If they're white supremacists, they should have confidence in their racial superiority and that they would still run the show as a minority. Or do they secretly suspect they're not all that after all?
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
I don't think that why Vaush is talking about it. I'm also not going to watch him to see if he's saying what I'm talking about below. I don't have the bandwidth to deal with him right now
There ARE a bunch of economist who are talking about lowering demographics. It's not talking about forcing people to have more kids
Eg. The One Child policy has made sure that in a few years they won't have enough workers for all the factories they built. China is already aware of this and is outsourcing some of thier factories to other countries. Many countries are doing Baby Bonus or free childcare. Others are looking for more automation or AI to take over work
So, we should be thinking of ways to deal with the lower population.... and not by forcing people to have more babies.
It does mean we need to ask some difficult questions. The elderly are less productive, pay less tax and cost plenty more in social care. As they increase as a proportion of the population, we either need to cut social care or increase taxes to cope.
However, in a way, the elderly solve that problem for us. They are a large proportion of the population and they are much better at voting, which means they vote to protect the state pension, healthcare and social support they receive. So that means taxes go up.
It's a temporary injunction so that the specifics can be decided later so they didn't really rule on it per se.
You'd certainly think so, but we're stuck with two generations' of elders who grew up huffing leaded gas fumes and having Cold War fascist propaganda shoved down their throats, who spent their teen and young adult years carpet bombing their neural pathways with ditch weed, LSD, and cocaine, and got themselves addicted to Fox News right around the age cognitive decline sets in.
Also...
Yeah, I hate to break it to you but the fascist takeover happened decades ago, during the Truman and Eisenhower years. That was the whole purpose behind the Nazi sympathizers and war profiteers who suddenly found themselves in power after the war, imported and employed any Nazi with a degree they could get their hands on, who didn't have to be immediately thrown under the bus for war crime. What we've seen since is the "boiling the frog" period; it just took nearly 80 years to reframe the ideology, adjust strategy, and manufacture consent. In order of what you described...
Divide-and-conquer the opposition started with the Red Scare and pervasive anti-communist propaganda. Dismantling electoralism started by undermining the primary system ('68 was the capstone), eliminating campaign finance regulation (Citizens United was just the capstone), and reforming voting blocs around racial issues (civil rights and the Southern Strategy) and negative partisanship. Meanwhile, we had the union-busting and anti-union propaganda of the post-Carter years.
Not to mention aggressively hunting and dismantling would-be resistance groups under surveillance programs, starting with COINTELPRO with a direct through-line to today -- post-9/11 federal surveillance and suppression of anti-Bush protesters and protest groups, the Obama admin and federal law enforcement collaborating with the financial and private security sectors to crack down on OWS, federal responses to BLM protests.
Cooperative federalism alone was enough to dismantle and disempower state governments; increasingly federalized law enforcement, especially after 9/11, was one aspect. The other was attaching federal mandates and riders to funding distributed from the federal government to the states, making several state governments themselves dependent on federal funding to operate. Post-Obama focus on taking over local and state governments, and gerrymandering to maintain decisive majorities, was practically an afterthought.
Crippling opposition media? No need, eliminating the Fairness Doctrine and passing the '96 telecoms act did all the work. Why actively suppress opposition media when it can be bought out by oligarchs (such as Bezos and WashPo) or multi-national media conglomerates, and then buried in a tidal wave of toxic "mainstream" sludge to the point it has very little to no reach outside progressive echo chambers?
Suborning police and courts? Why do you need to suborn police forces when they already agree with you, as the entire professional field is naturally-inclined towards right-wing authoritarianism? Do I need to remind you modern policing in the US originated from slave patrols, nativist gangs, and private security companies reorganized and directed by ex-military? Post-Reagan and post-9/11 police militarization was, once again, practically an afterthought. Eradicating juridical democracy was a generational issue, brought to fruition by decades' worth of neoliberal court-stacking.
Strong power bases outside the state? Exactly what do you think the Federalist Society, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, US Chamber of Commerce, and American Legislative Exchange Council are there to do? Then we had the militias and the Klan before them, and still have far-right militant groups...even though they've gone to ground, for now. Not that there's need, because once again refer to what I said about cops -- ghost skinning is real, far more pervasive than it was under the original Bush-era report, and to a certain extent normalized now with the likes of Kash Patel and Pam Bondi in the upper echelons of government.
It's a temporary injunction on the use of the AEA to remove Venezuelan nationals. That's what's temporary and needs further deliberation.
In the reasoning for that injunction, it definitively (for the second time) reiterates that they are entitled to more notice and the right to challenge under habeas. That is not to be decided later. It was stated as legal fact, as it already was on 7 April.
Just to piggy back off this. We probably need to talk about the issue as there are problems... but there are a bunch of racial supremacist who are using this as an excuse to push their agenda. It's a minefield we need to step around
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,772
- 3,351
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
At least 50 migrants sent to El Salvador prison entered US legally, report finds
Cato analysis goes against Trump administration’s claim that only undocumented people were deported to Cecot
www.theguardian.com
It's looking like most of the "undocumented" migrants that the Trump administration has sent to El Salvador's Cecot prison, the ones they claimed were all criminals and terrorists who entered the US illegally, were actually legal immigrants who were either refugees or had advanced US government permission to be in the country and had been granted 2-year work permits.
To these people, refugees don't count as legal immigrants. They are only here by the grace of our almighty leader, who can revoke his grace at any moment.At least 50 migrants sent to El Salvador prison entered US legally, report finds
Cato analysis goes against Trump administration’s claim that only undocumented people were deported to Cecot
It's looking like most of the "undocumented" migrants that the Trump administration has sent to El Salvador's Cecot prison, the ones they claimed were all criminals and terrorists who entered the US illegally, were actually legal immigrants who were either refugees or had advanced US government permission to be in the country and had been granted 2-year work permits.
Getting rid of "undocumented immigrants" was just the cover story. The real goal is "put brown people in cages".At least 50 migrants sent to El Salvador prison entered US legally, report finds
Cato analysis goes against Trump administration’s claim that only undocumented people were deported to Cecot
It's looking like most of the "undocumented" migrants that the Trump administration has sent to El Salvador's Cecot prison, the ones they claimed were all criminals and terrorists who entered the US illegally, were actually legal immigrants who were either refugees or had advanced US government permission to be in the country and had been granted 2-year work permits.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,772
- 3,351
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
US must keep control of migrants sent to South Sudan in case removals were unlawful, judge rules
A federal judge ruled late Tuesday that U.S. officials must retain custody and control of migrants apparently removed to South Sudan in case he orders their removals were unlawful.
apnews.com
And apparently Trump is deporting people to South Sudan now, explicitly against court orders.
The crime was that a previous administration let them in. Even if that previous administration was himselfAt least 50 migrants sent to El Salvador prison entered US legally, report finds
Cato analysis goes against Trump administration’s claim that only undocumented people were deported to Cecot
It's looking like most of the "undocumented" migrants that the Trump administration has sent to El Salvador's Cecot prison, the ones they claimed were all criminals and terrorists who entered the US illegally, were actually legal immigrants who were either refugees or had advanced US government permission to be in the country and had been granted 2-year work permits.
Because it wasn't a decision on whether they're entitled to notice or habeas.
It was stated as established fact that they are entitled to those things, in their ruling on something else.
There really isn't a leg to stand on to argue that they're not entitled to these things. The Supreme Court has directly, definitively said they are, twice in two months. Give it up.
You know from other deportation methods, notice can be hardly notice at all.
I understand and agree with the Court’s decision to grant a temporary injunction. The injunction simply ensures that the Judiciary can decide whether these Venezuelan detainees may be lawfully removed under the Alien Enemies Act before they are in fact removed. The underlying legal questions that the courts may need to decide before the removals occur include: (i) whether the Alien Enemies Act (as distinct from the ordinary removal process under the Immigration and Nationality Act) authorizes removal of these detainees and (ii) if so, what notice is due before removal.
Once they rule on that, habeas isn't an issue anymore.
In resolving the detainees’ appeal, the Fifth Circuit should address (1) all the normal preliminary injunction factors, including likelihood of success on the merits, as to the named plaintiffs’ underlying habeas claims that the AEA does not authorize their removal pursuant to the President’s March 14, 2025, Proclamation, and (2) the issue of what notice is due, as to the putative class’s due process claims against summary removal.
Do you actually comprehend the meaning of the sections you quoted? They don't support what you're arguing at all.
Crime in South Africa - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Ramaphosa survives Trump ambush over 'white genocide'
Right-wing Afrikaners groups celebrated the ambush but others in the Rainbow Nation found it "uncomfortable" to watch.
www.bbc.com
South Africa could solve the problem in two broad steps if it wanted to. Let the American FBI advise them on crime, as in Colombia, and or get the Chinese to invest in their country by allowing them, and their security forces in, minus the actual Chinese military.
But of course, it's easy for South Africans to get distracted by the red herrings of Trump, and for Trump to manipulate the White South Africans into joining his country to increase the US's economic strength. Ramaphosa is an idiot or corrupt, but not as much as Sheinbaum of Mexico, who lets the cartels run her country for her in say farming avocados.