What do you see being accomplished by giving Trump what he asks for?
My point is that by defunding ICE, you do give Trump what I think (I'm doing a bit of mind reading here) you fear: that he will militarize the response. Insurrection Act, Alien Enemies Act, etc. Without ICE, you'd have to take agents from the border and there is a limit to that. Defund DHS completely, you lose the Border Patrol (and TSA and the Secret Service too). Trump, OTOH, is still Commander in Chief. He can call up the guard or maybe even the Arctic Angels.
Trump wants state and local cooperation in rounding up the illegal aliens, especially those convicted or charged with serious crimes. Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law. Those that think the obstruction isn't part of and the cause of much of the violence (and intentionally so) are naive IMO.
Take the resistance far enough and what you end up with may not what you bargained for. Or maybe some are bargaining for that response in search of the revolution.
lj: my bad. I meant to put a divider there. Still, I thought (and think) the context is obvious and I wasn't being disrespectful. I will use my best MLA/Bluebook from here on out.
So it’s a chance (whether large or tiny) of accomplishing something vs no chance at all. Easy choice.
But do it anyway. Do whatever is available.
That is asking Trump to deploy the military for immigration enforcement without actually asking him, IMO. Or is that the point? Push escalation until the revolution?
I give up. I can't keep up with the straw men. Frex:
However, where bc is concerned, I do think his Sweet Summer Child (SSC) status is utterly confirmed by any suggestion that Trump’s approach to this or any other issue is anything to do with mastery of the art of the deal.
What did I actually say about Trump's negotiation strategy (that I shorthanded "Art of the Deal")?
"Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here."
Good grief people. Shorter me:
1) Greenland is strategically very important whatever Trump says. (sidenote, wjca, you could be right, but what I read says the rare earth situation is much more important national security wise, and Greenland is important. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1802/a/pp1802a.pdf)
2) Trump is going about it stupidly re Greenland. My read is he is setting up the next negotiations, or prompting the EU to take further action, but I could be wrong.
3) It's never right, absent an imminent threat (e.g. WWII) to occupy over objection. Or to threaten to. And no, I don't think we buy Greenland. Get a minerals deal. Satisfy the Inuit (that will be hard).
4) I'm glad Maduro is gone, the operation was done amazingly well, but I'm really worried about the future of Venezuela.
I could go on, but I don't have the time or inclination.
P.S. Tony P, touche. P.P.S. And I hope you wrote that with the same seriousness I did, lol.
Denmark was at the time occupied by an enemy nation.
And that European problem became a world war.
If you think Trump (and much of the current GOP) is more aware of the threat from Russia than the Europeans are . . .
Using the word ‘historically’ is pretty interesting, especially since Denmark is one of the top bilateral donors to Ukraine . . .
Actions speak louder than words (well, unless its Trump, lol). Yes, Europe is finally getting serious and starting to put its money where its mouth is, rather than relying on the US taxpayers. It's nice to see. And yes, Denmark is one of the top donors to Ukraine. I think it might actually be right at the top as a percentage of GDP. "Historically", however, meaning as recently as 2023, Denmark was below the NATO 2% standard. And a low of 1.11% in 2015. Slid below 2% in 1990 down to that low in 2015. So yes, historically.
Are you by any chance falling into what I will call the “McKinney Trap” . . .
In my own way, I may consider many here to be a different version of summer children on some issues, but I don't think anyone actually supports the CCP. Unless you voted for Bernie, Zohran, Waltz et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
It’s almost as if you haven’t been observing the Trump administration in action,
I've been observing the results achieved, the rhetoric and the resistance. IMO, many are falling for the rhetoric. If this isn't prodding, it's the Art of the Deal, trying to get a better bargaining position IMO for a minerals deal. Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here. We shall see.
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland?
Denmark tried to get the US to leave after WWII, leading to the 1951 treaty (US refused to leave due to the Soviet threat). But I think this is more about rare earths, strategic positioning and what it is going to cost to do what is necessary to keep China and Russia at bay. And a concern that Greenland has, I understand, toyed with deals involving the Chinese in infrastructure and mining. Denmark has vetoed the projects. With the Chinese trying to monopolize rare earths, having the Chinese involved in mining is obviously a huge concern, and one that could be dealt with by getting a minerals agreement with the US. It makes sense to have some sort of economic deal to offset US defense costs. Threats of invasion are unhelpful, to say the least.
russell: I did not say they did. I specifically support moves by the EU and Denmark to take global security vis-a-vis Greenland seriously that take any sort of unilateral action off the table.
lj: most of them are talking about the precedent of Panama and Noriega . . .
If memory serves, Noriega tried every argument that Maduro might try and failed as far as the extradition is concerned in his criminal case. Things don't look great for him from a criminal law perspective. Of course separation of powers, international law and foreign policy concerns are another matter.
I’m hoping bc will tell us what her reasoning is (or will be) about the menacing of Greenland (or its takeover), given her extraordinary comments about the US occupation in WW2, bearing in mind for example that Greenland has been Danish longer than the United States has existed.
Well, I'm a guy, but thanks for not assuming. And while I am reluctant to respond to what appears to be another litmus test of some sort, I'll bite.
I think the comments by both Trump and Miller are stupid, disrespectful and unnecessary. It threatens NATO. Prodding NATO members to pay their fair share is one thing. This is entirely another. Or is it?
Maybe it's prodding to wake Denmark and the EU up. There is a geopolitical reality that Denmark's comments seem to indicate it isn't really grasping the threat, IMO. I hear about Greenlander self-determination but precious little about the strategic threat posed by the Russians and Chinese and what I understand is an inadequate response by Greenland specifically and Denmark and the EU in general. As I understand it, Greenland's autonomy has led to more Chinese involvement than the US wants (and in fairness, Denmark seems to be concerned too). China is claiming to be a "near arctic state" and is expanding its influence in places like Greenland (and the waters off of Alaska). The Chinese want access to the rare earth minerals in Greenland and access to shipping lanes and have signaled they want more. Trump has made it clear that Greenland's location and rare earths are a national security concern. Because of the strategic importance and threat to the US, the US is right to be very concerned about any Chinese or Russian presence in or near Greenland.
I don't see my comments about WWII and Greenland as extraordinary. The question was whether the GRU letter prompted Trump's comments on Greenland. I wasn't using WWII as an excuse to annex Greenland.
That being said, when I hear "Danish longer than the United States has existed," that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily. Could that be the case in the future? It doesn't need to be if the situation could be dealt with by agreement now. And maybe it has been to a large extent in terms of US military access? Denmark signed an agreement last July that had been sitting on its desk since 2023 (drafted under Biden). Why did it take so long? Why is that not enough? Agreement here:
Before, the US had to coordinate and it appears Denmark may not have been all that nimble in responding. But maybe this is entirely about giving China access and threatening security and not taking the threat (and the Russians in the Arctic) seriously. If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don't. And the Chinese have tried in Greenland (airport and harbor).
Yes, Denmark's claim to Greenland deserves respect. So does the fact that the US tends to pay the bill when things get really tough. Denmark has historically been way behind on NATO commitments. Trump is right to push NATO countries into their fair share (Canada, that means you). You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland. And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it. It seems to be working. Interesting article here from an EU perspective that covers what EU should do (and I largely agree with the suggestions).
lj: I don't know that I see everything as an extension of what has come before, but I do see similarities. This is a lot like Noriega, but with much bigger risks and incentives. I hope the end result is a lot like Panama.
What acts of terrorism has he committed? The charges are he conspired to financially support terrorist organizations, namely FARC, FARC-EP, Segunda Marquetalia, ELN, TdA, the Sinaloa Cartel and CDN.
Why to a lesser extent? Only because of my sense that the Venezuelan people are largely unified in wanting something different, Venezuela has an educated population, they had a successful economy not all that far in the past and the risks are less from outside groups than they were in Libya for example.
It looks (so far) that the plan is to keep the regime sans Maduro in place, at least temporarily, to keep stability, using pressure to keep the regime/Rodriguez in line. There are rumors of a secret agreement with Rodriguez. There are questions whether she could deliver if there is. Opening up oil is a good idea if the government is going to lose drug revenue and get the economy going again. If the plan includes pressure for a free and fair election in the immediate to near future, and it actually happens, and there is a peaceful transition of power, that would obviously be amazing. I have no way of assessing whether an approach like this will work. It is a completely different look than boots on the ground, putting Machado or Gonzalez in power by force. It might be brilliant. It could be incredibly stupid. I have a hard time keeping a Chavista in power, but the problems with the alternative are obvious. Let's hope we end up with a free Venezuela with a duly elected leader in six months or so.
The question was whether Trump got the idea to "purchase Greenland" from the GRU letter, not whether there is justification for simply taking it over. That's the context of my response. As a 3rd generation Alaskan (currently living outside my home state), I'd point out that William Seward tried to buy Greenland (and Iceland too). At one point he wanted to bring Canada into the US. So maybe Trump got both ideas from Seward? There were other attempts in the 20th century, (including Truman, I believe) and the US refused to leave after WWII due to the Cold War. But I don't support taking over Greenland by force over the Denmark's objection.
TP: As I recall, I had mixed feelings about Libya, but more practical than whether or not the President had the authority. It's always about "what happens next", right? I have similar feelings about Venezuela, but to a lesser extent. But I am concerned about not leaving the Venezuelans worse off due to a power vacuum than before. I don't like how Trump is talking about Machado nor do I like leaving the illegitimate VP in power. I am glad that Venezuela has a fighting chance to be free.
Re Greenland, I'm confused. That GRU letter is dated October 23, 2019, right? And addressed to Cotton? Cotton had already been advocating for the US to purchase Greenland in August before that letter:
And as Cotton notes in his op ed, Trump had expressed interest to purchase Greenland before the op ed. So how exactly did the fake letter give Trump the idea? Am I missing something?
As Fiona Hill testified, the Russians like to disrupt. That's all this letter was.
This ignores the testimony of Fiona Hill during the hearings for Trump’s first impeachment in 2019.
Her testimony was not that the Trump Administration was actually considering a Ukraine/Venezuela swap, but to the contrary. She was charged with telling the Russians to (her words) "knock this off." And she testified that the Russians were floating this in the press, not directly to the administration. Nowhere (that I saw) does it indicate Trump was actually thinking about the swap.
I don't disagree that Fiona Hill seems like an impressive person. Citing her testimony to say "Trump got the idea from the Russians" has no basis in fact.
According to former ambassador Ken Fairfax on BSKY, the Russians pulled their people ten days before the US op. Make of that what you will.
It was reported before Christmas that the Russians were pulling their people, but I remember it being diplomats mostly. And there was plenty of saber-rattling by Trump, not to mention the buildup of force. They had already pulled a lot of military personnel earlier, from what I remember, but I always thought that was because of Ukraine. Still, they didn't pull the air defense systems they sold to Maduro. I'm sure the nations relying on Russian air defense are making of that what they will. See here:
There hasn’t even been any sign of a Congressional resolution
Does 21 USC 960a count? I mean, Maduro is a narcoterrorist and was illegally importing cocaine. Even Biden agreed that he was a threat to the US, raising the reward for Maduro's capture to $25M. (query: Does Trump get that reward now?).
Harmut's comment was snark, but I'm being serious: if you have a de facto head of state that is illegitimate, also a narcoterrorist, no extradition treaty, refuses to stop drug trafficking after warning, is very badly dressed, etc., does extraditing by force require independent Congressional approval? If this was some prolonged military action, I get it. This was surgical (so far).
If I recall what I’ve seen this morning correctly, the indictment that is the basis for the arrest warrant says “fully automatic firearms”.
From what I read in the indictment (superseding from 2020; I think they are basically the same), the "full auto" counts are dependent on counts 1 and 2 (narcoterrorism and importation of cocaine). So it's not like the grounds are just "you have machine guns."
the galloping norm-crushing
I think Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think. On top of the drugs, the Chinese, Russian, Cuban and Iranian ties, 8 million people having left (more than left Syria), and the elections give ample reason to want Maduro gone. Not that "wanting him gone" is justification for a forced extradition, but there is much more going on here.
Over at BJ, Adam Silverman is reminding everyone that both the Greenland nonsense and the Venezuela idea were planted by the GRU.
Really? The US has wanted Greenland for a long time. We occupied it during WWII invoking the Monroe Doctrine. And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
That being said, time will tell. It's what happens now that gives me more concern. Venezolanos are celebrating but cautious about what comes next too.
China and Russia are delighted, I presume, about the current events. It’s exactly what they need for their own propaganda.
Sure, for their own, internal propaganda. But from a strategic standpoint, the US action should counter not only China and Russia's strategic aims in Venezuela, but Iran's and Cuba's too. The success of the mission in light of Russian air defense has to be taken into account. If this ends up toppling the Cuban or Iranian government by domino effect, who is going to cry? Shoot, it already caused the illustrious Gov. Waltz to stop his reelection campaign, lol.
I don't know re authorship. I do know there really isn't an antidote to such a terrible comment. James Woods' heartfelt tribute to Rob Reiner is, however, a start.
Disclaimer: I know it's Fox News, something I don't watch. This was linked to on a blog I read and is well worth the listen, IMO. I do give credit to Watters getting out of the way (mostly) and letting Woods express himself.
She doesn't talk about China much, but the impact on Taiwan of taking her win-win strategy would be overwhelmingly positive.
That being said, I don't have much hope that this will happen. Yes, what little hope I do have is pinned on my unlikely theory that Trump is trying to bring the EU/UK fully online to have a united front, Witkoff's bumblings notwithstanding.
How would that embolden Putin? My assumption would be the opposite.
Sorry, that was not clear. I meant if the US stepped back and Europe and UK stepped up, it would nonetheless embolden him. I suppose if PURL were still on the table, it would work for a while, especially if the US continued to supply intelligence. But Putin knows Europe and the UK cannot sustain the delivery of materials by themselves, at least not at this point. IMO, a US pull back in any form will embolden Putin, regardless of how the EU/UK respond.
I'm troubled by the purported peace proposal (I also note that since I started to write this, Trump is backing away from it). I want to see Ukraine free and prosperous and as intact as possible with a security guarantee (as the last one didn't work). This war is terrible and needs to end. And it needs to end in such a way as it doesn't happen again down the road as happened after Crimea. In a perfect world, Russia would be out of Ukraine. It's not a perfect world.
I can't tell whether or not Ukraine is on the brink. Certainly there is a conscription problem. If US support were to end, and the Europeans not step up, it would be a disaster. Even if the EU and UK did step up, it would be hard and embolden Putin and drag this debacle out even longer.
My take on Trump is to try to see the play and not focus on the particulars. One possibility: Trump is trying to get the Europeans to truly step up. Trump successfully got member nations to pay their fair share to NATO (well, collectively at least). The pause in US support brought Europe in even more. But despite the implementation by NATO of PURL (launched by Gen. Rutte and Trump) to fund the acquisition of ready to use weapons in US stockpiles for Ukraine, total military aid from Europe declined 43 percent in July and August of this year (humanitarian and financial support remained steady). I think that is the latest data. With the plan, the EU and the UK raced to take part in high-level talks and are voicing ever stronger support for Ukraine. I wonder if this really has nothing to do with appeasing Putin but lighting a fire under the Europeans (yet again)? It is their backyard, after all. And while they have stepped up, it doesn't make up for decades of underfunding the military and building a (mostly former) dependence on Russian gas. Europe isn't in a great position to take up the slack. And it should be.
Another reasonable take here: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-expert-conversation-separating-signal-from-noise-in-trumps-ukraine-peace-plan/
Hoping the Europeans really step in and Trump drops the hammer (e.g. Tomahawks). But I have my doubts on both.
The waiting in line people are those waiting for consular processing (for a green card) and the quotas that apply. These are people outside the US. If you count the family preferences and business categories, I think it is around 5M. The wait times are published in the Visa Bulletin. It has gotten a lot longer lately. Some categories, especially applied to Mexico, have incredibly long wait times. Decades I think for some.
I would find something along the lines of what you suggest (5 years, no criminal record) acceptable for a starting point of discussion. I have reservations, though. Reagan's amnesty was supposed to be coupled with a secure border so as to not provide an incentive to come illegally. That didn't happen and here we are. And those coming in legally typically need an affidavit of support to prevent them from becoming public charges. How would that be accomplished here? And how to make it fair to those waiting in line? Any path to permanent residency and citizenship should be slower than the legal path and have some sort of cost to it.
Regarding ICE, I too have my concerns based on what I've seen. But the media is fanning the flames here too, methinks. The reporter arrested while "going to the bus stop" allegedly threw an unknown liquid on the officers. I watched an MSNBC compilation of uncooperative detainees and wondered whether the person being arrested had more than just a fear of being deported (as in a criminal record). Verified info would be helpful. The AP announced a Marine dad was arrested and deported while visiting Camp Pendleton. The son says no criminal record. DHS says he was ordered removed in 2005 and has a 2020 conviction for DV and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
DHS responded to the protests outside the Illinois facility with posts showing some of those arrested and countering what it says are Pritzker's "lies." Could our intrepid AP chase this down?
And regarding the Burlington facility, 20% having a criminal record is pretty high IMO. The question I have is whether the remaining 80% have 1) an order of removal; 2) have been charged with a crime or 3) have any gang affiliation. Information on that would be nice. If the majority are law-abiding, hard working people not dodging an order of removal, I'd have concerns. If they are Abrego Garcia, not so much.
Note that you can actually look up the Antifa group doing this on the web and see the actual posters they were distributing. I'm not going to link to that, for obvious reasons. But I take that as verification of what Noem is saying.
Arrest of a Santa Monica man for doxxing an ICE attorney:
I appreciate the numbers view, and I agree that our country can accept a significant number of (legal) immigrants. How many is a policy decision and best made by Congress rather than having that decision made de facto by illegal immigrants.
To be clear, I am in favor of immigration and I am sympathetic to anyone trying to improve their life. I worked professionally in the immigration area years ago (pre-ICE). I too see the very real fear that is out there now. I saw that fear in downtown LA during the Reagan years around the time of amnesty and see it again today amongst the immigrant population when I visit the Pasadena area for work.
As for how this is being handled now, I agree with you to a significant degree. Depending on who you listen to, it either is or is not focusing on those we would all agree should be deported (criminal record, pending criminal charges, gang members, etc.). DHS says 70%. Other reports are much, much less. I'm strongly in favor of deporting anyone who entered without inspection with a conviction or criminal charges pending or gang association. I also think the resistance isn't helping calm things down and that to me is by design. Doxing produced masks, which engender fear and are then criticized as fascist. And on it goes.
As for the rest of those here without papers, how do you prefer those to the 5 million or so waiting in line? There are IMO far more who entered illegally already in the country. I think the numbers are underrepresented. See this MIT-Yale study before the Biden border surge estimating 22M in the country illegally (or more):
While that study is contested by the usual think tanks (such as Pew), it seems to open up the possibility that there are a lot more than commonly believed.
Being in the United States without some kind of legal status is a civil, not a criminal, violation.
Your statement doesn't distinguish between visa overstays and entry into the US without inspection. Unless something has recently changed, my understanding is:
If you sneak across the border without inspection, you are a criminal (misdemeanor).
If you overstay your student or tourist visa, you are typically not (civil).
But if you are deported after an overstay and enter again without approval, felony. Same for those denied entry and try to enter again.
Whether or not you or I like the law, that is what I believe it is. The vast majority of the debate centers on those trying to enter without inspection, not the overstays. It also includes those here under Biden's much-expanded rules for asylum and parole, seen as illegitimate by many. Either way, we are not talking about a speeding ticket.
When is it appropriate for a nation to borrow? What is accomplished with the money that is borrowed?
Totally valid questions. I was simply focusing on "indifference to deficits." And I think Biden was a mixed bag. I don't cast much if any blame on the COVID spending bills themselves, whether by Biden or Trump. But BBB was such a grab bag. I didn't mind the pure infrastructure components. The resulting IRA was anything but its name. That was simply too much given the huge amount of spending on COVID, IMHO. And that's even before one considers the green pork.
As to the effects of Biden’s “open border policy” on illegal immigration: there were none, because there was no such policy.
This statement just beggars belief. Biden invited the border rush during his campaign. He ended the Remain in Mexico program on day one. He refused to finish construction of the wall. He ordered no deportations in the first 100 days. His administration (Mayorkas) stated that the unlawful presence was not by itself a basis for an enforcement action. Forget the law. Mayorkas expanded parole unlawfully, extending it well beyond the statutory framework. CBP Mobile One anyone? Asylum lost its meaning. We all saw it. This was the top issue for a lot of voters.
I don't understand why you are playing cute with this one, Pro Bono. You acknowledge legal immigration was larger under Trump. Great. The issue is not legal immigration, which most Americans find unobjectionable and welcome.
As for Afghanistan, it was the execution of the withdrawal, as you likely know. There was a way to do it safely. Biden had a date in mind and stuck with it. He owns it.
I don't think your comments are as much wrong as ignoring the full picture.
1) Immigration. Immigration was higher in Trump’s first term than in Bidens. Ackman is wrong.
Immigration was higher? By what metric? Legal or illegal? I think naturalizations were higher under Trump in his first term, but illegal border crossings in the south were way up under Biden as soon has he changed remain in Mexico. He hid some of those by granting parole where it had not been granted before. And Biden changed course right before the election. See more here:
2) Trump in his first term showed himself to be indifferent to the national debt. Ackman is wrong.
I guess it depends on who you read. I do think there is some truth here (Trump being somewhat indifferent in the first term), but I think Biden was far worse than Trump. Frex:
Ok, I forgot that the comments now read in an opposite direction, so a lot has been posted since I started writing this (in spurts, given my crazy schedule). That link by GftNC was particularly interesting, especially the description of how limited the ideologues really are on either side. So the following didn't take all of that into account.
"I think it’s worth exploring how to communicate with MAGAs because, even when King Pussygrabber strokes out on the toilet at three in the morning, we won’t be over the madness. We will still have the MAGA voters, the Republican party’s commitment to the election tactics of Othering and engineered polarization, and the extensive well-funded Republican hate/fear propaganda bubble (Faux, etc) which, for many people, substitutes for news and shapes their voting behavior."
Well, with respect, I probably wouldn’t start like this. Criticizing a side for “othering” by what seems to be to be “othering” of another sort isn’t a winning proposition. And dialing up the rhetoric to 11 isn’t likely to do any good either. And claiming the other side “lies” when the issues are often nuanced only makes each side more entrenched. You could substitute in MSNBC for Faux, Democrat for Republican, woke Democrats for MAGA, and post this on a right-wing site and it would fit right in. And that, IMHO, is the problem.
I’d say the first thing to do is to try to understand the other side. And not the talking heads on TV, but real people of good faith. Why did so many vote for Trump? What policies were behind that decision? Or what was it about Biden/Harris that voters didn’t find attractive? You can argue that the election was lost by not being loud enough, or confrontational enough, or tough enough, but I think that misses the mark.
IMHO, a lot of people that voted for Trump/Vance were not anywhere close to the cartoonish MAGA voter you describe. There were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Trump, just as there were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Harris. And many of those reasons deserve respect. To claim otherwise is to have blinders on. You can hate a position, but hating the person holding that position is an entirely different matter.
Take just one former Democrat, Bill Ackman, and his voiced reasons for voting for Trump over Harris.
I chose him simply because he has a list handy that I read some time ago. I may not agree with all of his reasons (and you won’t either) but I think his reasons deserve respect on the whole. And this is his list. I think there are several more that could be added, but IMO, numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 24 , 28, 31, 33 were quite resonant with those that voted for Trump (not necessarily in that order). Ackman was not “born” or “made” in the sense you describe.
I am deliberately not responding to the specific examples in your post, Wonkie (i.e. Calloway, Walz, healthcare truth, Portland). I just didn’t want you to think those arguments were lost on me. I can acknowledge some validity in what you say. I just didn’t want any differences I have to detract from the tenor of my response.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Moral insanity”
wjca:
What do you see being accomplished by giving Trump what he asks for?
My point is that by defunding ICE, you do give Trump what I think (I'm doing a bit of mind reading here) you fear: that he will militarize the response. Insurrection Act, Alien Enemies Act, etc. Without ICE, you'd have to take agents from the border and there is a limit to that. Defund DHS completely, you lose the Border Patrol (and TSA and the Secret Service too). Trump, OTOH, is still Commander in Chief. He can call up the guard or maybe even the Arctic Angels.
Trump wants state and local cooperation in rounding up the illegal aliens, especially those convicted or charged with serious crimes. Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law. Those that think the obstruction isn't part of and the cause of much of the violence (and intentionally so) are naive IMO.
Take the resistance far enough and what you end up with may not what you bargained for. Or maybe some are bargaining for that response in search of the revolution.
"
russell:
You’re a conservative, get your freaking Congress people to stop giving these freaks the space to destroy this country.
And this is where we part company on this issue. Dehumanizing either side gets us nowhere. I don't see the situation as black and white as you do.
"
lj: my bad. I meant to put a divider there. Still, I thought (and think) the context is obvious and I wasn't being disrespectful. I will use my best MLA/Bluebook from here on out.
"
So it’s a chance (whether large or tiny) of accomplishing something vs no chance at all. Easy choice.
But do it anyway. Do whatever is available.
That is asking Trump to deploy the military for immigration enforcement without actually asking him, IMO. Or is that the point? Push escalation until the revolution?
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
I give up. I can't keep up with the straw men. Frex:
However, where bc is concerned, I do think his Sweet Summer Child (SSC) status is utterly confirmed by any suggestion that Trump’s approach to this or any other issue is anything to do with mastery of the art of the deal.
What did I actually say about Trump's negotiation strategy (that I shorthanded "Art of the Deal")?
"Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here."
Good grief people. Shorter me:
1) Greenland is strategically very important whatever Trump says. (sidenote, wjca, you could be right, but what I read says the rare earth situation is much more important national security wise, and Greenland is important. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1802/a/pp1802a.pdf)
2) Trump is going about it stupidly re Greenland. My read is he is setting up the next negotiations, or prompting the EU to take further action, but I could be wrong.
3) It's never right, absent an imminent threat (e.g. WWII) to occupy over objection. Or to threaten to. And no, I don't think we buy Greenland. Get a minerals deal. Satisfy the Inuit (that will be hard).
4) I'm glad Maduro is gone, the operation was done amazingly well, but I'm really worried about the future of Venezuela.
I could go on, but I don't have the time or inclination.
P.S. Tony P, touche.
P.P.S. And I hope you wrote that with the same seriousness I did, lol.
"
Denmark was at the time occupied by an enemy nation.
And that European problem became a world war.
If you think Trump (and much of the current GOP) is more aware of the threat from Russia than the Europeans are . . .
Using the word ‘historically’ is pretty interesting, especially since Denmark is one of the top bilateral donors to Ukraine . . .
Actions speak louder than words (well, unless its Trump, lol). Yes, Europe is finally getting serious and starting to put its money where its mouth is, rather than relying on the US taxpayers. It's nice to see. And yes, Denmark is one of the top donors to Ukraine. I think it might actually be right at the top as a percentage of GDP. "Historically", however, meaning as recently as 2023, Denmark was below the NATO 2% standard. And a low of 1.11% in 2015. Slid below 2% in 1990 down to that low in 2015. So yes, historically.
Are you by any chance falling into what I will call the “McKinney Trap” . . .
In my own way, I may consider many here to be a different version of summer children on some issues, but I don't think anyone actually supports the CCP. Unless you voted for Bernie, Zohran, Waltz et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
It’s almost as if you haven’t been observing the Trump administration in action,
I've been observing the results achieved, the rhetoric and the resistance. IMO, many are falling for the rhetoric. If this isn't prodding, it's the Art of the Deal, trying to get a better bargaining position IMO for a minerals deal. Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here. We shall see.
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland?
Denmark tried to get the US to leave after WWII, leading to the 1951 treaty (US refused to leave due to the Soviet threat). But I think this is more about rare earths, strategic positioning and what it is going to cost to do what is necessary to keep China and Russia at bay. And a concern that Greenland has, I understand, toyed with deals involving the Chinese in infrastructure and mining. Denmark has vetoed the projects. With the Chinese trying to monopolize rare earths, having the Chinese involved in mining is obviously a huge concern, and one that could be dealt with by getting a minerals agreement with the US. It makes sense to have some sort of economic deal to offset US defense costs. Threats of invasion are unhelpful, to say the least.
"
russell: I did not say they did. I specifically support moves by the EU and Denmark to take global security vis-a-vis Greenland seriously that take any sort of unilateral action off the table.
"
lj: most of them are talking about the precedent of Panama and Noriega . . .
If memory serves, Noriega tried every argument that Maduro might try and failed as far as the extradition is concerned in his criminal case. Things don't look great for him from a criminal law perspective. Of course separation of powers, international law and foreign policy concerns are another matter.
I’m hoping bc will tell us what her reasoning is (or will be) about the menacing of Greenland (or its takeover), given her extraordinary comments about the US occupation in WW2, bearing in mind for example that Greenland has been Danish longer than the United States has existed.
Well, I'm a guy, but thanks for not assuming. And while I am reluctant to respond to what appears to be another litmus test of some sort, I'll bite.
I think the comments by both Trump and Miller are stupid, disrespectful and unnecessary. It threatens NATO. Prodding NATO members to pay their fair share is one thing. This is entirely another. Or is it?
Maybe it's prodding to wake Denmark and the EU up. There is a geopolitical reality that Denmark's comments seem to indicate it isn't really grasping the threat, IMO. I hear about Greenlander self-determination but precious little about the strategic threat posed by the Russians and Chinese and what I understand is an inadequate response by Greenland specifically and Denmark and the EU in general. As I understand it, Greenland's autonomy has led to more Chinese involvement than the US wants (and in fairness, Denmark seems to be concerned too). China is claiming to be a "near arctic state" and is expanding its influence in places like Greenland (and the waters off of Alaska). The Chinese want access to the rare earth minerals in Greenland and access to shipping lanes and have signaled they want more. Trump has made it clear that Greenland's location and rare earths are a national security concern. Because of the strategic importance and threat to the US, the US is right to be very concerned about any Chinese or Russian presence in or near Greenland.
I don't see my comments about WWII and Greenland as extraordinary. The question was whether the GRU letter prompted Trump's comments on Greenland. I wasn't using WWII as an excuse to annex Greenland.
That being said, when I hear "Danish longer than the United States has existed," that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily. Could that be the case in the future? It doesn't need to be if the situation could be dealt with by agreement now. And maybe it has been to a large extent in terms of US military access? Denmark signed an agreement last July that had been sitting on its desk since 2023 (drafted under Biden). Why did it take so long? Why is that not enough? Agreement here:
https://www.fmn.dk/globalassets/fmn/dokumenter/nyheder/2023/-us-denmark-dca-den-prime-english-20dec2023-.pdf
Interesting discussion about the agreement here ("we had to do it" vs. "But Trump!!"):
https://www.dw.com/en/denmark-finalizes-us-defense-deal-despite-greenland-gripes/a-73210846
Before, the US had to coordinate and it appears Denmark may not have been all that nimble in responding. But maybe this is entirely about giving China access and threatening security and not taking the threat (and the Russians in the Arctic) seriously. If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don't. And the Chinese have tried in Greenland (airport and harbor).
Yes, Denmark's claim to Greenland deserves respect. So does the fact that the US tends to pay the bill when things get really tough. Denmark has historically been way behind on NATO commitments. Trump is right to push NATO countries into their fair share (Canada, that means you). You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland. And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it. It seems to be working. Interesting article here from an EU perspective that covers what EU should do (and I largely agree with the suggestions).
https://www.epc.eu/publication/its-a-bargain-the-case-of-greenland/
"
lj: I don't know that I see everything as an extension of what has come before, but I do see similarities. This is a lot like Noriega, but with much bigger risks and incentives. I hope the end result is a lot like Panama.
What acts of terrorism has he committed? The charges are he conspired to financially support terrorist organizations, namely FARC, FARC-EP, Segunda Marquetalia, ELN, TdA, the Sinaloa Cartel and CDN.
Why to a lesser extent? Only because of my sense that the Venezuelan people are largely unified in wanting something different, Venezuela has an educated population, they had a successful economy not all that far in the past and the risks are less from outside groups than they were in Libya for example.
It looks (so far) that the plan is to keep the regime sans Maduro in place, at least temporarily, to keep stability, using pressure to keep the regime/Rodriguez in line. There are rumors of a secret agreement with Rodriguez. There are questions whether she could deliver if there is. Opening up oil is a good idea if the government is going to lose drug revenue and get the economy going again. If the plan includes pressure for a free and fair election in the immediate to near future, and it actually happens, and there is a peaceful transition of power, that would obviously be amazing. I have no way of assessing whether an approach like this will work. It is a completely different look than boots on the ground, putting Machado or Gonzalez in power by force. It might be brilliant. It could be incredibly stupid. I have a hard time keeping a Chavista in power, but the problems with the alternative are obvious. Let's hope we end up with a free Venezuela with a duly elected leader in six months or so.
"
wjca:
The question was whether Trump got the idea to "purchase Greenland" from the GRU letter, not whether there is justification for simply taking it over. That's the context of my response. As a 3rd generation Alaskan (currently living outside my home state), I'd point out that William Seward tried to buy Greenland (and Iceland too). At one point he wanted to bring Canada into the US. So maybe Trump got both ideas from Seward? There were other attempts in the 20th century, (including Truman, I believe) and the US refused to leave after WWII due to the Cold War. But I don't support taking over Greenland by force over the Denmark's objection.
TP: As I recall, I had mixed feelings about Libya, but more practical than whether or not the President had the authority. It's always about "what happens next", right? I have similar feelings about Venezuela, but to a lesser extent. But I am concerned about not leaving the Venezuelans worse off due to a power vacuum than before. I don't like how Trump is talking about Machado nor do I like leaving the illegitimate VP in power. I am glad that Venezuela has a fighting chance to be free.
"
Re Greenland, I'm confused. That GRU letter is dated October 23, 2019, right? And addressed to Cotton? Cotton had already been advocating for the US to purchase Greenland in August before that letter:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/opinion/politics/greenland-trump.html
And as Cotton notes in his op ed, Trump had expressed interest to purchase Greenland before the op ed. So how exactly did the fake letter give Trump the idea? Am I missing something?
As Fiona Hill testified, the Russians like to disrupt. That's all this letter was.
"
This ignores the testimony of Fiona Hill during the hearings for Trump’s first impeachment in 2019.
Her testimony was not that the Trump Administration was actually considering a Ukraine/Venezuela swap, but to the contrary. She was charged with telling the Russians to (her words) "knock this off." And she testified that the Russians were floating this in the press, not directly to the administration. Nowhere (that I saw) does it indicate Trump was actually thinking about the swap.
I don't disagree that Fiona Hill seems like an impressive person. Citing her testimony to say "Trump got the idea from the Russians" has no basis in fact.
According to former ambassador Ken Fairfax on BSKY, the Russians pulled their people ten days before the US op. Make of that what you will.
It was reported before Christmas that the Russians were pulling their people, but I remember it being diplomats mostly. And there was plenty of saber-rattling by Trump, not to mention the buildup of force. They had already pulled a lot of military personnel earlier, from what I remember, but I always thought that was because of Ukraine. Still, they didn't pull the air defense systems they sold to Maduro. I'm sure the nations relying on Russian air defense are making of that what they will. See here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/01/05/venezuela-raid-weak-russian-air-defences-maduro-caracas/
Now maybe it was turned off and the US flipped some people. I don't know.
"
There hasn’t even been any sign of a Congressional resolution
Does 21 USC 960a count? I mean, Maduro is a narcoterrorist and was illegally importing cocaine. Even Biden agreed that he was a threat to the US, raising the reward for Maduro's capture to $25M. (query: Does Trump get that reward now?).
Harmut's comment was snark, but I'm being serious: if you have a de facto head of state that is illegitimate, also a narcoterrorist, no extradition treaty, refuses to stop drug trafficking after warning, is very badly dressed, etc., does extraditing by force require independent Congressional approval? If this was some prolonged military action, I get it. This was surgical (so far).
If I recall what I’ve seen this morning correctly, the indictment that is the basis for the arrest warrant says “fully automatic firearms”.
From what I read in the indictment (superseding from 2020; I think they are basically the same), the "full auto" counts are dependent on counts 1 and 2 (narcoterrorism and importation of cocaine). So it's not like the grounds are just "you have machine guns."
the galloping norm-crushing
I think Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think. On top of the drugs, the Chinese, Russian, Cuban and Iranian ties, 8 million people having left (more than left Syria), and the elections give ample reason to want Maduro gone. Not that "wanting him gone" is justification for a forced extradition, but there is much more going on here.
Over at BJ, Adam Silverman is reminding everyone that both the Greenland nonsense and the Venezuela idea were planted by the GRU.
Really? The US has wanted Greenland for a long time. We occupied it during WWII invoking the Monroe Doctrine. And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
That being said, time will tell. It's what happens now that gives me more concern. Venezolanos are celebrating but cautious about what comes next too.
China and Russia are delighted, I presume, about the current events. It’s exactly what they need for their own propaganda.
Sure, for their own, internal propaganda. But from a strategic standpoint, the US action should counter not only China and Russia's strategic aims in Venezuela, but Iran's and Cuba's too. The success of the mission in light of Russian air defense has to be taken into account. If this ends up toppling the Cuban or Iranian government by domino effect, who is going to cry? Shoot, it already caused the illustrious Gov. Waltz to stop his reelection campaign, lol.
On “Author, author?”
I don't know re authorship. I do know there really isn't an antidote to such a terrible comment. James Woods' heartfelt tribute to Rob Reiner is, however, a start.
https://x.com/JesseBWatters/status/2000754643865891146?s=20
Disclaimer: I know it's Fox News, something I don't watch. This was linked to on a blog I read and is well worth the listen, IMO. I do give credit to Watters getting out of the way (mostly) and letting Woods express himself.
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
Harding's response to Question 6 is, IMO, spot on in terms of why we are where we are and how to make this a win-win.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-strategy-ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations
She doesn't talk about China much, but the impact on Taiwan of taking her win-win strategy would be overwhelmingly positive.
That being said, I don't have much hope that this will happen. Yes, what little hope I do have is pinned on my unlikely theory that Trump is trying to bring the EU/UK fully online to have a united front, Witkoff's bumblings notwithstanding.
"
russell:
How would that embolden Putin? My assumption would be the opposite.
Sorry, that was not clear. I meant if the US stepped back and Europe and UK stepped up, it would nonetheless embolden him. I suppose if PURL were still on the table, it would work for a while, especially if the US continued to supply intelligence. But Putin knows Europe and the UK cannot sustain the delivery of materials by themselves, at least not at this point. IMO, a US pull back in any form will embolden Putin, regardless of how the EU/UK respond.
"
I'm troubled by the purported peace proposal (I also note that since I started to write this, Trump is backing away from it). I want to see Ukraine free and prosperous and as intact as possible with a security guarantee (as the last one didn't work). This war is terrible and needs to end. And it needs to end in such a way as it doesn't happen again down the road as happened after Crimea. In a perfect world, Russia would be out of Ukraine. It's not a perfect world.
I can't tell whether or not Ukraine is on the brink. Certainly there is a conscription problem. If US support were to end, and the Europeans not step up, it would be a disaster. Even if the EU and UK did step up, it would be hard and embolden Putin and drag this debacle out even longer.
My take on Trump is to try to see the play and not focus on the particulars. One possibility: Trump is trying to get the Europeans to truly step up. Trump successfully got member nations to pay their fair share to NATO (well, collectively at least). The pause in US support brought Europe in even more. But despite the implementation by NATO of PURL (launched by Gen. Rutte and Trump) to fund the acquisition of ready to use weapons in US stockpiles for Ukraine, total military aid from Europe declined 43 percent in July and August of this year (humanitarian and financial support remained steady). I think that is the latest data. With the plan, the EU and the UK raced to take part in high-level talks and are voicing ever stronger support for Ukraine. I wonder if this really has nothing to do with appeasing Putin but lighting a fire under the Europeans (yet again)? It is their backyard, after all. And while they have stepped up, it doesn't make up for decades of underfunding the military and building a (mostly former) dependence on Russian gas. Europe isn't in a great position to take up the slack. And it should be.
Another reasonable take here: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-expert-conversation-separating-signal-from-noise-in-trumps-ukraine-peace-plan/
Hoping the Europeans really step in and Trump drops the hammer (e.g. Tomahawks). But I have my doubts on both.
On “Weekend music thread #03 Rhumba and the clave”
Russell: Loved this. And so fun "meeting" you in your element. Music really is the universal language.
But now I'm seeing your hands every time I read one of your comments, lol.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
Russell:
The waiting in line people are those waiting for consular processing (for a green card) and the quotas that apply. These are people outside the US. If you count the family preferences and business categories, I think it is around 5M. The wait times are published in the Visa Bulletin. It has gotten a lot longer lately. Some categories, especially applied to Mexico, have incredibly long wait times. Decades I think for some.
I would find something along the lines of what you suggest (5 years, no criminal record) acceptable for a starting point of discussion. I have reservations, though. Reagan's amnesty was supposed to be coupled with a secure border so as to not provide an incentive to come illegally. That didn't happen and here we are. And those coming in legally typically need an affidavit of support to prevent them from becoming public charges. How would that be accomplished here? And how to make it fair to those waiting in line? Any path to permanent residency and citizenship should be slower than the legal path and have some sort of cost to it.
Regarding ICE, I too have my concerns based on what I've seen. But the media is fanning the flames here too, methinks. The reporter arrested while "going to the bus stop" allegedly threw an unknown liquid on the officers. I watched an MSNBC compilation of uncooperative detainees and wondered whether the person being arrested had more than just a fear of being deported (as in a criminal record). Verified info would be helpful. The AP announced a Marine dad was arrested and deported while visiting Camp Pendleton. The son says no criminal record. DHS says he was ordered removed in 2005 and has a 2020 conviction for DV and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
DHS responded to the protests outside the Illinois facility with posts showing some of those arrested and countering what it says are Pritzker's "lies." Could our intrepid AP chase this down?
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/15/meet-some-worst-worst-broadview-ice-facility-illinois
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/06/dhs-debunks-governor-pritzkers-harmful-lies-about-operation-midway-blitz-chicago
And regarding the Burlington facility, 20% having a criminal record is pretty high IMO. The question I have is whether the remaining 80% have 1) an order of removal; 2) have been charged with a crime or 3) have any gang affiliation. Information on that would be nice. If the majority are law-abiding, hard working people not dodging an order of removal, I'd have concerns. If they are Abrego Garcia, not so much.
"
TP:
Indictment for three women following an ICE agent home and livestreaming it:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/federal-grand-jury-charges-three-women-following-ice-agent-home-work-and-livestreaming
DHS' announcement re Portland doxxing here:
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/07/11/anarchists-and-rioters-portland-illegally-dox-ice-officers-and-federal-law
Note that you can actually look up the Antifa group doing this on the web and see the actual posters they were distributing. I'm not going to link to that, for obvious reasons. But I take that as verification of what Noem is saying.
Arrest of a Santa Monica man for doxxing an ICE attorney:
https://smdp.com/news/crime/santa-monica-man-arrested-for-allegedly-doxxing-ice-attorney/
"
Russell:
I appreciate the numbers view, and I agree that our country can accept a significant number of (legal) immigrants. How many is a policy decision and best made by Congress rather than having that decision made de facto by illegal immigrants.
To be clear, I am in favor of immigration and I am sympathetic to anyone trying to improve their life. I worked professionally in the immigration area years ago (pre-ICE). I too see the very real fear that is out there now. I saw that fear in downtown LA during the Reagan years around the time of amnesty and see it again today amongst the immigrant population when I visit the Pasadena area for work.
As for how this is being handled now, I agree with you to a significant degree. Depending on who you listen to, it either is or is not focusing on those we would all agree should be deported (criminal record, pending criminal charges, gang members, etc.). DHS says 70%. Other reports are much, much less. I'm strongly in favor of deporting anyone who entered without inspection with a conviction or criminal charges pending or gang association. I also think the resistance isn't helping calm things down and that to me is by design. Doxing produced masks, which engender fear and are then criticized as fascist. And on it goes.
As for the rest of those here without papers, how do you prefer those to the 5 million or so waiting in line? There are IMO far more who entered illegally already in the country. I think the numbers are underrepresented. See this MIT-Yale study before the Biden border surge estimating 22M in the country illegally (or more):
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates
While that study is contested by the usual think tanks (such as Pew), it seems to open up the possibility that there are a lot more than commonly believed.
Being in the United States without some kind of legal status is a civil, not a criminal, violation.
Your statement doesn't distinguish between visa overstays and entry into the US without inspection. Unless something has recently changed, my understanding is:
If you sneak across the border without inspection, you are a criminal (misdemeanor).
If you overstay your student or tourist visa, you are typically not (civil).
But if you are deported after an overstay and enter again without approval, felony. Same for those denied entry and try to enter again.
Whether or not you or I like the law, that is what I believe it is. The vast majority of the debate centers on those trying to enter without inspection, not the overstays. It also includes those here under Biden's much-expanded rules for asylum and parole, seen as illegitimate by many. Either way, we are not talking about a speeding ticket.
"
Russell:
When is it appropriate for a nation to borrow? What is accomplished with the money that is borrowed?
Totally valid questions. I was simply focusing on "indifference to deficits." And I think Biden was a mixed bag. I don't cast much if any blame on the COVID spending bills themselves, whether by Biden or Trump. But BBB was such a grab bag. I didn't mind the pure infrastructure components. The resulting IRA was anything but its name. That was simply too much given the huge amount of spending on COVID, IMHO. And that's even before one considers the green pork.
"
As to the effects of Biden’s “open border policy” on illegal immigration: there were none, because there was no such policy.
This statement just beggars belief. Biden invited the border rush during his campaign. He ended the Remain in Mexico program on day one. He refused to finish construction of the wall. He ordered no deportations in the first 100 days. His administration (Mayorkas) stated that the unlawful presence was not by itself a basis for an enforcement action. Forget the law. Mayorkas expanded parole unlawfully, extending it well beyond the statutory framework. CBP Mobile One anyone? Asylum lost its meaning. We all saw it. This was the top issue for a lot of voters.
I don't understand why you are playing cute with this one, Pro Bono. You acknowledge legal immigration was larger under Trump. Great. The issue is not legal immigration, which most Americans find unobjectionable and welcome.
As for Afghanistan, it was the execution of the withdrawal, as you likely know. There was a way to do it safely. Biden had a date in mind and stuck with it. He owns it.
"
Pro Bono:
I don't think your comments are as much wrong as ignoring the full picture.
1) Immigration. Immigration was higher in Trump’s first term than in Bidens. Ackman is wrong.
Immigration was higher? By what metric? Legal or illegal? I think naturalizations were higher under Trump in his first term, but illegal border crossings in the south were way up under Biden as soon has he changed remain in Mexico. He hid some of those by granting parole where it had not been granted before. And Biden changed course right before the election. See more here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/
2) Trump in his first term showed himself to be indifferent to the national debt. Ackman is wrong.
I guess it depends on who you read. I do think there is some truth here (Trump being somewhat indifferent in the first term), but I think Biden was far worse than Trump. Frex:
https://www.heritage.org/debt/commentary/the-lefts-7-trillion-lie-biden-far-outpaces-trump-racking-the-national-debt
7) The USA has been a net fossil fuel exporter since 2019. Ackman is wrong.
Well, there is a difference between coal, LNG and crude oil, right? The US is still a net crude oil importer. It was headed down until 2020.
"
Ok, I forgot that the comments now read in an opposite direction, so a lot has been posted since I started writing this (in spurts, given my crazy schedule). That link by GftNC was particularly interesting, especially the description of how limited the ideologues really are on either side. So the following didn't take all of that into account.
"I think it’s worth exploring how to communicate with MAGAs because, even when King Pussygrabber strokes out on the toilet at three in the morning, we won’t be over the madness. We will still have the MAGA voters, the Republican party’s commitment to the election tactics of Othering and engineered polarization, and the extensive well-funded Republican hate/fear propaganda bubble (Faux, etc) which, for many people, substitutes for news and shapes their voting behavior."
Well, with respect, I probably wouldn’t start like this. Criticizing a side for “othering” by what seems to be to be “othering” of another sort isn’t a winning proposition. And dialing up the rhetoric to 11 isn’t likely to do any good either. And claiming the other side “lies” when the issues are often nuanced only makes each side more entrenched. You could substitute in MSNBC for Faux, Democrat for Republican, woke Democrats for MAGA, and post this on a right-wing site and it would fit right in. And that, IMHO, is the problem.
I’d say the first thing to do is to try to understand the other side. And not the talking heads on TV, but real people of good faith. Why did so many vote for Trump? What policies were behind that decision? Or what was it about Biden/Harris that voters didn’t find attractive? You can argue that the election was lost by not being loud enough, or confrontational enough, or tough enough, but I think that misses the mark.
IMHO, a lot of people that voted for Trump/Vance were not anywhere close to the cartoonish MAGA voter you describe. There were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Trump, just as there were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Harris. And many of those reasons deserve respect. To claim otherwise is to have blinders on. You can hate a position, but hating the person holding that position is an entirely different matter.
Take just one former Democrat, Bill Ackman, and his voiced reasons for voting for Trump over Harris.
https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1844802469680873747
I chose him simply because he has a list handy that I read some time ago. I may not agree with all of his reasons (and you won’t either) but I think his reasons deserve respect on the whole. And this is his list. I think there are several more that could be added, but IMO, numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 24 , 28, 31, 33 were quite resonant with those that voted for Trump (not necessarily in that order). Ackman was not “born” or “made” in the sense you describe.
I am deliberately not responding to the specific examples in your post, Wonkie (i.e. Calloway, Walz, healthcare truth, Portland). I just didn’t want you to think those arguments were lost on me. I can acknowledge some validity in what you say. I just didn’t want any differences I have to detract from the tenor of my response.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.