this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
574 points (99.7% liked)

politics

22985 readers
5650 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archived copies of the article:

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 60 points 6 days ago (18 children)

Germany 1933-45. Right out of the book.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] FirstCircle@lemmy.ml 59 points 6 days ago (1 children)

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

[–] smayonak@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Jordan Peterson constantly quotes Solzhenitsyn warning of what the Liberal party would do to canada or the democrats would do to the usa. He would then promote a tool like polievre or an overt fascist orangeman without any irony at all. Today he seems to be confused about what fascism is and has oftentimes waffles between endorsing them or trying to avoid discussing them, like a true intellectual coward who was wrong about everything he ever said

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 days ago (2 children)

He's not confused about what fascism is, he knows and he wants it. Just like any fascist, you can't take what he says at face value, it's all trolling games like the Sartre quote.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (3 children)

With Peterson, he did make himself sick with that “carnivore” diet. He’s been huffing his own fumes so long that I think it’s fucked with his cognitive abilities.

I’ve listened to his class lectures - I do not understand how he earned a doctorate, and I do not understand why anyone taken the shit that comes out of his mouth seriously. It’s just misinterpreted Jung with some Manichean/Christian influence.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 37 points 6 days ago (2 children)

It's impressive how much of the recent deportation scheme leans on the cooperation of one tin-pot state.

There aren't that many other places with concentration camps conveninently located and leadership ready to deal. It's unlikely they'd build them domestically, it would take time, cost a fortune, and not achieve the explicit "we removed the evil foreigners" goal.

It would be interesting to see what happened if someone said "we'll pay you more than what America is paying to close the door." Would he have to just knock on every presidential palace in the hemisphere looking for a new partner? Try to scale Guantanamo 100x overnight?

[–] DarthKaren@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It may even become a self filling cycle, though I don't know if they have even thought this far ahead.

1: Send legal Americans to Salvador prisons

2: Said Americans attempt to return

3: "Look at our border crisis!"

4: Fool idiots into thinking that there is now a border crisis, even though it's previously legal Americans in every sense of the word.

5: Blame "liberals"

6: Rinse repeat

[–] gabbath@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Maybe, except nobody ever got out of CECOT.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Trump says that the future of a man resident in the US, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is not up to the US.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/these-barbarians-are-now-in-the-sole-custody-of-el-salvador-trump-official-insists-dad-deported-in-error-is-alive-and-secure-but-potus-says-his-future-not-up-to-us/

Trump also says that the future of Greenland is not up to Greenland but up to US.

What the fuck -- how can the US demand an actual country from a country and not a resident from a country ?

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 24 points 6 days ago

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed this week that the president has discussed this idea privately, too, adding he would only do this “if it’s legal.” [...] Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired immigration law professor at Cornell University, tells Rolling Stone he worries Trump could try to deport citizens anyway, court precedent be damned, given how the administration seems to be “attacking on all fronts and worrying later whether their actions are legal. So unfortunately, it would not surprise me if we saw at least one plane load of incarcerated U.S. citizens being shipped off to El Salvador.”

Oh, at least one

“It’s not like we would send everybody there — but depending on the case, it can be an option,” says one of the people familiar with the matter,

Riiiiight. That's what they said about the deportations, that it would only be the worst, most violent criminals taken into custody and returned home. Instead they're snatching people off the streets and out of their homes, throwing them into vans, moving them around the country so their families, friends and lawyers can't find them, and sending into a death camp that's not under control of US law, without due process and no possibility of return.

[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 21 points 6 days ago

Who could've seen this coming?

[–] Bloomcole@lemm.ee 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

El Salvador shouldn't take immigrants from a banana republic

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Etterra@discuss.online 14 points 6 days ago

The inevitable progression of insane orange logic.

[–] Hikuro93@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If there was an honest to God legal way they'd already have figured it out along with everything else in Project 2025, long before coming into office.

They're trying to find out a better loophole than the last one, which blew up in their face. And trying to find ways to remove the people in the way of said loopholes.

They don’t plan.

Planning would entail following the law, customs, and procedures.

If they just steamroll everyone with bullshit and make it up as they go then everyone else is scrambling to sort out wtf they are doing and figure out what rules were broken.

load more comments
view more: next ›