Topic: The U.S. government is playing a dangerous game
Anonymous A started this discussion 4 weeks ago #136,386
one it's very likely to lose. I don't know where this confidence comes from, this sense of being untouchable, but the belief that they attacking a country unprovoked or antagonize vulnerable communities and people across various immigration statuses without consequence is badly misplaced.
an assumption that these people bearing the cost won't have the power, the platform, or the will to push back. That assumption has been wrong before.
At some point the jokes and the memes will stop being funny. the talking and debating will grow old and the cases of the people who had their families separated or outright murdered will seek retribution via the 2A.
There are many ways to end this current shitty arc.
I'm just saying its happened before.
an assumption that these people bearing the cost won't have the power, the platform, or the will to push back. That assumption has been wrong before.
At some point the jokes and the memes will stop being funny. the talking and debating will grow old and the cases of the people who had their families separated or outright murdered will seek retribution via the 2A.
There are many ways to end this current shitty arc.
I'm just saying its happened before.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #1,447,585
> antagonize vulnerable communities and people across various immigration statuses
Excellent spin, making the criminals seem like the victims.
Every other country can have a border, just not the US? Fuck off
Excellent spin, making the criminals seem like the victims.
Every other country can have a border, just not the US? Fuck off
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,588
why are retarded people allowed to access electronics? The internet was so great before @OPs were created.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,589
@1,447,585 (B)
> > antagonize vulnerable communities and people across various immigration statuses
>
> Excellent spin, making the criminals seem like the victims.
Ah yes everyone's a criminal somehow.
> Every other country can have a border, just not the US? Fuck off
tf you on about, the U.S has already a border.
> > antagonize vulnerable communities and people across various immigration statuses
>
> Excellent spin, making the criminals seem like the victims.
Ah yes everyone's a criminal somehow.
> Every other country can have a border, just not the US? Fuck off
tf you on about, the U.S has already a border.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 weeks ago, 58 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,590
@1,447,588 (C)
good luck with that. better pray hard to whatever god you believe in for that to happen chud.
good luck with that. better pray hard to whatever god you believe in for that to happen chud.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,593
I liked Obama’s method. He told governors to deport based on incarcerated illegals. Cleared out +300,000 in a couple years.
A couple of methods USG should do: Create a nationwide database of I-9s. Employers hold them but they’re not registered centrally. Start prosecuting employers and landlords who house illegals.
A couple of methods USG should do: Create a nationwide database of I-9s. Employers hold them but they’re not registered centrally. Start prosecuting employers and landlords who house illegals.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,596
@previous (D)
I liked his method because he actually went after those are who actually incarcerated and had no intention of reforming. You know a time when folks were capable of discernment and can tell difference between a guy whose working, minding his business and taking care of his family and a thug who commits crimes and doesn't give a fuck about the law.
Now its just lazy performative chudslop to assume" all criminals therefore deport!". sure lets deport the people who work and contribute just because.
I liked his method because he actually went after those are who actually incarcerated and had no intention of reforming. You know a time when folks were capable of discernment and can tell difference between a guy whose working, minding his business and taking care of his family and a thug who commits crimes and doesn't give a fuck about the law.
Now its just lazy performative chudslop to assume" all criminals therefore deport!". sure lets deport the people who work and contribute just because.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,598
@1,447,593 (D)
Also disagree with that solution for numerous reasons:
I-9s are filled out by employers and employees with self-reported info. Centralizing millions of forms means centralizing whatever errors, typos, and inconsistencies already exist in them.
The USG already runs E-Verify, which cross-checks I-9 info against SSA and DHS databases. It has documented false-positive rates cases where authorized workers get flagged as ineligible due to name mismatches ( which is common with hyphenated names, recent marriages, translation/transliteration issues), clerical errors, or database lag.
Doing a mandatory nationwide database built on I-9s would inherit these same problems at scale.
A single centralized database of nearly every worker's identity documents is a massive target for data breaches and identity theft.
also Landlords aren't equipped to verify immigration status, and in many cases aren't legally allowed to ask (fair housing laws restrict what documentation a landlord can demand, partly to prevent discrimination.)
This risks discrimination by proxy: if landlords fear liability, the documented result from similar policies tried at the state/local level is landlords becoming reluctant to rent to anyone who "looks foreign," speaks with an accent, or has a non-English name including U.S. citizens and legal residents. That's a civil rights problem, not just an enforcement one.
Also disagree with that solution for numerous reasons:
I-9s are filled out by employers and employees with self-reported info. Centralizing millions of forms means centralizing whatever errors, typos, and inconsistencies already exist in them.
The USG already runs E-Verify, which cross-checks I-9 info against SSA and DHS databases. It has documented false-positive rates cases where authorized workers get flagged as ineligible due to name mismatches ( which is common with hyphenated names, recent marriages, translation/transliteration issues), clerical errors, or database lag.
Doing a mandatory nationwide database built on I-9s would inherit these same problems at scale.
A single centralized database of nearly every worker's identity documents is a massive target for data breaches and identity theft.
also Landlords aren't equipped to verify immigration status, and in many cases aren't legally allowed to ask (fair housing laws restrict what documentation a landlord can demand, partly to prevent discrimination.)
This risks discrimination by proxy: if landlords fear liability, the documented result from similar policies tried at the state/local level is landlords becoming reluctant to rent to anyone who "looks foreign," speaks with an accent, or has a non-English name including U.S. citizens and legal residents. That's a civil rights problem, not just an enforcement one.
Anonymous B replied with this 4 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,599
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,601
@previous (B)
yeah I dont actually. Last I checked could've sworn that The 5A and 14A says "no person" shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process".
Someone can't simply be deported on the spot with no process at all. There's generally a right to a hearing before an immigration judge, a chance to contest the government's claim that they're removable, and (in many cases) a chance to apply for relief like asylum.
yeah I dont actually. Last I checked could've sworn that The 5A and 14A says "no person" shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process".
Someone can't simply be deported on the spot with no process at all. There's generally a right to a hearing before an immigration judge, a chance to contest the government's claim that they're removable, and (in many cases) a chance to apply for relief like asylum.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,602
@1,447,599 (B)
Look its much faster if you just admit you dont care about the laws or the constitution. You just dont want people who dont look or sound like you here because its easier and faster to deport everyone than to practice the laws, due process and just in general offload thinking.
I can see why trump says he loves stupid people. it makes sense.
Look its much faster if you just admit you dont care about the laws or the constitution. You just dont want people who dont look or sound like you here because its easier and faster to deport everyone than to practice the laws, due process and just in general offload thinking.
I can see why trump says he loves stupid people. it makes sense.
Anonymous B replied with this 4 weeks ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,605
@1,447,601 (A)
So first you said they're a criminal "somehow" like you didn't know.
And then when I ask what that means, you start talking about them not getting due process.
That doesn't answer the question at all, it avoids it. Even if they were being deprived of due process, that doesn't suddenly mean they aren't criminals.
So first you said they're a criminal "somehow" like you didn't know.
And then when I ask what that means, you start talking about them not getting due process.
That doesn't answer the question at all, it avoids it. Even if they were being deprived of due process, that doesn't suddenly mean they aren't criminals.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,607
@1,447,599 (B)
> "somehow"? Like you don't know, lol.
> And then when I ask what that means, you start talking about them not getting due process.
You never asked what that mean.
> That doesn't answer the question at all, it avoids it. Even if they were being deprived of due process, that doesn't suddenly mean they aren't criminals.
again what is the question? because you asked one question and it was about borders.
> Every other country can have a border, just not the US? Fuck off
this is the only question you've asked and I answered it right away.
> "somehow"? Like you don't know, lol.
> And then when I ask what that means, you start talking about them not getting due process.
You never asked what that mean.
> That doesn't answer the question at all, it avoids it. Even if they were being deprived of due process, that doesn't suddenly mean they aren't criminals.
again what is the question? because you asked one question and it was about borders.
> Every other country can have a border, just not the US? Fuck off
this is the only question you've asked and I answered it right away.
Anonymous B replied with this 4 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,608
@previous (A)
@1,447,599 (B)
> "somehow"? Like you don't know, lol.
@1,447,601 (A)
> yeah I dont actually.
Saying "somehow" a criminal and that you "dont actually" know makes it sounds like you don't know what crime they committed.
If we let people hop the border, and don't deport them, then that's hardly worth calling a border because you can ignore it.
Don't trespass, don't get arrested.
@1,447,599 (B)
> "somehow"? Like you don't know, lol.
@1,447,601 (A)
> yeah I dont actually.
Saying "somehow" a criminal and that you "dont actually" know makes it sounds like you don't know what crime they committed.
If we let people hop the border, and don't deport them, then that's hardly worth calling a border because you can ignore it.
Don't trespass, don't get arrested.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,609
@1,447,605 (B)
to entertain your bit here real quick lets start with this: my position isn't "due process instead of admitting it's illegal" it's both at once.
Yes, it's unlawful to be here without status. That doesn't cancel out the requirement that they get a process: a hearing, a chance to make their case, a chance at relief depending on severity and circumstances before the government acts on it(which is something that this administration in not doing at all and we're not gonna debate on that because those are the facts, they're wiping their ass with all that. take it however you wanna you take it.)
Also worth being precise on the word "criminal" since that's part of my "somehow" was getting at: it depends which violation you mean. Illegal entry (crossing without inspection) that's a federal misdemeanor that's actually criminal. But overstaying a visa, which is a big chunk of the undocumented population, is a civil violation, not a criminal one.
It makes someone removable, but there's no criminal charge for it. So "everyone's a criminal" isn't accurate across the board some are, some aren't, depending on how they ended up out of status. That's why I said "somehow".
Doesn't change the bottom line either way: civil removal proceedings still require due process too, just through immigration court rather than criminal court.
to entertain your bit here real quick lets start with this: my position isn't "due process instead of admitting it's illegal" it's both at once.
Yes, it's unlawful to be here without status. That doesn't cancel out the requirement that they get a process: a hearing, a chance to make their case, a chance at relief depending on severity and circumstances before the government acts on it(which is something that this administration in not doing at all and we're not gonna debate on that because those are the facts, they're wiping their ass with all that. take it however you wanna you take it.)
Also worth being precise on the word "criminal" since that's part of my "somehow" was getting at: it depends which violation you mean. Illegal entry (crossing without inspection) that's a federal misdemeanor that's actually criminal. But overstaying a visa, which is a big chunk of the undocumented population, is a civil violation, not a criminal one.
It makes someone removable, but there's no criminal charge for it. So "everyone's a criminal" isn't accurate across the board some are, some aren't, depending on how they ended up out of status. That's why I said "somehow".
Doesn't change the bottom line either way: civil removal proceedings still require due process too, just through immigration court rather than criminal court.
Anonymous C replied with this 4 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,610
@1,447,588 (C)
i have yet to receive an answer for this, and since this retard keeps talking to himself im just gonna ask again.
i have yet to receive an answer for this, and since this retard keeps talking to himself im just gonna ask again.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,611
@1,447,608 (B)
I don't know "the crime" because there isn't one single crime that's the point. Illegal entry (crossing without inspection) is a federal misdemeanor. Overstaying a visa is a civil violation, not a criminal one. So depending on the person, "somehow" was accurate, not evasive.
And due process before deportation isn't the same as "don't deport them." Nobody said don't enforce the border. The position is: enforce it, but through the process that's already legally required: a hearing, a chance to contest it, a chance at relief depending on the circumstances. That's not ignoring the border, that's how removal is supposed to work regardless of who's being removed.
"Don't trespass, don't get arrested" is a fine bumper sticker but it skips over the part where a chunk of this population didn't "trespass" in the criminal sense at all. they overstayed a valid entry, which is a different act entirely.
I don't know "the crime" because there isn't one single crime that's the point. Illegal entry (crossing without inspection) is a federal misdemeanor. Overstaying a visa is a civil violation, not a criminal one. So depending on the person, "somehow" was accurate, not evasive.
And due process before deportation isn't the same as "don't deport them." Nobody said don't enforce the border. The position is: enforce it, but through the process that's already legally required: a hearing, a chance to contest it, a chance at relief depending on the circumstances. That's not ignoring the border, that's how removal is supposed to work regardless of who's being removed.
"Don't trespass, don't get arrested" is a fine bumper sticker but it skips over the part where a chunk of this population didn't "trespass" in the criminal sense at all. they overstayed a valid entry, which is a different act entirely.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 weeks ago, 59 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,612
@1,447,610 (C)
I mean you're here too. so I figured you were just referring to yourself and left it alone.
I mean you're here too. so I figured you were just referring to yourself and left it alone.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 4 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,613
@previous (A)
like was I supposed to agree with you that you shouldn't have electronics because you're retarded?
like was I supposed to agree with you that you shouldn't have electronics because you're retarded?
Anonymous C replied with this 4 weeks ago, 1 second later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,614
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,615
boof joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,617
COCK
Anonymous B replied with this 4 weeks ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,618
@1,447,611 (A)
8 U.S.C. § 1326 makes it a felony to illegally reenter the country.
Sneaking into the country is obviously a crime.
8 U.S.C. § 1326 makes it a felony to illegally reenter the country.
Sneaking into the country is obviously a crime.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 38 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,622
@previous (B)
yes that's right. § 1326 only applies to people who were already deported once and came back. It doesn't apply to someone who overstayed a visa (no prior removal order exists in that case), and it doesn't apply to someone crossing for the first time (that's § 1325, misdemeanor not felony).
So "sneaking into the country is obviously a crime" is true for people who cross without inspection, that's real and was never in dispute. What it doesn't touch is the 40-45% of the undocumented population who entered legally (with a visa) and then overstayed.
There was no "sneaking in" for that group, they walked through a checkpoint with valid paperwork. § 1325 and § 1326 both require an illegal entry to even apply; they don't cover unlawful presence after a lawful entry.
I seriously need you to understand the difference. Just because the current USG is lazy and incompetent to do their jobs efficiently is not grounds for you to be stupid right along with them.
yes that's right. § 1326 only applies to people who were already deported once and came back. It doesn't apply to someone who overstayed a visa (no prior removal order exists in that case), and it doesn't apply to someone crossing for the first time (that's § 1325, misdemeanor not felony).
So "sneaking into the country is obviously a crime" is true for people who cross without inspection, that's real and was never in dispute. What it doesn't touch is the 40-45% of the undocumented population who entered legally (with a visa) and then overstayed.
There was no "sneaking in" for that group, they walked through a checkpoint with valid paperwork. § 1325 and § 1326 both require an illegal entry to even apply; they don't cover unlawful presence after a lawful entry.
I seriously need you to understand the difference. Just because the current USG is lazy and incompetent to do their jobs efficiently is not grounds for you to be stupid right along with them.
Anonymous B replied with this 4 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,626
@previous (A)
If you agreed to leave at a certain date and overstayed, being deported is not some human rights violation.
If you agreed to leave at a certain date and overstayed, being deported is not some human rights violation.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,640
@previous (B)
> If you agreed to leave at a certain date and overstayed, being deported is not some human rights violation.
I dunno broski I mean a bunch of mfs overstayed for many years, some worked and pay their taxes like anybody else and some were legit scummy and for that time nobody really cares or bat an eye.
I mean I guess now of sudden it’s a cool and hip trend because some random d-list celebrity decided it’s cool now.
People like to compare him with Obama. I mean Obama deported lots of incarcerated folks who were legit POS sure. But he did it by the book. He didn’t go and send a goon squad to deport folks indiscriminately.
But idk it’s just another case of “it’s your turn now to get bullied” white america got bored of bullying blacks and Asians so now it’s the Latinos/hispanics turn. Thats really what this all about.
> If you agreed to leave at a certain date and overstayed, being deported is not some human rights violation.
I dunno broski I mean a bunch of mfs overstayed for many years, some worked and pay their taxes like anybody else and some were legit scummy and for that time nobody really cares or bat an eye.
I mean I guess now of sudden it’s a cool and hip trend because some random d-list celebrity decided it’s cool now.
People like to compare him with Obama. I mean Obama deported lots of incarcerated folks who were legit POS sure. But he did it by the book. He didn’t go and send a goon squad to deport folks indiscriminately.
But idk it’s just another case of “it’s your turn now to get bullied” white america got bored of bullying blacks and Asians so now it’s the Latinos/hispanics turn. Thats really what this all about.
Anonymous F double-posted this 4 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,641
And you know I just realize that where’s all that persecution energy for those from the Middle East? Like im surprised theres none of that for Iranians or just any Arabic speaking person here in the U.S?
Like whats up with that?
Like whats up with that?
Anonymous B replied with this 4 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,666
@1,447,640 (F)
If you got away with breaking the law for years before the government did anything, count your blessings.
Deporting people present illegally isn't a human rights violation. It's also very obvious what law they broke, so it would be stupid to say sarcastically that they are "somehow" criminals.
If you got away with breaking the law for years before the government did anything, count your blessings.
Deporting people present illegally isn't a human rights violation. It's also very obvious what law they broke, so it would be stupid to say sarcastically that they are "somehow" criminals.
Anonymous F replied with this 4 weeks ago, 26 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,699
@previous (B)
Nah it aint stupid. it really is somehow youre just weird about it because in your mind you believe everybody should follow the law regardless of circumstances but the reality there are people in power that commits crimes daily and somehow nobody gives a fuck. People legit didnt give a fuck about illegals until they were duped into doing so. But idk illegals never affected me in anyway personally. Like that whole “they take all our jobs” or “buying all the apartments and houses” is probably the biggest snake oil pitch ive ever seen.
Like I had an issue with getting a job or paying for my own place. Pretty well off. If those people were able to get those things it’s because they worked for it. Just like millionaires/billionaires worked for their wealth.
Maybe the so called USG should work on the backlog applications of the people who did came here “legally”. Who’ve been on the waiting list for who knows how long. Maybe if they process those applications you wouldn’t have border hoppers.
Those people who follow the law, who come here legally, waiting to escape their shitty country and the usg loves to dangle the citizenship over their heads like dogs hungry for a bone. Which is all the more reason to either process the backlogs or fuck all the laws and let everyone come in and if people like you dont like them self deport to Europe or South Africa. They’ll welcome you with open arms.
Nah it aint stupid. it really is somehow youre just weird about it because in your mind you believe everybody should follow the law regardless of circumstances but the reality there are people in power that commits crimes daily and somehow nobody gives a fuck. People legit didnt give a fuck about illegals until they were duped into doing so. But idk illegals never affected me in anyway personally. Like that whole “they take all our jobs” or “buying all the apartments and houses” is probably the biggest snake oil pitch ive ever seen.
Like I had an issue with getting a job or paying for my own place. Pretty well off. If those people were able to get those things it’s because they worked for it. Just like millionaires/billionaires worked for their wealth.
Maybe the so called USG should work on the backlog applications of the people who did came here “legally”. Who’ve been on the waiting list for who knows how long. Maybe if they process those applications you wouldn’t have border hoppers.
Those people who follow the law, who come here legally, waiting to escape their shitty country and the usg loves to dangle the citizenship over their heads like dogs hungry for a bone. Which is all the more reason to either process the backlogs or fuck all the laws and let everyone come in and if people like you dont like them self deport to Europe or South Africa. They’ll welcome you with open arms.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 4 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,703
@previous (F)
I said it was stupid if you didn't know what their crime was.
I can understand the circumstances that led people to that crime, but it's still not a human rights violation. They broke the law, profited well from the economy compared to their home, and then were offered $1,000 to self deport, refused, and then whined when they got caught.
The US is very hospitable, and very easy on people that break immigration laws compared to the rest of the world.
I said it was stupid if you didn't know what their crime was.
I can understand the circumstances that led people to that crime, but it's still not a human rights violation. They broke the law, profited well from the economy compared to their home, and then were offered $1,000 to self deport, refused, and then whined when they got caught.
The US is very hospitable, and very easy on people that break immigration laws compared to the rest of the world.
Anonymous F replied with this 4 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,710
@previous (B)
Not the same guy btw dunno whatever point op was making but im just saying people probably got their reasons for why they overstayed or whatever. You don’t have to care but to act as if they’re committing the worse crime in human history is hilarious to me.
We got full blown cheeseburger eating gun loving legal retarded citizens committing mass murders in full gear just because somebody bullied them in the school lunch room lol
And to think we’re worried about illegals.
Not the same guy btw dunno whatever point op was making but im just saying people probably got their reasons for why they overstayed or whatever. You don’t have to care but to act as if they’re committing the worse crime in human history is hilarious to me.
We got full blown cheeseburger eating gun loving legal retarded citizens committing mass murders in full gear just because somebody bullied them in the school lunch room lol
And to think we’re worried about illegals.
Anonymous B replied with this 4 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,716
@previous (F)
> You don’t have to care but to act as if they’re committing the worse crime in human history is hilarious to me.
I never did that, you made that up in your head.
All I ever said was that it's stupid for the other person to say they don't know why they are criminals, and I also said that immigrants are relatively well treated here.
> We got full blown cheeseburger eating gun loving legal retarded citizens committing mass murders in full gear just because somebody bullied them in the school lunch room lol
>
> And to think we’re worried about illegals.
I didn't say anyone should be worried, I said it's obvious why people who aren't authorized are being deported.
> You don’t have to care but to act as if they’re committing the worse crime in human history is hilarious to me.
I never did that, you made that up in your head.
All I ever said was that it's stupid for the other person to say they don't know why they are criminals, and I also said that immigrants are relatively well treated here.
> We got full blown cheeseburger eating gun loving legal retarded citizens committing mass murders in full gear just because somebody bullied them in the school lunch room lol
>
> And to think we’re worried about illegals.
I didn't say anyone should be worried, I said it's obvious why people who aren't authorized are being deported.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,717
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 10 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,877
@1,447,710 (F)
the point I was making that all of this will come back to rightfully bite the U.S in its ass and regardless of whatever laws, rules or administration you think will protect you from the retribution, it will surely not.
this is a country that will spend money arming itself due to hubris and paranoia. that's all it takes. So while we sit here comfortably, having frivolous debates, the real moves are being made and you'll never know when its coming.
the point I was making that all of this will come back to rightfully bite the U.S in its ass and regardless of whatever laws, rules or administration you think will protect you from the retribution, it will surely not.
this is a country that will spend money arming itself due to hubris and paranoia. that's all it takes. So while we sit here comfortably, having frivolous debates, the real moves are being made and you'll never know when its coming.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,969
@previous (A)
Tbh, I think most of what’s happening is the United States was founded on white supremacy. When Obama became president, that caused a lot of white anxiety and resentment, and it happened coincidentally right when China started really catching up to the United States technologically and economically, and birth rates in the west are getting lower compared with the developing world (especially Africa) making it seem like people are flooding in, even when they’re actually not flooding in. For most of history Europe had 2 or 3 times as many people as Africa, now Africa is twice as large as Europe, and still growing while Europe isn’t, projected to hit 40% of the world population. They’re not invading or flooding in, there are just more of them. So there’s a right wing racist reactionary movement in the west against the changing world order. In the short term, it’s China, but they’ll have a demographic collapse. In the long term, it’s India and Africa. Ultimately, it’s a natural process. Throughout history, empires have risen and fallen all over the world. Nothing lasts forever. You can’t maintain a world where a small minority of the population enjoy wealthy democratic countries and a larger majority just accept that they’re poor because they got colonized hundreds of years ago. Eventually that has to end, China just got there first, but it’s not going to end with China. In the short term, probably there will be more wars, but it’s unlikely that they will achieve their intended objectives and more likely they will accelerate decline.
Tbh, I think most of what’s happening is the United States was founded on white supremacy. When Obama became president, that caused a lot of white anxiety and resentment, and it happened coincidentally right when China started really catching up to the United States technologically and economically, and birth rates in the west are getting lower compared with the developing world (especially Africa) making it seem like people are flooding in, even when they’re actually not flooding in. For most of history Europe had 2 or 3 times as many people as Africa, now Africa is twice as large as Europe, and still growing while Europe isn’t, projected to hit 40% of the world population. They’re not invading or flooding in, there are just more of them. So there’s a right wing racist reactionary movement in the west against the changing world order. In the short term, it’s China, but they’ll have a demographic collapse. In the long term, it’s India and Africa. Ultimately, it’s a natural process. Throughout history, empires have risen and fallen all over the world. Nothing lasts forever. You can’t maintain a world where a small minority of the population enjoy wealthy democratic countries and a larger majority just accept that they’re poor because they got colonized hundreds of years ago. Eventually that has to end, China just got there first, but it’s not going to end with China. In the short term, probably there will be more wars, but it’s unlikely that they will achieve their intended objectives and more likely they will accelerate decline.
Anonymous H double-posted this 4 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,970
Maybe it sounds stupid or silly, but I think the reason why they act like they’re untouchable is actually out of fear. I should also correct myself, it wasn’t hundreds of years ago, it started hundreds of years ago, but ended less than a hundred years ago.