if one genuinely wanted to attack the problem one would go after the employers, who have much more to lose than the illegal immigrants.
Fact is, nobody has done it. It's now peculiar to Trunp & Co., so it's not just about Trump being a big empliyer of illehals.
The law has been in place forever. But when I.C.E. (or its predecessors) make a raid on a workplace, somehow the employer never faces legal consequences. Even in cases where the employees really are illegally here (and not merely of the "wrong" racial or ethnic group).
2025-10-14 15:37:49
"There was a way to do it safely. Biden had a date in mind and stuck with it. He owns it."
First, there was? Care to share how it might have been done safely?
Second, Biden didn't have a date in mind. Trump (before he left) had established the date. Biden was stuck either totally reworking the pullout, or trying to execute what he was handed. In retrospect, he should have abrogated the pullout agreement Trump had made, and created a viable plan. And just accepted the fact that he would be totally trashed for doing so.
Did it go badly? No question. But from where I sit, Trump owns it. Or would, if he ever accepted responsibility for anything.
2025-10-13 20:45:20
* I doubt the folks saying that are really gonna want to live in a world where it’s “all torn down”.
BIllionaires and centi-billionaires excepted. They have, as the colloquial expression goes, fuck you money. They’ll be fine no matter what.*
I'm sure that they think that. But how fine they will be is likely to depend on whether they manage to flee the country in time. Because, if they stay and it's all torn down, they are going to present an irresistible target.
Sure, they can hire guys with guns to defend them. But the thing is, those guys with guns are going to want to be paid. AND they are going to want somewhere to spend that pay. If it's all torn down, that's going to be problematic.
2025-10-13 20:38:26
*what this tells me about the other side is that influential people on it are unconcerned with reality.*
I wonder about that. Is it that they are unconcerned with reality? Or are they (at least many of them) just as caught up in the alternate reality as any Faux News viewer?
Certainly there are some there who will ignore anything that looks like an inconvenient fact. Not to mention those who are simply delusional. But the (mis)information bubble there is both very real and very pervasive.
2025-10-10 16:47:33
I don’t believe – I’m not willing to believe – that half the voters are evil. We need to talk to them respectfully and sympathetically. We’ve all been taken in at some time by liars: it’s our side’s job to point out the lies, not to judge the liars’ victims. [Emphasis added]
I think this is another piece of the puzzle when trying to break thru. Be up front about having been bamboozled ourselves. Just to avoid the suggestion that "we're smart enough to have seen thru it, but you re so dumb you got conned." It helps if you've got an example of where you got taken in initially. And if it's something that they can see thru, all the better. (Perhaps "when I was in school, socialism looked attractive. Took me a while to see that it wasn't workable in the real world." Even if you still do think it is workable, it can be a useful example.)
2025-10-09 21:54:28
I wonder if a useful approach might be to ask, not why they are afraid, but why they are concerned.
For a lot of people, admitting to being afraid is shameful. (And, for some men, an attack on their manhood.). But there's nothing wrong with being concerned. It might be a way to get the conversation to the place you want it to go. Without getting the reflexive rejection of the whole thing.
Just a thought.
2025-10-09 18:33:43
I don’t think it really matters that much if Trump is around to be the Dear Leader of MAGA or not. When he is gone, there will still be a whole Republican party that enabled him to the max and the hate/fear propaganda bubble will still be poisoning our political discourse.
I think it will matter. Here's why.
My distinct impression is that the vast majority of MAGAs are made, not born. For those that are born, they can get their dopamine hit from lots of places. They did pre-Trump and they will again when he's gone.
As for those who are made, Trump matters because he is, par excellence, a con man; a salesman for the radical right. Nobody else that they've got can hold a candle to him. When he's gone, there isn't anyone with a real chance of picking up the baton. (Lots who are convinced they can. But none who anybody else thinks can pull it off.)
The thing about the enablers is that they are, at heart, followers. No doubt they would like to keep the whole fear/hate coalition going. But I don't think they can pull it off. The folks around Trump are actually four or five groups with very different agendas, united only by their recognition that they can use Trump to move those agendas forward. And their increasing desperation as MAGAland fragments will only make it fragment faster.
The thing to remember about those groups is that their various agendas are seriously unpopular. Even with the other groups. Without Trump as a useful umbrella to (sort of) unite them, they will crumble.
The problem for those who want to roll on after Trump is the same one that has historically faced autocrats: how to guarantee the succession. The traditional approach, from monarchs throughout history to Kim Il Sung, is to go with the founder's children -- genetics as legitimacy. But Trump's children are jokes. And Trump's ego won't tolerate anybody else stealing his limelight to build a post-Trump coalition ahead of time. And there's really nobody else who can effectively unite them.
As for the question of how to jar the "made" ones back to reality, a few may jump ship as reality (economy tanking, etc.) starts to hit home. But for the rest, I think that, unfortunately, the best that can be done is to prepare the ground for the day when he passes from the scene. Then, but probably only then, can they be brought to see their objections to those who would follow after.
All of which is not to csay that the Democrats couldn't use a charismatic leader (or several) of their own. But so far, nobody has risen significantly above the throng.
if one genuinely wanted to attack the problem one would go after the employers, who have much more to lose than the illegal immigrants.
Fact is, nobody has done it. It's now peculiar to Trunp & Co., so it's not just about Trump being a big empliyer of illehals.
The law has been in place forever. But when I.C.E. (or its predecessors) make a raid on a workplace, somehow the employer never faces legal consequences. Even in cases where the employees really are illegally here (and not merely of the "wrong" racial or ethnic group).
"There was a way to do it safely. Biden had a date in mind and stuck with it. He owns it."
First, there was? Care to share how it might have been done safely?
Second, Biden didn't have a date in mind. Trump (before he left) had established the date. Biden was stuck either totally reworking the pullout, or trying to execute what he was handed. In retrospect, he should have abrogated the pullout agreement Trump had made, and created a viable plan. And just accepted the fact that he would be totally trashed for doing so.
Did it go badly? No question. But from where I sit, Trump owns it. Or would, if he ever accepted responsibility for anything.
* I doubt the folks saying that are really gonna want to live in a world where it’s “all torn down”.
BIllionaires and centi-billionaires excepted. They have, as the colloquial expression goes, fuck you money. They’ll be fine no matter what.*
I'm sure that they think that. But how fine they will be is likely to depend on whether they manage to flee the country in time. Because, if they stay and it's all torn down, they are going to present an irresistible target.
Sure, they can hire guys with guns to defend them. But the thing is, those guys with guns are going to want to be paid. AND they are going to want somewhere to spend that pay. If it's all torn down, that's going to be problematic.
*what this tells me about the other side is that influential people on it are unconcerned with reality.*
I wonder about that. Is it that they are unconcerned with reality? Or are they (at least many of them) just as caught up in the alternate reality as any Faux News viewer?
Certainly there are some there who will ignore anything that looks like an inconvenient fact. Not to mention those who are simply delusional. But the (mis)information bubble there is both very real and very pervasive.
I don’t believe – I’m not willing to believe – that half the voters are evil. We need to talk to them respectfully and sympathetically. We’ve all been taken in at some time by liars: it’s our side’s job to point out the lies, not to judge the liars’ victims. [Emphasis added]
I think this is another piece of the puzzle when trying to break thru. Be up front about having been bamboozled ourselves. Just to avoid the suggestion that "we're smart enough to have seen thru it, but you re so dumb you got conned." It helps if you've got an example of where you got taken in initially. And if it's something that they can see thru, all the better. (Perhaps "when I was in school, socialism looked attractive. Took me a while to see that it wasn't workable in the real world." Even if you still do think it is workable, it can be a useful example.)
I wonder if a useful approach might be to ask, not why they are afraid, but why they are concerned.
For a lot of people, admitting to being afraid is shameful. (And, for some men, an attack on their manhood.). But there's nothing wrong with being concerned. It might be a way to get the conversation to the place you want it to go. Without getting the reflexive rejection of the whole thing.
Just a thought.
I don’t think it really matters that much if Trump is around to be the Dear Leader of MAGA or not. When he is gone, there will still be a whole Republican party that enabled him to the max and the hate/fear propaganda bubble will still be poisoning our political discourse.
I think it will matter. Here's why.
My distinct impression is that the vast majority of MAGAs are made, not born. For those that are born, they can get their dopamine hit from lots of places. They did pre-Trump and they will again when he's gone.
As for those who are made, Trump matters because he is, par excellence, a con man; a salesman for the radical right. Nobody else that they've got can hold a candle to him. When he's gone, there isn't anyone with a real chance of picking up the baton. (Lots who are convinced they can. But none who anybody else thinks can pull it off.)
The thing about the enablers is that they are, at heart, followers. No doubt they would like to keep the whole fear/hate coalition going. But I don't think they can pull it off. The folks around Trump are actually four or five groups with very different agendas, united only by their recognition that they can use Trump to move those agendas forward. And their increasing desperation as MAGAland fragments will only make it fragment faster.
The thing to remember about those groups is that their various agendas are seriously unpopular. Even with the other groups. Without Trump as a useful umbrella to (sort of) unite them, they will crumble.
The problem for those who want to roll on after Trump is the same one that has historically faced autocrats: how to guarantee the succession. The traditional approach, from monarchs throughout history to Kim Il Sung, is to go with the founder's children -- genetics as legitimacy. But Trump's children are jokes. And Trump's ego won't tolerate anybody else stealing his limelight to build a post-Trump coalition ahead of time. And there's really nobody else who can effectively unite them.
As for the question of how to jar the "made" ones back to reality, a few may jump ship as reality (economy tanking, etc.) starts to hit home. But for the rest, I think that, unfortunately, the best that can be done is to prepare the ground for the day when he passes from the scene. Then, but probably only then, can they be brought to see their objections to those who would follow after.
All of which is not to csay that the Democrats couldn't use a charismatic leader (or several) of their own. But so far, nobody has risen significantly above the throng.