throwawayqqq11

> Deporting people who are in the country illegally is a no brainer. If you don't want that, get the law changed. Until then, it's not wrong to deport them.

Enjoy this little cognitive dissonance:

You could also change the law make them legals eg. after X years of work, no criminal record and citizenship tests.

This would completely disable the current ICE gestapo and would have prevent soo much suffering. But i can imagine what you must be thinking now: But they came here illegally, this is harm to our society enough.

> Sorry, they've done [critizing trump] so much that people have become deaf to it.

You switched again! From "dems do too little" to "they actually do too much"! And the best part: by talking about the quantity and theater around it, you dont have to face the content. Even when the message doesnt get amplified by billionares and distributed to their usefull idiots, that critizism about trump might still be very relevant and valid! NO MATTER HOW MUCH REP. THINK 'UFF, HEARD THIS BEFORE'!

> Thinking like yours is a big reason the Democrats lose

> You basically want to lean all in on negative campaigning

Dude, Trump is the one who ran with deportation! Precisely because he has no better constructive vision! I EXPLAINED IT TO YOU IN ANOTHER ANSWER, THAT THIS IS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BT. THE PARTIES. Conservatives only have their identity politics and thus is constructing and enemy (migrants, antifa, liberals) THEIR ONLY SHTICK!

And because FoxNews and social media has grilled your brain so well, no matter what we "other" people say in response, in your head, it will be wrong. This entire subthread is just another case of insanity.

You cant imagine how frustrating this is. Conservatives need to grow an f'ing spine and oppose trump too, but reading your ad-hoc, brain-off replies ...

Oh, I am talking about democracies and lecturing. You are right, i have to be very careful with my othering/stereotypes but given the current state of afairs, i think im in a strong position to do so. Trump would have never gotten my vote.

My take about democracies not failing meant, only the people in it can fail. There is certainly some civic due diligence for electoral decisions. My tribalism discerns between people who at least try to come to an educated decision and dipshits. Ask yourself, why putin might start to love _our_ democracies again.

You could easily be better represented by some outsider convincingly lecturing you on important topics you didnt know you should care about, if you just cared to listen and think.

But what if these "local conditions" are the actual problem?

The left has generally two sides, the intelletual and emphatic side and the identity politics side about gender, etc. The right has only identity politics, decorated with fabricated bullshit to have a clear enemy/outgroup.

The left has actual constructive suggestions for improvement while the right fear mongers about in/out groups.

The democrats in total are certainly not perfect, esp. the old guard, that mostly fails to oppose trump proportionally to his megalomania. But there are (young) democrats that are _clearly_ better candidates and the internal frictions (sanders, mamdani) to unsuccessfully suppress them by the donor class clearly shows you which party is less corrupt.

Intellectual leftists have the problem that realitys complexity works against them while right wingers can just summon the next boogeyman. Republican voters are _literaly_ programmed on their enemy stereotypes! "Extreme left", "marxist/socialist/communist", down to, "critical race theory", "war on christmas", etc. All these cheap negative labels get thrown around to terminate critical thought and vote as the tribe does. That is the actual problem to fix and it is on the right!

Today, dipshits still run around arguing, that "this is what i voted for", while poverty, healthcare, etc. are still the most pressing issues. As long as democracies somewhat reflect the populus, democracies cannot fail by definition. When the dipshits dont get their heads cleared and educate themsels, eg. about actual migrant crime rates and their economic contribution, _they will fall for the next populist with the simpler 'answers'._

Most dont consider, that skirmishes dont have to make use of all military capabilities. Take a look at india vs china [0]. To be clear, those sticks-and-stones fights still cost lifes, are totally unnecessary and for a power-corrupted US soldier maybe unthinkable but it does not have to be an all out war. Maybe some ghandian unarmed european opposition is all it takes for the US opposition to find some traces of a spine.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–2021_China–India_skirmish...

Yep, that dipshit doesnt even grasp his own arguments implications.

When Kamala Harris left you no choice but to vote for Trump (bEcAu5e Sh3 1s eVEn wORs3!!1) then the problem is on the republicans side to bring up better candidates. When your political opponent makes mistakes, dont try to correct it, yet, all he talks about is what the dems should do.

I cant fathom how twisted these minds must be.

I wonder how many JDs the donor class can throw at the US democracy once trump is removed. You might have stopped the most raging idiot but not the idiocy behind it.

I find your explanation of free markets outperforming authoritarian regimes wanting. How should a stable and sealed dictatorship like north korea be impacted let alone destabilized by anything outside privateers do? Can you give an example?

Also, since many people bring up the french revolution. Peak weapons tech back then was front loading muskets and the fights in paris were desparation driven bloodbaths, where such weapons were eventually captured by the revolution. Today, the power gap to be outperformed by free markets is much bigger.

... job displacememt by budgetary cuts or by competition/progress. It seems you conflate PE with the latter (for emotional reasons).

We have to teach kids about cognitive biases, best by example or demonstration, and how you keep your sceptic guard up for life. We needed this even before the internet started to actively target these cognitive biases.

What you observe is cognitive dissonance resolved by ignorance. I dont have any advice for you, since i dont know your close ones, but a warning. When these conflicts dont get resolved in a constructive way, this behavioral conditioning might lead to repulsion targeting you. I have lost a long time childhood friend, even though my approach to him was always calm but persistent for over a decade.

... and many just post-hoc rationalize their already irrational decision to vote for him. If you would ask them, illegal farm workers are still very welcome in red states, i guess.

Peek mind virus would be now, to dismiss your rebuttal as "extreme left censorship" or something and not think further about anything you brought up. I have seen this delusional behavior too many times, it is really tiring.

As a german, i can assure you, GPs comment was spot on and is very transferable to germany, no matter how many serious parties are listed on the ballots. Its is the elites, slowly undermining democracies and public/private institutions all over the western world in similar ways.

I cant read GPs flagged comment anymore, but guessing from your response, it must have been something like "climate change is actually good for plants bc CO2 is just plant food. Checkmate liberal.".

Your reply to this assumed idiotic take was quite good, stable conditions are generally preferable but i think you missed one good point. Even though some small increases of parameters like temperature or CO2 can have initial positive effects, in some cases, these effects dont scale linearly with the parameters! This is not how metabolism works! You dont eat and grow infinitely more, the more (not just food but one ingredient) sugar is on the table too!

This over and over repeated idiocy bothers me so much, because its main purpose is to support irrationality and ignorance. This is poisioning the dialog and not my hostilty towards it!

You are making a quantitative argument with "X too many", not a qualitative one like "too severe crime". This reveals a certain thing about you. I guess you would make it far in that game show.

Yes, the MIT ought to be as broad, free and compatible as possible and is imo targeted to counter copy left licenses but this permissiveness can be also a problem, so specializing it into something like a tagged creative commons license can be a reasonable effort. It depends on the problem/topic of restriction and how narrow or well defined they are.

What if that "anti american sentiment" is just a more sceptical mindset and there is actually alot to critize about trump/usa.

Want to play a game? I give you quotes/actions from trump and you have to reason why he still is eligible for office. Gosh, i'd wish this was a game show. The longer you make it, the more price money is to win. 'Grab'em by the facts!' and the top price is your very own 747 plane.

95% of americans rejoice at the strong +4.3% GDP.

Then lets call this special license something like:

No-you-still-dont-have-to-pay-but-any-AI-use-is-restricted-license. 1 This way, everyone knows, its not as free as the MIT license and has absolutely no relation to it. /s

Ofcourse you can specialize existing licenses with limited paragraphs and reflect that in their names...

> Strawman

> No one is claiming ...

> I'm not entitled to all of the gain ...

You put up two more of them to counter one.

Its messy for sure. POs are allowed to use force to stop violent/aggressive suspects in cars, so he might get cleared of the coming murder charge. We will see.

The bigger picture isnt messy at all though. Deescalation is usually the way to go with protestors because they usually dont have harmful intent. This intention seems to be completely missing, from the exexutive layer down to officers in the streets.

And my point is, apply regular human behavior to the scene. Drivers know the ground they are on and the acceleration curves of their cars. Arguing over split seconds to derive a malicious intention of the driver is cherry picking. We all know those near collisions we dodged closely from own experiences, thats why its so easy for us to imagine such an outcome in that video, which was prob her expectation too.

It gets quite clear, when you change the setup a little bit.

1) Make the PO a regular human without a gun and you can imagine, that any normal person would have made just a quick sidestep to avoid collision, like most of us have experienced in person too. Use of force was totally unjustified, esp. when you combine it with:

2) Change the intetion of the driver to really want to harm the person ~2m in front of the car. Cop get trained, that you should not use your gun on close encounters with knives, bc the short distance <5m will give you not enogh time to stop a knive attacker reliably. If you stand that close infront of a car, a short but strong tab of the pedal would have been enough to get you, no matter how fast you draw your gun or how good your aim is. To me, it is clear that she never ment to hit anybody, the acceleration does not indicate it.

It is _very_ obvious. 2/3 shots hit the side of the car and the front wheel _never_ pointed at the PO.

At that point, its not libertarian anymore, its identitarian. The victim was from an outgroup so anything goes, including your values around liberty out the window.

Identity politics is at the core of conservativism and what ever is good for, or part of your group or yourself is just by nature and good for society. This tribalistic bias skews your reasoning, because we apes have evolved to sustain our own group or ourself. As social animals, we have externalized our self-preservative drive onto the tribe we live in and this bias drives libertarians to these comments and why there is such a significant overlap between religion, racists (group oriented) but also libertarians (individual oriented), etc. The big political divide is between people who are more vulnerable to such identity based biases and people who are lesser so.

The best argument for democracies, are their possibility of peaceful revolutios and this problem might become very relevant for china too.

You can compare the early US with present china. Both countries had/have great potential for economic growth, and everything went well for its citizens as long as the pie got bigger. The interests of the elites and the working class were aligned by that. Once the interests of these two groups diverge, democracies become relevant again. That's why the tech oligarchs are so afraid and politically engaged, to distract us with the have-nots below us.

Today, china just has the better aligning plan, while the west is struggling to keep it's democracies. IMO any reasonable trajectory for sustainability and social stability is a contradiction to western elites, who cannot think outside their status quo, while china just builds it. I really wish china well and that they dont develop such an arrogant international stance like the west.

> interests of the US

To achieve your goal, you have to go one step further and remove deviators from parliamentary bodies too.

Ask Alex Jones about his free speech on Sandy Hook to understand how bad (EU) censorship really is!

Jokes aside. Restriction of freedoms, including speech, is not bad by definition, it's the scale and intention behind it that matters but this aspect is always missing, kind of censored, in public debate. You may downvote me now :-)

Edit: In the same sense, Alon does not cry about specific and obviously unjustified cases of EU censorship on X.

... and the reason why the US doesnt pass strong federal privacy laws is, the tech oligarchy has stronger lobbies or political ties in the US. It could be the other way around, if the US had a weaker tech sector and was leaking wealth/data to the EU, they could be protectionist. This is the common denominator. I disagree with your angle, that the EU is more corpo-sceptical, they are the same, just different lobbies.

Training != exercise.

The one builds an ability, the other tests its success.