Authorities say more than 100 immigrants suspected of being in the United States illegally were taken into custody during a raid at an illegal after-hours nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Who said they should be deported? And if they are indeed commiting an illegal act under the written law, why shouldn’t they be subject to any consequences for breaking said law?
I don’t agree with authoritarianism, but I won’t defend lawlessness either. These extreme and radical stances from either party are why the US is where it currently is.
I cast my doubt over the the very foundation of the act of imprisoning these people, not if they’re innocent or not. Because without due process everyone is guilty until proven otherwise - and even then not really. I think you missed my entire point.
I wouldn’t call them “left stances” per say, as it’s something the right also tends to do. Especially when comparing it to the current administration, which despite expecting it to be bad, I certainly didn’t expect it to be this unprecedentally bad.
What I mean, mostly, is that if “you” want people to stand by you showing why the other side sucks isn’t nearly enough. The people already know the other side sucks - they want something better, not more of the same but with a different coat of paint. Unless you can convince the people you are better than the other options, badmouthing the opposition won’t do much to people who’ve seen this play out a thousand times before.
Why was Trump elected (and note, I’m not entirely convince he actually was, but that’s another whole discussion)? Biden wasn’t doing anything nearly as outlandish as this administration is doing, but they were still concealing Biden’s mental state when it was obvious to most. Harris made sure to make her campaign pure spectacle and fanfare through celebrities and huge amounts of spending, focusing way more on appearance than on substance, while the people craved better living conditions overall. And regardless of the obvious answer, what did Trump run his campaign on? Precisely what the people were desperate to hear, even if they knew coming from him it might be bs (which everyone sees it actually was all along).
This is not just a political issue, but a cultural one as well. People don’t vote for policies, they vote for colors, for their preferred celebrities, and for whoever can throw the flashiest party - and on that regard allow me a bit of hippocrisy, as in my country it’s not that different, even if we do have more parties to choose from (I.e., what I’m saying isn’t valid just for the US, but for many more so-called democratic nations, which irks me to the bone). In practical terms there isn’t even any other option available because people won’t even consider them. And on that department as long as mentalities don’t change, neither will the system. And after years of this tug war by both sides pulling to themselves while badmouthing the other, one of them decided it was time to solve this impasse once and for all, by any means necessary.
The current administration, even if Trump kicks the bucket midway, is clearly not planning to leave unless forced through sweat and blood. Otherwise they wouldn’t go to so much trouble and not care about their unpopularity when someone else can just come later and undo everything they did. Of course the problem runs deeper than this already long text, but if discussed at lenght this would make a book.
I think you should re-read. I didn’t say due process was “extreme and radical”. You’re reading what you want to read and trying to polarize and derail this discussion, like the other commenter.
Just to state this will be my last reply to this sort of reply, since there’s no discussion to be had with people who had their minds set on blind hate before even entering, which, ironically, is a rather radical stance to have by itself. I know you won’t believe it and try to distort it to suit your internal frutration, but I’m on your side. Cheers.
Did you mean something else by “this type of lawlessness”? I went back and reread several times and I cannot see another interpretation.
“Immigrating illegally -> deport without due process” is the extremist angle. That’s lawlessness that no one should in good conscience support.
I don’t see anyone saying that breaking the law should go unpunished, just that deportation is not an appropriate penalty especially when there are existing more appropriate penalties. That does not seem extreme to me.
Let me be clear, I didn’t say “this type of lawlessness” anywhere. You’re likely refering to:
I don’t agree with authoritarianism, but I won’t defend lawlessness either.
Which is not at all the same statement, and that misquote implies a very different meaning to what I actually said.
What I implied is that IF it’s found that the people in that nightclub were indeed something illegal (and I don’t mean according to Trump, but according to the pre-established constitution), then they should face the consequences stated in the constitution for breaking the law just like anybody else - another thing I never mentioned is “deportation”, or even that they were immigrants, for that matter. It had nothing to do with the people involved and instead intended as a subtle criticism about how “at this moment we can’t be sure of what’s legal and what’s not” because there’s blatant abuse of the justice system, as my further statements in the original post reinforced.
Misquoting me by saying “This type of lawlessness” implies that I already decided they are indeed illegal immigrants, that they do not deserve due process, and that the automatic punishment for that is deportation. Which is the polar opposite of what I believe in and said.
Furthermore, interpreting any neutral statement (which mine wasn’t, as I’m against these discriminatory policies, but people will read it as they want to anyway) as being pro-Trump, not caring for context or semantic nuance, is pretty extreme.
I apologize for misunderstanding/misquoting. However, I’m not sure why you were even disagreeing with the original comment.
What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished? The only thing they said was that people should not be deported, and I would even read that to mean “without due process” or perhaps “as punishment”.
I do not disagree with the original statement, since it essentially reinforces my original point that everyone should get fair treatment.
What I disagree with is with someone taking my words out of context or putting words in my mouth (I.e. saying anyone who breaks the law should be ready to face consequences, regardless of how they feel) and implying they mean something else, such as condoning the seemingly unfair treatment of the people in the article. Which is what the first commenter implied by echoing pretty much my whole point, but in an argumentative and twisted manner:
Nobody should be deported their “legality” shouldn’t matter. Nobody is illegal.
No disagreements with the above statement at face value, but I don’t know why deportation is even part of it since I did not mention it and it has nothing to do with what I said first. That’s just jumping to conclusions for the sake of creating drama where there’s no need for it.
If it’s illegal and all that, yes, they should be held to standard.
But given the fact that this administration likes to slap the word “illegal” on anything they don’t like, was it really? Or is it a boy crying wolf again?
If I had said only the first part of my original comment I could see how someone might arrive to that conclusion, even if there’s an “if” in there, but I did clarify in the next sentence that it’s nearly impossible to deem them criminals since there’s no fair standard to guide it with the current administration.
Disagreeing is one thing, and I don’t mind it as someone who defends everyone’s right to freedom of expression, but twisting/adding words words to something I said to imply something else is just dishonest and contrarian by nature. And between two people who overall agree with each other, no less, which suggests the first commenter was just looking for some place to vent regardless of the subject.
Now the kicker. The first commenter then replies again, further clearing up that they actually meant to have an actually radical stance on the matter, stating:
yes no prisons or police should exist. “lawlessness” is a good thing.
So yes, answering your question of “What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished?”, pretty much this. Which would be considered an extreme stance, even if they’re entitled to it.
Who said they should be deported? And if they are indeed commiting an illegal act under the written law, why shouldn’t they be subject to any consequences for breaking said law?
I don’t agree with authoritarianism, but I won’t defend lawlessness either. These extreme and radical stances from either party are why the US is where it currently is.
I cast my doubt over the the very foundation of the act of imprisoning these people, not if they’re innocent or not. Because without due process everyone is guilty until proven otherwise - and even then not really. I think you missed my entire point.
Stonewall was deemed illegal by the cops that raided it, and that’s the genesis of queer pride.
Sometimes illegal shit is not only okay, but necessary.
Just out of curiosity, what are some of the “left” stances you feel are extreme or radical?
I wouldn’t call them “left stances” per say, as it’s something the right also tends to do. Especially when comparing it to the current administration, which despite expecting it to be bad, I certainly didn’t expect it to be this unprecedentally bad.
What I mean, mostly, is that if “you” want people to stand by you showing why the other side sucks isn’t nearly enough. The people already know the other side sucks - they want something better, not more of the same but with a different coat of paint. Unless you can convince the people you are better than the other options, badmouthing the opposition won’t do much to people who’ve seen this play out a thousand times before.
Why was Trump elected (and note, I’m not entirely convince he actually was, but that’s another whole discussion)? Biden wasn’t doing anything nearly as outlandish as this administration is doing, but they were still concealing Biden’s mental state when it was obvious to most. Harris made sure to make her campaign pure spectacle and fanfare through celebrities and huge amounts of spending, focusing way more on appearance than on substance, while the people craved better living conditions overall. And regardless of the obvious answer, what did Trump run his campaign on? Precisely what the people were desperate to hear, even if they knew coming from him it might be bs (which everyone sees it actually was all along).
This is not just a political issue, but a cultural one as well. People don’t vote for policies, they vote for colors, for their preferred celebrities, and for whoever can throw the flashiest party - and on that regard allow me a bit of hippocrisy, as in my country it’s not that different, even if we do have more parties to choose from (I.e., what I’m saying isn’t valid just for the US, but for many more so-called democratic nations, which irks me to the bone). In practical terms there isn’t even any other option available because people won’t even consider them. And on that department as long as mentalities don’t change, neither will the system. And after years of this tug war by both sides pulling to themselves while badmouthing the other, one of them decided it was time to solve this impasse once and for all, by any means necessary.
The current administration, even if Trump kicks the bucket midway, is clearly not planning to leave unless forced through sweat and blood. Otherwise they wouldn’t go to so much trouble and not care about their unpopularity when someone else can just come later and undo everything they did. Of course the problem runs deeper than this already long text, but if discussed at lenght this would make a book.
yes no prisons or police should exist. “lawlessness” is a good thing.
We know it’s a bad situation when the basic elements of the constitution are considered “extreme and radical”
I think you should re-read. I didn’t say due process was “extreme and radical”. You’re reading what you want to read and trying to polarize and derail this discussion, like the other commenter.
Just to state this will be my last reply to this sort of reply, since there’s no discussion to be had with people who had their minds set on blind hate before even entering, which, ironically, is a rather radical stance to have by itself. I know you won’t believe it and try to distort it to suit your internal frutration, but I’m on your side. Cheers.
Did you mean something else by “this type of lawlessness”? I went back and reread several times and I cannot see another interpretation.
“Immigrating illegally -> deport without due process” is the extremist angle. That’s lawlessness that no one should in good conscience support.
I don’t see anyone saying that breaking the law should go unpunished, just that deportation is not an appropriate penalty especially when there are existing more appropriate penalties. That does not seem extreme to me.
Let me be clear, I didn’t say “this type of lawlessness” anywhere. You’re likely refering to:
Which is not at all the same statement, and that misquote implies a very different meaning to what I actually said.
What I implied is that IF it’s found that the people in that nightclub were indeed something illegal (and I don’t mean according to Trump, but according to the pre-established constitution), then they should face the consequences stated in the constitution for breaking the law just like anybody else - another thing I never mentioned is “deportation”, or even that they were immigrants, for that matter. It had nothing to do with the people involved and instead intended as a subtle criticism about how “at this moment we can’t be sure of what’s legal and what’s not” because there’s blatant abuse of the justice system, as my further statements in the original post reinforced.
Misquoting me by saying “This type of lawlessness” implies that I already decided they are indeed illegal immigrants, that they do not deserve due process, and that the automatic punishment for that is deportation. Which is the polar opposite of what I believe in and said.
Furthermore, interpreting any neutral statement (which mine wasn’t, as I’m against these discriminatory policies, but people will read it as they want to anyway) as being pro-Trump, not caring for context or semantic nuance, is pretty extreme.
I apologize for misunderstanding/misquoting. However, I’m not sure why you were even disagreeing with the original comment.
What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished? The only thing they said was that people should not be deported, and I would even read that to mean “without due process” or perhaps “as punishment”.
Thanks, and apologies as well.
I do not disagree with the original statement, since it essentially reinforces my original point that everyone should get fair treatment.
What I disagree with is with someone taking my words out of context or putting words in my mouth (I.e. saying anyone who breaks the law should be ready to face consequences, regardless of how they feel) and implying they mean something else, such as condoning the seemingly unfair treatment of the people in the article. Which is what the first commenter implied by echoing pretty much my whole point, but in an argumentative and twisted manner:
No disagreements with the above statement at face value, but I don’t know why deportation is even part of it since I did not mention it and it has nothing to do with what I said first. That’s just jumping to conclusions for the sake of creating drama where there’s no need for it.
If I had said only the first part of my original comment I could see how someone might arrive to that conclusion, even if there’s an “if” in there, but I did clarify in the next sentence that it’s nearly impossible to deem them criminals since there’s no fair standard to guide it with the current administration.
Disagreeing is one thing, and I don’t mind it as someone who defends everyone’s right to freedom of expression, but twisting/adding words words to something I said to imply something else is just dishonest and contrarian by nature. And between two people who overall agree with each other, no less, which suggests the first commenter was just looking for some place to vent regardless of the subject.
Now the kicker. The first commenter then replies again, further clearing up that they actually meant to have an actually radical stance on the matter, stating:
So yes, answering your question of “What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished?”, pretty much this. Which would be considered an extreme stance, even if they’re entitled to it.