• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed The Fascism Checklist, Trump 2025

What is going on with the photograph?

And Bukele’s mockery?

If Bukele thinks Garcia is a terrorist he wouldn’t be sipping martinis. And in the picture he is not. The cap is almost certainly to hide the shaved head.

Trump and Bukele are fascists, pure and simple. Anyone supporting them is supporting fascism.

ETA: editing annoying autocorrected hypercorrection for anyone reading.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
I hope people take that exile thing seriously. It is legal to deport a naturalized citizen if it can be proven that the obtaining of citizenship was itself fraudulent. But assuming no fraud, there is no second-class citizenship. What you do, do not do, become, or do not become after that is done as a citizen. There is no law or precedent in existence that makes naturalized citizenship a different thing from native citizenship, and one of the founding principles of our nation, and the revolution that brought it about, was opposition to the exile of citizens.

If a citizen is thrown out of the country, citizenship becomes ◊◊◊◊ and our country with it. I mean it. It's a tipping point.
Click to expand...
While agreeing with you in general, I feel compelled to point out (probably because there's something wrong with me) that there is such a law (the US constitution), and naturalized citizens are quite literally second class citizens (despite being the only class of citizens where at least some can be said to have earned their status). There is no path to eligibility for the presidency for naturalized citizens.

People have a tendency to dismiss this as rather inconsequential, but once you entertain the notion that naturalized American citizens aren't, like, American American, even for fairly rarefied pursuits, you're creating a toehold for exactly the sort of nativist contempt for equality between citizens we're seeing today. That particular requirement should have been abolished generations ago, when it was still possible to pass constitutional amendments.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
While agreeing with you in general, I feel compelled to point out (probably because there's something wrong with me) that there is such a law (the US constitution), and naturalized citizens are quite literally second class citizens (despite being the only class of citizens where at least some can be said to have earned their status). There is no path to eligibility for the presidency for naturalized citizens.

People have a tendency to dismiss this as rather inconsequential, but once you entertain the notion that naturalized American citizens aren't, like, American American, even for fairly rarefied pursuits, you're creating a toehold for exactly the sort of nativist contempt for equality between citizens we're seeing today. That particular requirement should have been abolished generations ago, when it was still possible to pass constitutional amendments.
Click to expand...
One might consider this an example of "the exception proves the rule" in the sense that the no-presidency provision needs to be explicit because naturalized citizenship is complete in all other respects.

But though I hadn't thought of your angle before, it's probably right, and that toehold is enlarging as people pick at it. Once upon a time, I suspect that, owing to the unique properties of the American government in the world, and the relatively less stringent requirements for naturalization, the prospect of a foreign-born person messing it up either accidentally or on purpose must have been frightening. Nowadays we have perfected the cultivation of indigenous idiocy, and the world around us has changed.

I can think of at least a couple of foreign-born governors who'd be a big step up from what we have now. ON the conservative side you could do a whole lot worse than Arnold Schwartzenegger, and on the liberal side, I'd have voted for Madeleine Kunin (though in the "Vermont governors who'd make good Presidents," I'd have preferred Howard Dean). But we at least have the consolation that, so far at least, we won't have a President Musk.
 
Hercules56 said:
Nope never said that.
Click to expand...
No, but you need to guard against the unfortunate conservative tendency to dismiss any criticism that does not quote your statements literally. You did not say that, but you did insistently bring up references to Garcia's faults, and the intent was pretty clearly to imply that he was, owing to his badness, less entitled to due process than others. And you pretty explicitly stated that you thought advocacy for his situation was a bad idea because others would similarly cite his dubious character as an excuse.

That latter statement may, unfortunately, be true, but it's true because people look it that way, and you should not. As I've said before, probably to a point of tedium, but I'll say it again: freedom is tested at the edges, not the center.

The enemies of freedom are pushing in from those edges, changing the rules, rescinding promises, redefining our language, normalizing their terrors and intrusions. Every time we let something go because it's not all that bad, not all that far over the line, the line moves. They're already driving around with masks and guns in unmarked cars, demanding proof of what we should never have to prove, smashing windows with firemen's tools and bearing our neighbors off in handcuffs for speech whose only fault is that the President doesn'l like it. Our President thinks videos of people being marched off in chains, women in tears, are celebrations of virtue.

Sure, it's not likely to happen to us. I'm old, white, and all that stuff. My wife is 70 and doesn't look much like a terrorist. But she does have a foreign kind of name. She is naturalized, and she was a refugee once. Just having a Hispanic name these days seems enough to get ICE to your door. And right now, right here, not somewhere else or in some other time, right now there are ICE agents roaming, stopping cars and forcing their way into homes, seemingly immune to any rules but their own. At some point, we have to stop saying it's not our circus.
 
Last edited:
autumn1971 said:
We are the bad guys now. We need to be stopped
Gentle suggestion hasn’t worked.
The world needs to stop America by any means necessary
Click to expand...
Careful. You'll get all the pearl clutchers just looking for things to be outraged about to feel better about themselves supporting a murderous, violence-loving fascist cult.

Do I hope or wish it'll come to violence, maybe even a full-blown insurgency against the Dump regime? Hell no. May it come to that regardless? In the worst case, absolutely. Would that be horrible, in countless imagineable and unimagineable ways? Oh yes.

I'm holding out hope peaceful resistance prevailed. It worked against the Soviet Union.
 
angrysoba said:
You were supporting his deportation of innocent people to El Salvador and defied the Supreme Court. You crossed the Rubicon with him.
Click to expand...
The whole defying the Supreme Court thing is ironic in a way, though. This is the same Supreme Court that let him run for Führer even though it was against the Constitution. It's the same court that declared he has total immunity for official acts. To see them try to put on the brakes now is actually darkly amusing.
 
Darat said:
Can anyone explain to me why detainees in custody in the USA forceably have their heads shaved by masked government workers?
Click to expand...
Oh, it's not everywhere in the US, either... maybe it is in federal custody, though. Same thing as when you first join the military.


After looking it up, it's mainly a practice of private contractors that work with ICE nowadays, although it was more common in the past. Of course, different states have different rules here... and Club Fed (if it's owned/run by the national government) doesn't do it anymore.
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
The whole defying the Supreme Court thing is ironic in a way, though. This is the same Supreme Court that let him run for Führer even though it was against the Constitution. It's the same court that declared he has total immunity for official acts. To see them try to put on the brakes now is actually darkly amusing.
Click to expand...
I think it's a case of the SC shooting the judiciary's foot with its own gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom