No.13006
File: 1710388687576.png (1.27 MB, 1080x1548, 30:43, Screenshot_20240313-233133.png) ImgOps Google
Isn't the US Navy supposed to be the best navy in the world? Shouldn't it be very easy to deny entry to boats attempting to illegally enter US waters? Is Biden just refusing to use force to protect the US? Despite disliking Trump, I think he'd be doing much better here. And I think there is a pattern of the political left abandoning the responsibility of the government to use force to protect ordinary middle-class folks from the depredations of the underclass. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
No.13009
File: 1710389512872.png (1002.65 KB, 1080x1320, 9:11, Screenshot_20240314-000143.png) ImgOps Google
Another example: a convicted molester giving out fentanyl near a grade school. The cops "trying to get him to move" instead of putting him in cuffs and hauling him to jail.
>>13007Ideally, the boats attempting to illegally enter the US coastal waters would turn back instead of leaving the navy no other option than to fire upon them.
No.13010
File: 1710389583080.png (447.37 KB, 1080x1667, 1080:1667, Screenshot_20240311-023727.png) ImgOps Google
>>13008The US could easily invade Haiti to restore, but I think it would require congressional authorization.
No.13011
The context is the underlying civil war in Haiti taking place in the background of a large number of issues:
> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/bidens-backing-for-haitis-unpopular-leader-digs-u-s-into-deeper-foreign-policy-hole> https://apnews.com/article/haiti-henry-resignation-prime-minister-violence-28acaecc1d80d993c99fe43a5e1e1f7fIn my opinion, the U.S. should spearhead a U.N. managed international force of soldiers working to maintain the transitional government coming into being right now. The recently resigned Prime Minister simply didn't govern with the consent of the public. And then, ideally, in my opinion that international force must vow to stay in order to make sure that future free elections occur in a peaceful and responsible way. Many gangsters probably will die in this process and many innocents will be caught in the crossfire, but civil order has to come into being through democratic principles.
<I'm going to ignore your the Earth is flat, the Holocaust didn't happen, the coronavirus is actually good for you, et cetera style right-wing lie that "there is a pattern of the political left abandoning the responsibility of the government to use force to protect ordinary middle-class folks from the depredations of the underclass" as well as your nightmarish view that the U.S. military should be machine-gunning desperate crowds of innocent people akin to the SS under Nazi Germany during World War II.><The exact opposite underlying situation is the case: the right-wing advocates for an authoritarian government to use political violence in order to cause widespread suffering among lower-class and middle-class people alike as well as some of the well-off due to their ideology labeling certain categories of people as inferior (such as transgender people, bisexual people, disabled people, Jewish people, and so on) and being willing to get rid of those in the way of national cleansing. If you are a normal person living a normal life, your inherent enemy is a domineering government. Not a domineering neighbor. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master." - as President Washington put it.> No.13014
File: 1710400598470.png (7.2 KB, 459x482, 459:482, 1755135.png) ImgOps Google
Per 8 U.S. Code § 1091,
(a) Basic Offense.
—Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—
(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
then to
(c) Incitement Offense.—
Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
dadada...
(e) Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c), and (d) if—
(1) the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States;
You're literally calling for genocide under US law.
No.13015
>>13014Eh.
Calling for genocide is a standard element of regular politics in 2024.
Like if you just spend a few seconds looking at the Ukrainian conflict covered in the news online, the notion that that that whole ethnic group should be gotten rid of down to the last child is more-or-less the current government policy of the Putin regime in Russia. The largest nation on Earth advocates for that sort of mass cleansing. And pro-Putin organizations worldwide such as the U.S. Trump movement take the same stance. Ukrainians are an inferior race that shouldn't exist, supposedly.
The Communist Party in charge of mainland China would love to exterminate all of the innocent people in Taiwan who oppose their militarism and domination. Similar mindset when it comes to the Kim family and how it would prefer to unite Korea. That's not shocking.
And in terms of domestic debates, the right-wing in America speaks of transgender people in the context of finding a "final solution" to the "gender question" slash "gender problem". Anybody who doesn't fit their view of how gender roles should be expressed can't be allowed to live. That's just life. That's the way it is. I guess.
I don't see how you can make advocating for genocide illegal, practically. It's as normal as breathing in air. Or sleeping.
No.13016
File: 1710419525197.png (263.49 KB, 720x508, 180:127, 8dbb50cb3ce8ec6b.png) ImgOps Google
>>13014Protecting the integrity of the US maritime borders is not genocide:
(1) boats would be given the option to turn back, and they would be fired upon only if they refuse,
(2) the boats do not constitute a national group "in whole or in substantial part".
No.13017
>>13011>the U.S. should spearhead a U.N. managed international force of soldiers working to maintain the transitional government coming into being right now.What "transitional government coming into being"? The last I heard, the head of a gang named "Barbeque" (named for his habit of setting fire to his opponents' homes while they are still inside) was in charge.
IMHO, the US should invade (with or without the help of other countries), set up a transitional government, and leave within a year or two.
No.13018
File: 1710420739088.png (449.57 KB, 1080x1045, 216:209, Screenshot_20240314-084722.png) ImgOps Google
>>13011>I'm going to ignore your the Earth is flat, the Holocaust didn't happen, the coronavirus is actually good for you, et cetera style right-wing lie that "there is a pattern of the political left abandoning the responsibility of the government to use force to protect ordinary middle-class folks from the depredations of the underclass" Just look at San Francisco and NYC. The pattern of far-left DAs refusing to do their job is undeniable. Even SF grew tired of this shit and recalled Chesa Boudin. And the influx of illegal aliens over the southern border -- do you deny that this is happening?
No.13019
>>13016>>13017>>13018Putting aside you wanting to bring back the Nazi German policy of sinking lifeboats and all for a moment...
What exactly is your intended eventual solution for all of the American citizens of inferior subhuman status already living here as well as immigrants (both illegal and legal) of inferior subhuman status already living here, anyways?
Segregated ghetto areas in rural territories? Internment camps? A prison building spree? Something even darker?
If ethnic and national groups have collective responsibility such that they all have to be punished if one of them are perceived to have a committed a crime, then this applies widely, right? So if an Jewish Californian commits a mass shooting in a public school, then what negative things do you propose done to all of the Jews in the State, then? Should a synagogue in Los Angeles get burned down as a tit-for-tat, then?
I wish there was some way of making you understand that identity politics is a death spiral that just ends up with everybody hating everybody else and nobody having any personal liberty left.
No.13020
>>13019People setting sail from one country to another do not constitute "lifeboats".
>What exactly is your intended eventual solution for all of the American citizens of inferior subhuman status already living here as well as immigrants (both illegal and legal) of inferior subhuman status already living here, anyways?Your framing is woefully dishonest. But let's discount all your emotional language here;
>What would happen to the illegal immigrantsThey would be deported
>What would happen to the legal immigrantsThey would not be, so long as they abide by US law.
If they violate that law, they would be deported.
It's a remarkably simple solution.
No.13021
>>13019>If ethnic and national groups have collective responsibility such that they all have to be punished if one of them are perceived to have a committed a crimeThey don't! I have have no idea where you're coming from with this.
>>13019>I wish there was some way of making you understand that identity politics is a death spiralI already understand that quite well and hate identity politics.
No.13022
File: 1710451678653.png (3.4 MB, 1335x1263, 445:421, zxczc.png) ImgOps Google
>Isn't the US Navy supposed to be the best navy in the world?
Yes.
>Shouldn't it be very easy to deny entry to boats attempting to illegally enter US waters?
It's a lot of coastline. Probably not as easy as one would assume.
>Is Biden just refusing to use force to protect the US?
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
>Despite disliking Trump, I think he'd be doing much better here.
He'd be more vocal about it, probably.
>And I think there is a pattern of the political left abandoning the responsibility of the government to use force to protect ordinary middle-class folks from the depredations of the underclass.
I don't think the government cares much for anyone but the elite.
No.13023
File: 1710455229346.png (525.95 KB, 1080x1711, 1080:1711, Screenshot_20240314-182431.png) ImgOps Google
>>13022>It's a lot of coastline. Probably not as easy as one would assume.It's not trivially easy, but I think the US military is up to the task.
No.13024
File: 1710464844434.png (3.4 MB, 1335x1263, 445:421, zxczc.png) ImgOps Google
>>13023Is that your opinion, or one formed by an AI?
No.13025
File: 1710470181548.jpg (34.17 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, Grimm.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Refugees aren't invaders. This exaggeration of motives is hyperbolic. Even if criminal elements use the humanitarian crisis as a smokescreen, "invasion" is an entirely inappropriate term. At this point at most a policing initiative might be appropriate for processing should refugees reach US shores. This is a job for the coast guard, not the navy.
No.13027
File: 1710473363195.png (765.23 KB, 816x1966, 408:983, Screenshot_20240314-231842.png) ImgOps Google
>>13025Migrants/refugees certainly aren't a central example of an invasion. But I don't think it is entirely frivolous to characterize a large illegal influx of migrants as an invasion, especially if they are expected to have negative consequences for a state. From a practical standpoint, it kinda makes sense to consider it an invasion.
For reference, here are the two relevant parts of the Constitution:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
No.13028
File: 1710475208143.jpg (34.17 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, Grimm.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13027These do not imply refugees as an invasion. In the context of deployment of the military a more appropriate definition involved a violation of USA borders by an armed, organized group.
As for the second quotation, I'd say there is a requisite burden of proof on a state to exercise this exception. In fact I'd go so far as to say this is a functionally irrelevant power. An emergency contingency from an era where the federal government did not maintain a standing army. To repel surprise attacks. This is no longer the case. States taking control of the borders is in the modern time an unjustified usurpation of powers specifically given to the Federal Government. If they dislike how the border is run they can openly complain. As they have been and have the right to.
No.13029
File: 1710477283898.jpg (293.51 KB, 900x1274, 450:637, 264ecde858d88e773ef872f373….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13028I admit it is a stretch to characterize it as an invasion, but I also think it is not completely implausible. I think there is a non-negligible chance that right-wing governors will take action, citing it as an invasion to justify their authority. Good chance it ends up at the Supreme Court if that happens.
No.13030
File: 1710479665513.jpg (34.17 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, Grimm.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13029To be clear, in my opinion if
any governor tries to usurp Federal control of the border in any capacity, they should be called to account. Military members who mustered under that governor should be subject to a court-martial. California can no sooner open the border than Texas can close it.
States. Do not. Control. The border.
Even if the Mexican drug cartels crossed the Rio Grande and started burning towns down, Texas
could not close the border.
States
may sue the Federal government in instances they determine the Federal Government negligent and let the courts decide.
The bottom line is to follow the rules as laid out by the entire constitution or don't. Try to get an amendment passed if something requires revisiting and revision. Only following the constitution when it benefits you as a cudgel against those who disagree and ignoring when it would limit your own aims is Stalinist at best.
No.13031
File: 1710484042436.jpg (390.3 KB, 1151x1024, 1151:1024, DALL·E 2024-03-02 17.52.41….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13030>if the Mexican drug cartels crossed the Rio Grande and started burning towns downThat seems like a clear-cut invasion, so that the invaded state does not need the consent of Congress to keep troops and engage in war against the invaders.
>States. Do not. Control. The border.That seems like an irrelevant point. It makes no difference whether the invaders cross a federal border or whether they are already inside the United States (e.g., criminal gangs from another state or Indian tribes or even another state that illegally invades a neighboring state). If a state gets "invaded" within the meaning of the Constitution, then they can raise troops and engage in war against the invaders. The question is what counts as an invasion.
No.13032
File: 1710488124905.jpg (34.17 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, Grimm.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13031>That seems like a clear-cut invasion, so that the invaded state does not need the consent of Congress to keep troops and engage in war against the invaders.Up to the border and effectively until relieved by the national military. But yes this was the general point and I see I missed adding that portion.
>That seems like an irrelevant point. It is relevant as to the discussion on what constitutes invasion. If a state raises troops against what is determined to
not be an invasion they're effectively in rebellion. It is further relevant as the example of an actual invasion by Mexican cartels would not give permission for Texans to target non-combatant Mexicans. Criminal gangs would be a law enforcement concern and the reservations or state invasions would be a rebellion scenario and any state troops would be subordinated to federal authority upon assertion.
To circle back to the Haitians, "invasion" doesn't apply as it is far more aptly a "refugee crisis." Where else are Haitian refugees expected to go precisely? Back to Haiti to die? The Dominican Republic where they will likely face discrimination and violence? A communist police-state undergoing political turmoil in Cuba?
No.13033
File: 1710493144110.jpg (34.17 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, Grimm.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13032Upon further investigation, Haitians already do get interdicted and repatriated. Along with other Caribbean folk.
In fact, I'm not finding
anything that says a mass migration has even started. Just that it might. Reasonable concerns but it seems like preparations are already being implemented including utilization of Guantanamo Bay.
Looks like this is just political grandstanding as usual to be honest. Blowing things out of proportion on a "could" instead of an "is."
No.13035
File: 1710532897488.jpg (418.61 KB, 1388x1552, 347:388, Screenshot_20210419-161239….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
What a bunch of bullshit preemptive fearmongering over refugees.
Y'all are a bunch of cowards, useful idiots for demagogues.
No.13036
File: 1710536529380.png (3.4 MB, 1335x1263, 445:421, zxczc.png) ImgOps Google
>>13035Yeah, well, you smell.
No.13037
File: 1710609067269.jpg (367.04 KB, 1373x936, 1373:936, Screenshot_20210118-120213….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13036Better to smell bad than being easily manipulated through xenophobia
No.13039
File: 1710699982558.jpg (288.29 KB, 1306x1228, 653:614, Screenshot_20210412-192221….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13038It must be nice to only see issues in such absolute extremes, acknowledging that refugees are not a monolith and that you can't generalize them all as dangerous can be really taxing on the brain. It must be a real comforting feeling having so little self doubt about one's black and white world view that one could so easily accept the absurdity of sicking the navy on dirt poor people in rickety boats without any ethical misgivings, Unfortunately I have a conscience and a brain and a spine in the face of xenophobia to understand that the best answers are never going to be so simple as sick the navy on poor people because
some of them
might be dangerous, It's really quite draining not to let fear have it's way with rationality.
No.13040
>>13039>acknowledging that refugees are not a monolith and that you can't generalize them all as dangerous can be really taxing on the brainNot really. It's pretty easy, in fact.
Of course, I guess it's a whole host easier for you to make up shit and insult folk, so I can see why you assumed that.
>It must be a real comforting feeling having so little self doubt about one's black and white world view that one could so easily accept the absurdity of sicking the navy on dirt poor people in rickety boats without any ethical misgivings,The United States has no obligation to them.
The military does, however, have an obligation to keeping the nation's boarders secure.
I am unconcerned with their personal wealth or the quality of their ships.
>It's really quite draining not to let fear have it's way with rationality.Contrary to your cult-like fantasy creation of all your enemies, which I know, it's deeply difficult for you to get out of, I am not afraid of these people.
But I recognize these things have massive consequences, nonetheless, which many of us can ill afford.
Ironic how much you whine and moan about 'generalizations', giving such grandiose fuss over fearmongering over rationality, when you so clearly have no qualms whatsoever about demonizing and dehumanizing your opposition.
But then, honesty is quite plainly and clearly beyond your personal capacity.
Such ethics or self control, self evidently beyond your means.
No.13041
File: 1710731467421.png (592.37 KB, 1289x935, 1289:935, Screenshot_2024-03-17_23-0….png) ImgOps Google
>>13031>effectively until relieved by the national military. >any state troops would be subordinated to federal authority upon assertion.I don't see a basis for this in the Constitution. In the exceptional case where a state is actually invaded, it seems that the Constitution places no restrictions on the invaded state's authority to engage in war against the invaders.
>To circle back to the Haitians, "invasion" doesn't apply as it is far more aptly a "refugee crisis." I agree that "invasion" is a stretch here.
>Where else are Haitian refugees expected to go precisely?The United States cannot be expected to solve all the world's problems.
>>13033>Upon further investigation, Haitians already do get interdicted and repatriated. Along with other Caribbean folk.>In fact, I'm not finding anything that says a mass migration has even started. Just that it might. Reasonable concerns but it seems like preparations are already being implemented including utilization of Guantanamo Bay.Ah, that's good to hear.
>>13034>I don't know much about Chesa Boudin, but a cursory glance showed that crime while he was a DA only significantly went up during 2020. Which, if I was to guess, probably had more to do with the economic and social impacts of COVID than what the DA did.He didn't start as DA until 2020. One might also ask why other localities didn't suffer such a rise in crime as SF during the same time period.
>>13035>>13039Look at the disaster that migration from Middle East countries has been for Europe.
>>13039>refugees are not a monolith Indeed, I'd be much happier accepting anti-CCP refugees fleeing Hong Kong than Haitians.
>because some of them might be dangerousIt's rather that the vast majority of them will be a net drain on the economy, taking away housing and other resources that are needed by Americans, while contributing little of value. Plus the average Haitian is more criminally inclined than the average American.
I suspect that our differences might largely come down to pic related.
No.13044
>>13041Your image is indicating that, generally, conservatives are greatly less empathic than liberals, right?
Such that a conservative is willing to discard feeling compassion towards members of his own adoptive or biological family and has little to no interest in broader groups such as diverse communities and localities?
While liberals take a baseline view of everybody deserving basic dignity and apply something greater to close family as well as other individuals, such as friends, with liberals viewing those closely around them basically the same as how they view themselves?
While this sounds correct to me, I'd say, I'd got to remark that this feels absolutely horrifying not just in terms of my own personal life but for the success of America as a Constitutional project.
If my family members are conservatives, then that means nothing will change their view of me through their eyes ethically and nothing will make me worthy of caring from them other than me being dead? And if my neighbors are conservatives, there's no chance in hell that they'll ever value my existence? Not ever?
Is there literally no way to stop extreme dehumanization in America? Maybe this country is just a shithole that people like me should flee at all costs? Or maybe I should commit suicide? Honestly, that last option sounds best?
No.13046
>>13045The nation has moral obligation to its citizens.
It does not have moral obligation to those who are not its citizens.
More prominently, the nation has to prioritize its citizens over those who do not belong to that nation.
No.13047
>>13046That doesn't make sense. I was born in America. My biological parents were born in America. My adoptive parents were born in America. All of my grandparents were born in America.
Conservatives believe that the nation has no moral obligation to me whatsoever. Or anybody like me.
That's why conservative parents tell their children that they're disappointing failures who shouldn't exist in the first place if they happen to be gay children, children in wheelchairs, deaf children, autistic children, and so on. And hence why conservatives push for governments to abolish Medicare, Medicaid, aid vouchers, college grants, and anything else that would support inferior categories of Americans.
My citizenship means nothing. My neighborhood status means nothing. My common language means nothing.
Conservatives see me as a pile of meat with eyes. Like an illegal immigrant. Or a legal immigrant. And so on.
(And this is not even getting into the moral fact that the extreme dehumanization of immigrants as being the same as inanimate objects is a horrifying kind of ethical myopia, and it will lead people to also disregard their own fellow citizens living nearby as well as their own children too in the long-run.)
No.13049
>>13048I see. You're indeed totally correct that the
Nature study does make that argument. That's in the body text in a clear way. Liberals distribute their personal sense of empathy in a different statistical pattern compared to conservatives, or so it says.
I suppose all of us in this thread could agree that the illustrated image is perhaps poorly designed from an objective visual perspective, regardless of the value that the actual paper has in its body text.
Still, the papers research doesn't make any sense to me fundamentally given the fact that American conservatives generally don't express empathy towards their family members, their friends, their close neighbors, or any other circles that're close to them. Instead, ideology comes first and whether or not somebody receives compassion is a matter of having "earned it" and "deserved it".
No.13050
>>13048>>13049Perhaps the core issue here is that because conservatives are more judgmental then thus they're equally as empathic as liberals in terms of the sum total involvement in supporting other people's lives? Liberals think "blood is blood" while conservatives think "never cast pearls before swine"?
So, a liberal family is organized like:
> Parents =] Children and other family =] Returned empathic feelings from them back to parents.Bill has two apples. He gives one apple to Mary and one to Sarah. They give them back to him.
While a conservative family is organized like:
> Parents =] Worthy children and other family =] Returned empathic feelings from them back to parents =/= Unworthy children and other family.Bill has two apples. He gives two to Mary and none to Sarah. Mary gives them back to him. Sarah becomes a null set.
Is that the right way to think of all this, I guess? From my own perspective, it's hard if not impossible to see conservatism as being extreme ethical myopia bordering on psychopathy. I'm aware as one who considers myself a former Christian and former capitalist (although not per se a former conservative), though, that a lot of this is a categorical matter: some people don't deserve compassion because of inherent negativity in their identity status (such as, from the Christian perspective, degenerate sinners who won't repent such as a homosexual child) and thus you should just give that compassion to somebody worthy instead. Were I still a Christian and otherwise associated with different highly exclusionary systems, I suppose my sense of in-group versus out-group would by definition have to exclude even intimate circles?
No.13051
>>13047You being born in America doesn't make what I said nonsensical. I have no idea why you thought that would.
>Conservatives believe that the nation has no moral obligation to me whatsoever.No. They absolutely do.
You might not like that, but your demonization of political opposition does not equate to truth.
No.13052
>>13049> fact that American conservatives generally don't express empathy towards their family members, their friends, their close neighbors, or any other circles that're close to them.Yes they do. This is not a fact. This is purely and unaquivicably a fantastical creation solely of your own mind. An exceptionally absurd one that shows rather blatantly you do not have the capacity to recognize the most basic reality when it comes to those you regard as enemies.
Conservatives are people too.
I get you've got your obsessed paranoias.
But that does not equate to reality.
Yes, conservatives are empathetic to plenty of others.
That absolutely includes family, friends, and close neighbors.
No.13055
File: 1710803192804.png (812.09 KB, 1080x1168, 135:146, Screenshot_20240318-190309.png) ImgOps Google
No.13058
>>13041>Look at the disaster that migration from Middle East countries has been for Europe.Yeah, no
Far right fearmongering.
But even on the so called worse places where you supposedly get murdered for being native, you just see some dude sitting outside in his shorts and that's it.
