That is more and more often not happening recently, because courts are not involved. If they are and explicitly request planes to be turned around and people brought back - they're ignored without repercussions.
This part is not settled yet.
As I understand it, they requested that USGOV "facilitate" the return which is much weaker than the "effectuate" in the original court order; ie giving USGOV wiggle room rather than compelling them to undo the harm.
Coincidentally, they seem to rule this about anyone who brings food or water to the Palestinians.
The "Do you condemn Hamas?" folks have won.
What’s the alternative? Regardless of what Israel did or did not do Hamas could have ended this “war” at any moment they wanted to. None of their actions were in any way remotely in the interest of the people of Gaza. Providing them [Hamas] material or other support only prolonged it..
Besides Belgium (and that’s nowhere close) there are hardly any successful democracies that were evenly split primarily on ethno-religious grounds and didn’t entirely collapse on the first opportunity.
US and Israel started the Lebanese civil war and the enmity between the Christian and Muslim populations?
Well in a way.. at least the Palestinian refugees were a huge shock that shifted the scales. But the balance was very tight and the country would have blown up eventually anyway.
You can’t build a democracy when each half of the population hates the other half and considers that their ideological views and their ways of life are incompatible. Even US is learning that the hard way (again..)..
In case you're commenting in good faith and genuinely don't know this, "Do you condemn Hamas?" refers to a pattern in media interviews from the earlier days of the holocaust. The interviewer would simply ignore what the interviewee said and repeat "Do you condemn Hamas?" until the interviewee answered with a boolean, at which point the interview was over. No discussion was allowed. You either support everything Israel is doing (boolean true answer) or you are a terrorist (boolean false answer). No nuance allowed. No debate allowed. No facts allowed.
How?
Like indefinitely? Trump’s administration is ignoring the courts and there is no real oversight. Also whatever facts come out they will be drowned by all the other insane idiocy that the US government is doing so nobody will pay attention anyway..
When they start sending US citizens to El Salvador nobody is going to care about some guy whose green card got revoked.
Oh? Before they deport him? If the courts didn't intervene, initiated from his side, he would be gone
To apply this in another context, I agree with Trump on very little, but I do agree that Daylight Savings should be gotten rid of. So am I pro-Trump? No, that's absurd.
Or if you are right wing in the US and believe that the US is the land of the free and home of the brave, well, so does Hilary Clinton. Are you pro-Clinton?
The connection is absurd, but it parrotted daily by US politicians and US media.
Each side is using different tactics to fit the strength of their positions and how well various messages resonate. “They are the same anyway” is useful for a side who wants people to be inactive, it’s not some universal benefit to both parties. Instead each side wants different people to be engaged vs apathetic, which hardly unusual.
As opposed to non-free-speech cultures like Russia and China where people have absolutely no say in whatever their leaders do? Because that's inevitably what happens when you give people in power the power to restrict speech: they restrict any speech critical of them. We're even seeing this in developed democracies like Germany where a journalist was recently fined for posting a meme online of a politician holding a sign saying "I hate free speech".
Someone can be persuaded by an argument they heard once, but can’t per persuaded by an argument they never hear. Thus blocking speech by preventing any kind of speech including paid speech is problematic.
Kids who grow up watching commercials start distrusting them. Free speech is not about any one issue but all topics. In many ways curating so people see the kinds of things they agree with is vastly more harmful than propaganda.
Doesn't this lead to a situation where only bad actors exist?
It people are so savy because of advertising why did tens of millions believe the election was stolen?
Everyone doesn’t fit those criteria. Motivated reasoning exists with and without propaganda. The specific words used may end up mimicking “a message,” but you can find millions of disgruntled people after any election.
There’s a great deal of talk around how much social media etc changed the landscape but American politics looks basically the same before and after Facebook.
Trump and MAGA Republicans lie more openly than traditional Republicans. American politics are not the same.
Here's an easy exercise.
This is a post from MGT. Show me anything even close to this insane from an elected person in high office (house, senate, president) in the last 50 years
https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/styles/scale_w1024/s3/st...
In terms of lies here’s one that was a central tenant of the part of the party line for decades. Social security isn’t an income tax because we have a tax called the income tax.
>Social security isn’t an income tax because we have a tax called the income tax.
SS tax is a tax on your income, "Income Tax" is a type of tax. Both are true
The lies about gay people are actual lies, even if they come from homophobia.
Luring people into gayness, crap about destroying the institution of marriage etc etc.
> SS tax is a tax on your income, "Income Tax" is a type of tax. Both are true
When taking about “tax burden,” there’s no excuse around the names. I’ve got little interest in digging up 20 year old clips, but you’re 45 you should remember that phrase.
> Social security isn’t an income tax because we have a tax called the income tax.
I took too long to be able to edit my other comment but I should have asked who said this? Because "social security" isn't a tax at all. In my other comment I assumed you meant tax we pay to fund SS but this still leaves me confused, can you provide me with a quote that shows the lie?
There’s a line on your W-2 that literally says “4. Social Security Tax withheld” https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw2.pdf
You literally just said “SS tax is a tax on your income”
2. Politicans want money and power. They have no issues lying or manipulating people to get it
3. In a country like Russia the government can counter any information with widespread arrests and fear.
4. In a country with free speech there is little to no recourse.
Meaning that Russia, China, etc can use misinformation against us and we can't do anything. On the other hand we can try the same but they can simply use authoritarian tactics to supress it.
5. Trump has shown that the threshold for lying was set artificially low by past politicians. His success while lying about events that are easily disproven multiple times is evidence for all future politicians to lie.
Which is different than asking if voting fraud changed the outcome and more importantly different than asking which side benefited. Someone who calls targeted overly aggressive culling of voter registrations fraud has something of a point, even if that’s a long way from stuffing ballots or meaningful changes in results.
#--------------------------------------------------------
A 2023 poll found that 71% of Republicans believe the election was illegitimate. [1]. The exact question in the poll was "Thinking about the results of the 2020 presidential election, do you think that Joe Biden legitimately won enough votes to win the presidency, or not? Do you think there's been solid evidence of that, or is that your suspicion only?"
All - Note legitimate Solid + suspicious = 38%
Republican - Not legitimate: solid evidence - 41% suspicious only - 30%
1. Democrats or liberals (poll allowed for either) who didn't vote for Trump or dislike him are going to say the election was legitimate regardless of evidence and outcomes of investigations. This is why I only use what Republican voters think (about 2020) as an indicator of public stupidity *
2. This poll was in 2023, after court cases and numerous state investigations/recounts. Therefore saying it's "suspicious" is as stupid as saying there is "solid evidence".
If you have a suspicion a crime occurred, then multiple investigations find nothing or show the evidence your suspicious were based were fake, and you don't change your view that's stupid.
> Which is different than asking if voting fraud changed the outcome...
That's what Trump and many of the key players on his side claimed.
> Someone who calls targeted overly aggressive culling of voter registrations fraud has something of a point..
No, they don't. They are misusing the term "fraud" in an election situation (a.k.a "election fraud) [2]. Voter/Election fraud is clearly defined by the US government [3]. Voter suppression through a legal action isn't fraud. You can claim that it's "wrong" or "immoral" but not fraud.
#--------------------------------------------------------
The difference is clear if you look at something as either an opinion or fact. An opinion is not falsifiable.
"Widespread election fraud is why Trump lost the 2020 election" - This either happened or it didn't. It's not an opinion/judgement. [4]
"Aggressive culling of registrations caused a candidate to win/lose" - Since culling of registrations legally happens [5] whether or not it's aggressive is a judgement because "aggressiveness" is subjective.
> even if that’s a long way
It's not on the same scale because one is a crime. I think I need more to understand why you want to merge different accusations of fraud or suppression when discussing different elections.
#--------------------------------------------------------
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans... [1 Poll Document] - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23895856-cnn-poll-on... Page 49
[2] Wikipedia's article on Election fraud describes it better.
"Electoral fraud, sometimes referred to as election manipulation, voter fraud, or vote rigging, involves illegal interference with the process of an election, either by increasing the vote share of a favored candidate, depressing the vote share of rival candidates, or both. It differs from but often goes hand-in-hand with voter suppression. "
[3] https://www.usa.gov/voter-fraud
[4] You can say "I believe X happened" which is an opinion however this is a judgement that needs a factual base. If the evidence is fake, doesn't exist, or you were lied and you are aware of this, then you're lying about the basis for your opinion which invalidates it (imo)
[5] I'm assuming you meant legal culling
* There's similar high numbers for Democrats talking about Trump's win in 2016 though most polls ask about Russian interference helping him, which is a judgement not a lie since this did happen, but it could also be an indicator. The 2020 situation was just much more obvious because the claim by Trump is of cheating NOT influence. The lie is that Trump was directly involved and to a high degree but blah blah complicated.
Hardly, I find quantum mechanics suspect without having a better option. I’m not saying there’s any kind of conspiracy or anything and sure it fits the experiments we have done. Yet, I suspect most people who actually learn the details have similar reactions it doesn’t fit our experience. Sadly the universe doesn’t care it it seems consistent to us.
There’s a deep cultural divide in the US to the point where people have trouble remembering how close support is for each party. Because politics is so regional it’s easy for each side to overestimate how popular that side is. Imagine living in a county where 80% are voting for one side and almost all roadside posters are supporting one candidate. Suddenly the other side winning just doesn’t fit everyday experience.
When either side wins a huge number of people will find it suspicious, that’s just how our heuristics and pattern matching work. A historian looking back on 2020 and 2024 isn’t going to find the election results odd because wider forces definitely favored the winning side in those elections, but people today don’t have that separation. Thinking there’s widespread and obvious fraud is different.
Ideas don’t need to win on day one, if it takes 30 years that’s still plenty useful.
The US has a higher threshold, but it’s clear those standards mean many people are duped by “obvious” lies. It’s kind of an arbitrary line, but ignoring the dumb feels like a mistake to me when dumb people are active in society, still vote, etc.
Same way you can build a wood or brick home, historically which people chose had a lot to do with local materials.
This isn't then your previous comment that the results are similar.
Goals aren't nearly as important as results.
Also, to dive deeper, what goals and how many are similar, and how similar?
If you mean they are both supporting Israel, then yes, but the Democrats exert more control over their actions. For example Biden was limiting the bomb size that Israel could purchase and Trump removed that.
So if you want to help the Palestinians one side is the better than the other. It doesn't matter if the goals are similar or even the results. There's still a difference and as you can see voter apathy only helped Republicans
I have been talking about the propaganda from each sides of the current conflict in Palestine. I thought this make that clear “in this conflict so it’s really interesting to see how each side is using propaganda” but I may have misunderstood what you meant by supporting Israel.
> This isn't then your previous comment that the results are similar.
To be clear I’m noticing similar goals combined with something (diminishing returns?) yield similar results. Hell, it could also be a form follows function kind of thing, I’m noticing the results not doing a research paper.
> what goals
When I say they have similar goals I mean they are both trying to sway public option to support their agenda.
There’s a bunch of different kinds of kind of propaganda. If one side was doing a call to action for their supporters like “Buy war bonds!” then I presume the results wouldn’t seem so similar.
Ok, but that's every politician (and many people as well). What their specific goal is matters. If one political party supports Israel 40% [4] and the other 80% then there's a difference. It's possible to support Israel and the Palestinians at the same time as well so it's not a clear "this or that"
>yield similar results.
If you are saying something like "Israel is still attacking Palestinians no matter who is elected" yes but to the same extent? What about aid to Palestine?
In 2018 Trump cut $200m worth of aid to them [1] then in 2021 Biden restored it [2]. I can understand if the issue is that neither party are going as far as you might want but that doesn't really make them same and not voting [3] doesn't make sense if you care because it can only make things worse for the Palestinians
Your argument reads like a general frustration with politics, which I get, but it still exists and will always exist. Not participating is the worse option imo.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-cuts-more-than-2...
[2] https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20210407-us-restores...
[3] Not accusing you here
[4] Just a made a fake scale of support from 0 to 100 for the example
I am not referring to US politicians here. This has nothing to do with republicans and democrats. I am referring to what propaganda from Israel and Palestine directly + groups paid and unpaid supporting their agenda.
> Ok, but that's every politician
Politicians don’t just talk about the same thing one may highlight poverty and another jobs etc.
Here each side (Israel, Palestine) is taking about the same topic (location, war), trying to gain sympathy by talking about bad things that happen to specific people recently, etc
> Your argument reads like a general frustration with politics
If I was equally uninterested in politics and everyone was always talking about the deficit I might feel the same way. But this really does seem unusually similar.
But discussions on the internet seems to be with lots of people who have only a shallow understanding of the balances involved and low historical context
Shallow understanding is a valid issue but that's what discussions are for
You and I both know that isn't true and repeating that doesn't help anyone but further implant in people's minds that the other side is completely irrational and cannot be reasoned with.
No, the US government is deporting people for supporting terrorist organizations, something that's always been a disqualifying position in US immigration law. You'll get your visa denied, or even your entry denied for holding such positions, let alone maintaining an active student visa or permanent resident visa. That has always been the case and simply enforcing laws already on the books does not change that.
> What makes this possible to either the level of Russia or the US is how much the supporters of the regime want it. This is regardless of morality, legality, or the precedent it sets.
Equating Russia and the US is an extreme take.
It'll be appealed to a Federal court now.
It is in Germany and also in the USA. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the government on this point or not, because the government are the ones with the legal right to lock you up.
please don't falsely conflate opposition to the ongoing genocide of palestinians, with support for hamas
Has it deported anyone voicing support for the Israeli Defense Forces or any of the other Jewish supremacist terrorist organizations currently terrorizing Palestinians? Regardless, your claim that Khalil would have offered material support or even voiced support for a terrorist organization is baseless. Not that it matters either because saying "I love Hamas" is free speech and covered under the First Amendment.
Perhaps currently. How long do you think we should wait until we can start doing that? At the current pace probably a year or two?
I mean.. Putin wasn’t that bad in the early 2000s, nazis or fascists weren’t that awful in the 20s or 30s either (in relative terms compared to everyone else at the time) either. Waiting until its too late do change anything is maybe not the smartest thing, though..
I think you should stop letting the propaganda get to you and take a step back and look at things from a rational perspective. I'd bet over 50% of the things that you think happened in this administration did not in fact happen.
How and why would that change anything in any way? From a rational perspective 5% of those things are way too much already. Much less even...
In a rational and sane world Trump would have been impeached and possibly imprisoned just over his government funded golf trips that he is using to funnel millions of tax payer money to his own businesses. Just running a car dealership on the white house lawn should have resulted in impeachment. Yet these are the tiniest most insignificant things compared to everything else he is doing.
In our unfortunate reality paying him several hundred millions to just do nothing but play golf for 4 years would seem like an exceptionally good deal..
I mean your argument is basically “well he’s extremely horrible but at least he doesn’t eat babies, so shut up..”
Not really. Estimates for the number of people in labor camps, labor colonies and prisons are all over the place, but based on their own fragmented records reached about 2 million by the end of 1938. That doesn't count pretrial/administrative detentions or the hundreds of thousands that were simply executed that year or all the people exiled to inhospitable settlements. And of course, the mortality rate in their penal system was extremely high.
> In the Southeast United States, incarceration rate of the Black population is 7%
Nowhere in the US is anywhere close to 7% of the black population currently being incarcerated.
That said, the US incarceration rate is ridiculously high and we should be ashamed of it.
That was certainly false if you look at the late 40s (not by much, only 2x or so though..)
However if you actually think (since you post nonsensical “statistics” that’s unlikely) about it the mortality rates in soviet concentration camps were massive, especially in the 1930s or during the war which significantly decreased the incarceration rate.
Can’t have a huge prison population if you just murder or starve everyone to death..
I agree it’s better that we don’t yet see individuals directly punished at scale for dissent.
But if this is all we settle for we’re like dogs fighting for scraps.
Who is settling for this? It's just one battle when multiple battles occur at the same time and we don't stop fighting.
Are you saying too much is being focused on this issue? I think it's something that if we don't do that then it will only get worse.
The fact that they still hold all the power is proof that, consciously or not, enough people are still settling for scraps. You may not be, but many are, and that’s part of the problem.
Although not even close in number and punishment the US government is deporting people for speaking against Israel.
I think we do have a much better system because we are aware of these cases, you can speak out about the issue, and our court system can rule against the current admin.
What makes this possible to either the level of Russia or the US is how much the supporters of the regime want it. This is regardless of morality, legality, or the precedent it sets.