understand this).
https://apps.bea.gov/scb/issues/2025/02-february/0225-travel...
California does bring in more tourism money, but it's still less percentage wise.
Don’t want any negative comparisons being made
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46204100
Edit: Krugman
Governments around the world criticise social media and tech giants but they still work with them because they want the concentration of power to enable surveillance.
Okay, that's your job then. It's not mine or anyone else's job to just hand everything over.
A few things that's happened to me as a citizen after invoking right to remain silent to CBP
1) Told I could not enter the country. Held up for 3-24 hours in holding areas. Officials come in and claim they will revoke my passport under "national security"-esque grounds. Lots of bluffing and huffing and puffing. Diesel therapy of being made to go back and forth to interrogating officers and then constantly prodded to be deprived of sleep. After a few shift rotations no one is left that know why you were being fucked with so you then [hopefully] get let go.
2) Dogs constantly come in, none of them alert. Eventually they get tired of finding nothing and write up a fraudulent affadavit for a warrant claiming one alerted anyway. Strip searched, hands cuffed and feet chained, imprisoned in a holding cell with people you can't speak the language of, diesel therapy again in prisoner van driven all over the state. Taken to two different private hospitals where CBP officers claim there is drugs up my ass. Cursed and touched without consent by private hospital staff (oh you can complain to the board as I did, lol, the state board just claims since CBP told them to their license isn't in jeopardy). Hospital staff rack up bills, which are sent to me privately and go to collections. Medical records state nothing was found but they "Think I'm packing drugs" anyway despite absolutely no medical evidence.
Have fun!
My sympathies are with you!
Fact is hardly anyone believes these things until it happens to them, because they don't want to believe we live in such a dystopia.
> A few things that's happened to me as a citizen after invoking right to remain silent to CBP
What happened that caused you to “invoke your right to remain silent”? When you enter a country, including the US, you are asked some pretty standard questions that would be weird to refuse to answer.
What question did you not want to answer?
This caused me to be fucked with mercilessly for about 10 years. Eventually I was investigated by an HSI officer who seems to have determined I'm just a crazy libertarian or something, now I tend not to get held up terribly long.
Edit: I have tried to answer below questions but it appears I cannot post any more messages until a certain times elapses. Below commenter has repeatedly shifted his attack, it is clear only goal is to shift and attack my message through a series of moving questions that keep moving the goalposts. 'This' did not happen 10 years ago, some of the events happened 10 years ago, some of them significantly more recent, and I have pretty much fully defined what sort of questions were answered. But of course it's pointless to even reply such commenters as I know from experience they are only going to dig endlessly until a magic 'gotcha' is found as to why I deserve it.
> This caused me to be fucked with mercilessly for about 10 years.
And this happened 10 years ago? I do not see how that connects to discussion of the current tightening of immigration rules, to be honest.
Is there anything you can do about it?
Probably US Customs and Border Protection.
What are some of the complications?
If what you're suggesting is that the US is not being more draconian than most, you're free to make an actual claim about how.
I'll note that this article is about people eligible for the visa waiver program, which does not include any African countries - travelling to the US from African countries is also far more draconian than what is outlined in the article, so it's unclear why you think the comparison is relevant.
Common to get a 10 year US visa. Schengen visa? For the duration of your visit (for which you have to have bought plane tickets and accommodation before showing up for a visa appointment). The EU also charges pretty hefty fees for a Schengen visa, which I view as a racket and/or xenophobia.
Don’t even get me started on the requirement to hand over your passport at hotels in Europe!
My point is that characterizing the US as “more draconian than most” is quite far from reality, which is a lot more nuanced.
Both of these are possible. Neither are nearly that simple.
For starters the validity period depends on the country, and the type of visa, and since you mentioned Africa, applicants from the vast majority of African states are limited to single entry visas with 3 months validity for B-visas. A few can get 4-5 years, and a handful (I think Morocco, Botswana, South Africa) can get 10 years.
Given that, it's rather odd that you used specifically African countries as the basis for comparison and then pulled out 10 year duration.
On the other side, it is reasonably uncommon to be limited to just the stay for Schengen visas, though it can certainly happen, especially for applicants from poorer countries. And validity can be up to 5 years. But you certainly can
> The EU also charges pretty hefty fees for a Schengen visa, which I view as a racket and/or xenophobia.
The standard cost for a Schengen visa is 90 euros or 105 USD. If you've paid more that has been service fees to application centres, not the EU fees.
The application fee for a US B-visa is 185 USD, in addition there is an issuance fee for some countries, most of them African.
Interesting that threats to national security and "antisemitism" are put on an equal footing and clearly above everything else; also makes me wonder what is "unlawful antisemitic harassment"- the US considers every speech lawful as far as I understand. Or, if some speech is indeed unlawful, is it going to matter only if that speech is against Jews or Israel?
State Department to deny visas to fact checkers and others, citing 'censorship'
The answer to all of those is "yes" and they will not bother to find them, they will ask you to list them. Omitting information or providing false information on your visa application is a felony.
It's the same logic as behind the "Are you a terrorist?" question. Lying is itself a crime, and can be used to prosecute you in the future.
I've visited the US many times, but I have no intention of going back under the current regime.
I transited through China earlier this year, and I frankly felt less concerned doing that - despite having criticised the Chinese government online many times over the years - than I would feel about entering the US at this point.
There are already forms that ask for social media info, e.g. student visa applications. Surely some of the applicants just don't have any social media profiles. Maybe some of them are reading this. I'm curious about their experiences.
If you truly don't have social media, their search won't show any hits, and there isn't much you can do about it. Just make sure you're actually answering the question truthfully.
Did we really forgot about what happened back in 2013 so quickly? Did people assume all these agencies suddenly stopped doing what they've been doing for decades? Nothing you do on the internet with regular network connections are hidden to these entities, don't live falsely under the impression that you can.
The anime avi posters will have to level up their OPSEC
North America will host the FIFA World Cup 2026 with events in the US, Mexico, and Canada.
What's "earth"? Is that somewhere south of Texas?
I don’t go to UK anymore for example.
Visit family.
That's not mentioning you can dislike the current administration without disliking other aspects of the US. The US is big and diverse.
These timelines are dangerously close to the background investigation I had to go through to get a security clearance as a US Citizen. The fact they want this from tourists is appalling.
Non-Americans: Do not come here. America is not safe.
Americans: The proposal is up for public comment at the moment. The document asks for comments to be sent to CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov.
What, precisely, are they hoping to learn, here?
(I'm not just saying this to be inflammatory. We already know the administration has been going after legal immigrants on the basis of criticisms of Israel. This is a completely reasonable connection to this social media policy.)
The reason they are creating all sort of censorship and unconstitutional rules to prevent criticism of Israel is, surprise!, to benefit Israel. It's otherwise incredible how Israel happens to be always the lucky recipient of all sorts of benefits and favours that are all intended for some other purpose. Come on.
What? Because MAGA hates Muslims and libs, that's why. What's confusing about that?
Yes a lot of the policies are designed to benefit Israel, however that's completely distinct from being designed to benefit Jews. The administration doesn't care about ant-semitism on its own merits, but it does care about protecting Israel.
Do some reading on the theological love affair between American evangelicals and Israel to understand the distinction more clearly. The short version is that evangelicals need Israel to be controlled by Jews in order for their end-world prophecies to come true. Said prophecy includes all the Jews being left here on earth post-rapture to face 7 years of horror.
Yes, people do literally believe this and yes, it is a significant force in American politics.
No, evangelicals need all the Jews to go back to Israel for their end of the world prophecy to come true. So why don't they just pass laws to expel them from the US? It would be criminal of course, but coherent with their goals. The fact is, coherence stops when it stops benefitting zionists. They are nutters but their folly is well directed.
Also, as I just said in my previous comment, you're claiming that Israel is getting some specially favourable treatment by sheer chance. Nothing to do with the people who live there or that consider that their own promised land. Come on.
Finally, why you feel the need to specify that Jews and zionists are not the same. Nobody has mentioned Jews so far (unless for the frankly naive idea that this preoccupation with "antisemitism" is actually about Jews- the most accomplished, safe and protected group in the US- rather than about Israel).
Not according to literally any evangelical I've ever spoken to, nor any mainstream evangelical in US theo-politics. Nor is that actually stated in scripture. The complete assemblage of Jews in Israel can happen during or after Tribulation via Jesus teleportation magic.
Sovereignty to rebuild the temple is all that's required for Jesus to gain his Jew-teleportation powers.
Based on your vernacular I'm going to guess you aren't from the US and have no clue what the US religious landscape is actually like.
> you're claiming that Israel is getting some specially favourable treatment by sheer chance
I made no such claim.
My claim is that they're getting "favorable" treatment as a purely instrumental means to an end. In this case (the visas) the end is to exclude Muslims and libs. In other cases it's to bring back kamikaze Jesus. None of it has to do with actually liking Jews.
> Finally, why you feel the need to specify that Jews and zionists are not the same.
Because otherwise a person literally can't parse the factual statement that American evangelicals love Israel but don't care for Jews?
They already have sovereignty, so why don't evangelicals lobby to withhold all aid to Israel unless they get to work and rebuild the temple?
> I made no such claim. My claim is that they're getting "favorable" treatment as a purely instrumental means to an end.
That's exactly the claim I was talking about. You strive to justify every favorable treatment Israel gets as the fortuitous side-effect of something that has nothing to do with those who actually materially benefit from it- that is, those who live in Israel or consider the promised land of their own people. Isn't that a bit suspicious to you?
> Because otherwise a person literally can't parse the factual statement that American evangelicals love Israel but don't care for Jews?
I understand this, but can't help thinking that this alliance with religious fanatics is too lucky to be random. I mean "they want absolutely nothing from me except giving me money and protecting me politically and militarily? That is great, how do I get more of these? Who can I finance and boost to spread this religion even more?"
Sure: Because rebuilding the temple would trigger a regional war and evangelicals want Israel to win that war, ergo cannot withhold aid.
More generally, because despite people actually believing these things, they find it much harder to put into real logical action. Same reason people who believe the end times are fast-approaching for some reason aren't selling all their belongings and knocking off their bucket list.
> Isn't that a bit suspicious to you?
No not really. My theory explains both the rampant anti-semitism throughout the GOP and the extreme pro-Israel sentiment within the GOP. Your theory fails to explain half of it.
Not sure how to parse your last paragraph. Who said it's random? It's not random at all: there's a clear lineage between evangelical and Jewish belief systems. It's super not-random! Their prophesies are intertwined because they're derived from the same sources.
Ah because there isn't already one, and Israel is not the only one armed with nuclear weapons and its unwavering ally is not the dominant world superpower?
> despite people actually believing these things, they find it much harder to put into real logical action
Yet they don't find it hard at all as long as it aligns with Israeli interests.
> My theory explains both the rampant anti-semitism throughout the GOP
This part I miss. Where is the rampant antisemitism in the GOP? Last time I checked, the prime minister of Israel is always welcomed in the US (especially by the GOP) as a demigod. All advisors and mediators for Israel Palestine and the middle east are Jewish. Antisemitism is Trump's justification for all repression. What are you talking about?
> It's not random at all: there's a clear lineage between evangelical and Jewish belief systems.
LOL. It's random in the sense that you keep insisting that there is no causal connection between Israel's interest and the support it receives. Somehow for some lucky coincidence they get a lot of money and privileges but hey, they've nothing to do with it!
When did I say there’s no causal connection between Israel’s interest and the support it receives?
Again: not a lucky coincidence! It’s the furthest thing from a coincidence.
But it’s also not because the GOP loves Jews.
Are you reading the words in front of you? Because it seems like you’re responding to comments that only you can see.
Anyway here are a half dozen examples or so of anti-semitism within the upper ranks of the GOP. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/02/gop-leaders-denounc...
Not that reality matters to you or anything ;)
I checked the article and I don't see any upper ranks of the GOP mentioned. Carlson is a media personality, Fuentes a far right influencer completely outside of the GOP, the Young Republican leaders are junior activists. The article actually reports of Republican Jewish Coalition leaders (such an antisemitic party!) lamenting an explosion of antisemitic episodes- which of course serves to justify even more censorship of voices critical of Israel within and without the party.
It's an extremely despicable and cynical ploy.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/10/2025-22...
"EU-US Privacy Shield" and similar are a crock of shit.
The amount of talent wasted on building ad-networks is mind blowing.
When the owners got together once a year or on FB you could tell that most of them were pro-Trump and I just kept quiet to keep the peace. But now every single one of them and the management company are seeing their rental rates plummet with the drop in tourism because people from especially Canada are not coming down to Florida during the winter. But also tourism has dropped from other countries.
Still none of the owners will address the elephant in the room and the property management company has to address it. But they walk on eggshells.
[1] We only leave for extended periods of time during spring break and the summer when rates are high because of spring break and summer break and we travel and I work remotely anyway.
I feel like it's the same as the "I am not a terrorist" declaration check-box. You know your socials, they know your socials. They want to see if you lie.
I can’t believe people STILL believe there is anonymity left online!
Unless you take some “enemy of the state”(great movie btw) level actions, they know everything worth knowing about you.
We offload the riffraff onto other countries, and they get a minor bump in GDP.
The government will be able to bury the impact of its international tourism pariah status in some sort of claim about people not wanting to fill this in. But the reality is visitor numbers are going to tank no matter what.
People from the UK in particular visit the USA because it is the USA: brash, welcoming, colourful, vibrant, thriving, free, fun. It's a holiday from being reserved and quiet. Things are louder, bigger and brighter, less apologetic, more colourful.
I guess it is low on the administration's priority list, but Trump is building a USA that no one from the UK in particular will want to visit. You should see the comments on the increasingly desperate attempts to advertise discount flights on Facebook. We'll go elsewhere.
The regime will simple classify pro-LBQT, anti-MAGA, and anti-Trump comments as "threats to national security" or as supporting terrorism.
Also funny how anti-Semitic harassment is emphasized, while other forms such as anti-black or anti-Latino harassment is not.
probably because they don't have their own AIPAC.
That's because they're using "perpetuating antisemitism" as code for "being mean to Israel". It's not really about fighting discrimination, that's just a cover framing which sells better than mandatory allegence to a foreign state.
The free market is the one with the winners they've chosen. And the winner is Israel and the losers are all the other minorities.
I'm not antisemitic, I'm anti-killing-in-general; I'm anti-collateral-damage; I'm anti-kidnapping-of-anyone-especially-children. I could go on.
There's a lot of bad on both sides. Only acknowledging the bad on one side is a denial of reality, and denying reality is never a sustainable position.
Did they not already?
Antifa, which doesn't exist as a formal organization, literally means "anti-fascism" and is now a terrorist organization. Of course these are the same people who want to arrest people for treason when they said "You do not have to follow illegal orders"
It's just mental gymnastics of Olympic-level proportions.
Because of recent anti-immigration measures in the new Administration, a great Mexican family friend of mine has a dying uncle here in the States - with only a few months to live. And with a vast majority of his relatives in Mexico, almost none of them can get visa approval to see him and say goodbye. Not even Humanitarian Parole program visas are being accepted for ANY one of the family members; and they are good, upstanding people who took the process seriously.
I have absolutely nothing nice to say about the rule-writers for immigration in this Administration - and most past ones, and I have nothing mean to say about otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants in America - until the process for legal immigration becomes necessarily easier.
Can't make this shit up...
Data remains, but the moral interpretation changes over time. And more and more data will be used against you.