What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

What an odd question.  I am struggling to the see its relevance.  Perhaps you could point it out to me.

The head of the DHS said that that's what her troops are going to do - "to liberate the city [LA] from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city",- in spite of it not being in her job description.

Do you take it at face value that that is her intention, even if you think she may not succeed?

translated: we'll remove your democratically elected leaders.

[Admiral Yi]

Do you think Noem's statements are an indication of her planned course of action?

Seems a pretty straight forward question to me and fairly relevant to the current situation. You've previously made statements about taking what people say at face value. Bogh's question is whether you apply that approach to Noem's statements as well.

I could see the relevance of Bogh's question.  It was a gotcha trap in which my double standard would be exposed.  It was a poor trap because I think both the protesters and Noem are wrong.

Your and Zoupa's questions I don't see the relevance of.

[Jacob]

How is Noem wrong?

The question that I have is whether you believe Noem is going to follow through on her stated intention, or at least attempt so. That's not a right or wrong type question, that's a question of interpretation. In this particular case, it's a question of your interpretation.

[Admiral Yi]

How is Noem wrong?

The question that I have is whether you believe Noem is going to follow through on her stated intention, or at least attempt so. That's not a right or wrong type question, that's a question of interpretation. In this particular case, it's a question of your interpretation.

The question that I have is what is the relevance of your question.  It's a very straightforward question.

[Grey Fox]

At face value, tyranny is upon you. That's how it is relevant.

[Sheilbh]

Is it not relevant to our earlier conversation about ICE being lawless, for example?

[Jacob]

The question that I have is what is the relevance of your question.  It's a very straightforward question.

A senior government official (Noem) is deploying armed troops (marines) into a major city and saying they're going to relieve the place of their leadership, calling out the mayor and governor explicitly. Another senior government officials (Hegseth) is saying they're not going to obey court instructions on the troop deployment.

It's relevant because we're discussing ICE and current American political situation, and these events are taking place in the context of ICE actions.

[Admiral Yi]

Is it not relevant to our earlier conversation about ICE being lawless, for example?

The premise of that conversation, that the Trump administration had acted unlawfully in deporting Abrego Garcia, was not disputed.

[Admiral Yi]

A senior government official (Noem) is deploying armed troops (marines) into a major city and saying they're going to relieve the place of their leadership, calling out the mayor and governor explicitly. Another senior government officials (Hegseth) is saying they're not going to obey court instructions on the troop deployment.

It's relevant because we're discussing ICE and current American political situation, and these events are taking place in the context of ICE actions.

Bogh and I were discussing calls to abolish ICE.  If you think all these shenanigans strengthen the case to abolish ICE, and live with the consequences, I really, really wish you could have just made this point a long time ago.

[Sheilbh]

The premise of that conversation, that the Trump administration had acted unlawfully in deporting Abrego Garcia, was not disputed.

I thought the point was broader.

I argued the immigration infrastructure under Trump because it was, I'd argue, lawless. It was arbitrary and refusing to comply with court orders (including from the Supreme Court). The individual cases are bad on their own but they are a pattern of lawlessness indicating what those institutions are trying to do - their policy is to be arbitrary, act beyond their powers and ignore the courts. And, in that context, I think there is a good case for civil disobedience and refusing to cooperate in any way with a lawless state authority.

My understanding of your argument was that you should take it on a case by case basis.

So my view of the relevance is that us agreeing Noem's description of her agenda and what she is doing is not her job, or it's lawful role, is that strengthens my point that these institutions are - currently - lawless. It isn't on a case by case basis of a few eggs getting broken but an institutional policy.

[Zoupa]

Is it not relevant to our earlier conversation about ICE being lawless, for example?

The premise of that conversation, that the Trump administration had acted unlawfully in deporting Abrego Garcia, was not disputed.

Which of these two scenarios do you think are more important/impactful/serious:

1. Abolish ICE
2. Unlawful conduct by federal agencies/departments/agents

[Jacob]

Bogh and I were discussing calls to abolish ICE.  If you think all these shenanigans strengthen the case to abolish ICE, and live with the consequences, I really, really wish you could have just made this point a long time ago.

Bogh changed the topic to the statements made by Noem about her intentions in LA.

I don't have an opinion on the abolishment of ICE, but I am curious about your take on the deployment of marines to LA and the administration's intended course of action there.

I have an opinion about how the two topics connect - the wording on ICE signs and Noem and Hegseth's statements on behalf of the administration. But I was hoping to understand how you see Noem and Hegseth's statements and what you think the administration's intentions are.

[Sheilbh]

Total aside from all this - and I know I've banged on about it before.

But just saw Hegseth saying that when he served in Afghanistan with the ISAF shoulder badge the joke was that it stood for "I saw Americans fighting".

I've no doubt that was the joke and among soldiers I kind of think it's fine - standard squaddie humour and likely to start a punch up on, say, a British or Danish base but all in good humour.

But he's Secretary of Defense. It's cheap and wrong. I think these are the sort of comments that provoke a response from and turn off the sort of instinctively pro-American, Atlanticist conservative types in countries like the UK and, I imagine, Denmark, Canada and others who did send troops who died in significant numbers in Afghanistan (particularly on a per capita basis). Again, to nick a phrase - have you said thank you even once?

[Zoupa]

How strange that these large scale, inflammatory raids only seem to happen in blue states? Such a mystery.

Waiting for the "law and order", "ackshually, that's not a good way to protest" blah blah blah crowd.

Trump's border tsar: We'll flood liberal cities with ICE raids

[Admiral Yi]

Which of these two scenarios do you think are more important/impactful/serious:

1. Abolish ICE
2. Unlawful conduct by federal agencies/departments/agents

I think abolishing ICE would be monumentally more impactful than a Department of Agriculture employee driving 50 in a 35.

I think the military killing half the citizens of the US would be monumentally more impactful abolishing ICE.