The Democrat Party Hates America

[Immanuel Can]

Your understanding of the matter is entirely at odds with precedent set by the Supreme Court.

Well, let's see about that. Here, I quote your own citation.

The Court ruled that while government can forbid non-citizens from entering and can deport legal and illegal aliens, it was unconstitutional for the government to impose punishment without “a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused”[10] under the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process prior to a deprivation of life, liberty or property. As used in the Fifth Amendment, “the term ‘person’…is broad enough to include any and every human being with the jurisdiction of the republic.”

Read the underlined. The Court ruled that government has every right to deport. They only have to engage an additional judicial process if they are also alleging criminal activity that entails "imposing punishment" or "deprivation of...liberty." Deportation itself does not involve either punishment or a restriction on liberty. It's merely a return to one's home country.

[Belinda]

They will engineer elections that guarantee success for the candidates of their choosing.

Each side attempts the same, through differing methods.

Tightening up the regulations to ensure that only authorized citizens vote is a proper and necessary endeavor, in my view.

I certainly could not come up with a good argument in support of relaxing regulations.

"authorised citizens" you say. But they are being deported.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Pastor Niemoller

[Alexis Jacobi]

I find it fascinating that the Lefties always want to complain about "process" things, but not about truth or results. Here's another example: they complain elaborately that government cuts are being done the wrong way...by which, it seems, they're not meaning inefficiently, not unjustly, and not without quite clear justification, but just...impolitely or not-nicely, in some vague sense. And this, they hope to ramp up to some sort of allegation of extremism. But what they do not dare to contest is the important issue: whether or not the graft, inefficiency and outright theft of public funds that has been the rule on Washington was actually going on. The evidence is far too elaborate that it has been, and to the tune of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars.

Here is my own report -- about my own perspectives -- on just about everything the new administration is doing:

I have no idea what, or who, to trust. I read or watch much doom & gloom reporting from tariffs to deportations. But I also read or watch the other side. It is very hard to feel one is getting "accurate information".

This fits in with a time of dramatic change, power-battles, narrative spin, and information warfare.

In my own case my hope is: That the US stabilizes itself as the global hegemon. I follow Meershiemer in holding to a political realism stance. Far better that the US dominates, even if there is injustice and corruption, than China. Put another way it is better for China to be taken down a number of notches. If it does happen that "industry is returned to the US" I am all for it.

It is a simple formula. But it is the one that makes sense (from a perspective of political realism).

Unfortunately, the struggles between the forces of convention (the present power-system) and the more radical Left/Progressive Neo-Communist forces (I regard this faction as real) will not abate. The power struggle within the US will go on. And I do not think that things will settle down (culturally, socially, emotionally).

But a sane position, if also one that does not seek out drama and danger and disaster, is in the hope that things do settle down.

Additionally, I look forward to the day when Donald Trump has reached his 'expire' date and when he is no longer part of the political landscape. I have said that I support a newer Republican Party and (naturally) many of its conservative objectives. I hope that other and far less controversial figures replace him.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your understanding of the matter is entirely at odds with precedent set by the Supreme Court.

Well, let's see about that. Here, I quote your own citation.

The Court ruled that while government can forbid non-citizens from entering and can deport legal and illegal aliens, it was unconstitutional for the government to impose punishment without “a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused”[10] under the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process prior to a deprivation of life, liberty or property. As used in the Fifth Amendment, “the term ‘person’…is broad enough to include any and every human being with the jurisdiction of the republic.”

Read the underlined. The Court ruled that government has every right to deport. They only have to engage an additional judicial process if they are also alleging criminal activity that entails "imposing punishment" or "deprivation of...liberty." Deportation itself does not involve either punishment or a restriction on liberty. It's merely a return to one's home country.

Oh look, when you want to you do read stuff. Now read this from the same blog.... I will of course help you out with some underlining and perhaps a touch of bold text....
Moving back to President Trump’s tweet, it is accurate that undocumented immigrants need not necessarily be afforded “court cases” to argue against deportation. They can fight deportation through civil proceedings, which don’t have the same range of constitutional protections as trials.[13] Still, the deportation officer must provide a deportable non-citizen an opportunity to be heard in a full and fair hearing.[14]

To comport with Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements, a notice to appear at a removal proceeding must provide the nature of the proceeding, the legal authority under which the proceeding is conducted, the acts or conduct alleged to be in violation of the law and the statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.[15] The notice must also be reasonably calculated to reach the alien, as holding a hearing in absentia without reasonable notice would be a due process violation.[16] The alien also has the right to a neutral fact-finder and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his behalf.[17]

The Federal Rules of Evidence don’t apply in an immigration hearing and hearsay is admissible in an immigration proceeding, but evidence must be probative and its admission fundamentally fair. The exclusionary rule, which excludes evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights in a criminal proceeding, also does not apply in this proceeding. However, evidence can be excluded in the case of an “egregious” violation, which occurs when the government deliberately violates the subject’s Fourth Amendment rights.[18]

Thus, despite the President’s tweet, a robust system exists to protect the due process rights of people, even non-citizens, in the United States, and federal courts, under a long line of Supreme Court cases, are tasked with the job of making sure it will always be so.

Read the underlined. The Court ruled that government has every right to deport. The putative deportee has rights to be notified so that they can take up their right to a civil procedure to fight the matter.

This was already information you had though, it was in the Sotomayor concurrence when the supreme court ruled 9 to 0 against the position you are arguing.... "That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with due process of law, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings."

[Immanuel Can]

I find it fascinating that the Lefties always want to complain about "process" things, but not about truth or results. Here's another example: they complain elaborately that government cuts are being done the wrong way...by which, it seems, they're not meaning inefficiently, not unjustly, and not without quite clear justification, but just...impolitely or not-nicely, in some vague sense. And this, they hope to ramp up to some sort of allegation of extremism. But what they do not dare to contest is the important issue: whether or not the graft, inefficiency and outright theft of public funds that has been the rule on Washington was actually going on. The evidence is far too elaborate that it has been, and to the tune of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars.

Here is my own report -- about my own perspectives -- on just about everything the new administration is doing:

I have no idea what, or who, to trust. I read or watch much doom & gloom reporting from tariffs to deportations. But I also read or watch the other side. It is very hard to feel one is getting "accurate information".

Agreed. The mainline press is partisan now, and the internet sources are of variable quality.

This fits in with a time of dramatic change, power-battles, narrative spin, and information warfare.

Decidedly so.

In my own case my hope is: That the US stabilizes itself as the global hegemon. I follow Meershiemer in holding to a political realism stance. Far better that the US dominates, even if there is injustice and corruption, than China. Put another way it is better for China to be taken down a number of notches. If it does happen that "industry is returned to the US" I am all for it.

It is a simple formula. But it is the one that makes sense (from a perspective of political realism).

We agree on that, too.

Unfortunately, the struggles between the forces of convention (the present power-system) and the more radical Left/Progressive Neo-Communist forces (I regard this faction as real) will not abate. The power struggle within the US will go on. And I do not think that things will settle down (culturally, socially, emotionally).

I agree, but with one caution: there is such a thing as "the fallacy of the middle way," which is the error of supposing that the right answer always has to lie between extremes, right in the middle position. This is sometimes the right call, but sometimes not: what, for example, is the "middle way" on genocide or Southern slavery? Not something good, right?

In the present case, I agree with you that there are two extremes. However, the differences are notable, and willingness to debate is one of them. The Left, in general, does not discuss: it shuts down, insults, censors, bullies, silences, deplatforms, stereotypes its enemies, and regards discussion as a form of collusion. A recent example of this has been furnished by Bill Maher's conversation with Trump: Maher (of whom I am no fan) has been criticized, insulted, called a 'traitor' and a 'compromiser' for even having gone to meet with Trump. Maher didn't like everything about Trump, and has been a long-time Trump critic: but this did no save him from being excoriated by the Left for even having had a conversation with "the enemy." How is discourse supposed to develop, though, if you insist on regarding your adversary as so beyond the pale that even to speak to him or listen to him is indicted as evil?

By contrast, you can find multiple cases of Leftists going to rallies on the moderate right, fully expecting to be shut down, insulted, and bullied..and finding that their opponents simply agreed to disagree, but let them talk, and even treated them well. This has produced a "walk-away" movement from the Left, in some cases, because the stereotype of the other side simply did not pan out. It turns out that refusing to discuss isn't a signal of high moral courage, but rather a craven tactic of those who fear their position is vulnerable, or who have been indoctrinated to project Leftist behaviours and motives onto people whose motives are not the same as the Left. You don't find calls for silencing, deplatforming and whatnot on the Right these days; you find a lot of advocacy for open debate and controversy, though.

The reasons for the difference are, of course, ideological: the moderate right and centrists on the left tend to see debate as a means to progress and negotiation, and reason as an ally. The Left sees the political scene as a gnostic struggle of the enlightened against the benighted, in a scene they view as inevitably conflictual, inauthentic, and characterized by Foucaultian or Nietzschean power-grabs, not by a search for truth. So the only way to play the game is to "shut down" the power-grabs (they attribute to) the other side. Content, reason and logic, in this way of thinking, are not neutral tools of thought available to both sides equitably, but rather "artifacts" of "patriarchy," or "whiteness" or "the establishment," or "privilege," tools which they think it's better to drop than to use, especially since the application of such things as reason, logic and debate tend not to end up promoting the ideological agenda of the Left.

Additionally, I look forward to the day when Donald Trump has reached his 'expire' date and when he is no longer part of the political landscape. I have said that I support a newer Republican Party and (naturally) many of its conservative objectives. I hope that other and far less controversial figures replace him.

Well, I'm not in the Trump camp myself, and right now, he's being pretty hard on my country. I hope we can survive it, but there's a real danger we won't. At the same time, in a spirit of fairness, I have to recognize that there are some really outstandingly promising things for America he's at least self-presenting as doing right now, things that just might save his country from ruin, if the time is not too late already.

Cutting the bureaucrats is one of them. If that is not done, countries will simply go bankrupt, due to the graft, incompetence and corruption that is so rife in our governments. The ordinary, hard-working American taxpayer does not deserve to find himself or herself funding people who do nothing, or send their money to absurd causes like free condoms for Gazans, gay theatre in Ireland, or trans-surgeries in Guatemala -- all real examples of what was going on. Americans deserve good roads, clean water, better schools, safer streets, a properly-supplied civil defense, secure borders, better medical systems...THESE are what their tax dollars should be going to. And I hope, for America's sake, that that is what ensues when the cuts to the civil service are complete. But it's definitely needed to happen; and if a DT is what was needed to shock the system into fiscal responsibility, then I'd be glad for that, for the sake of the Americans. I have no desire to see the US go down. The world still needs an America, even if she's in pretty rough shape at the moment.

[Immanuel Can]

...the deportation officer must provide a deportable non-citizen an opportunity to be heard in a full and fair hearing.

What's your evidence that this has not been done?

[FlashDangerpants]

...the deportation officer must provide a deportable non-citizen an opportunity to be heard in a full and fair hearing.

What's your evidence that this has not been done?

Are you serious?

[Belinda]

Your understanding of the matter is entirely at odds with precedent set by the Supreme Court.

Well, let's see about that. Here, I quote your own citation.

The Court ruled that while government can forbid non-citizens from entering and can deport legal and illegal aliens, it was unconstitutional for the government to impose punishment without “a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused”[10] under the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process prior to a deprivation of life, liberty or property. As used in the Fifth Amendment, “the term ‘person’…is broad enough to include any and every human being with the jurisdiction of the republic.”

Read the underlined. The Court ruled that government has every right to deport. They only have to engage an additional judicial process if they are also alleging criminal activity that entails "imposing punishment" or "deprivation of...liberty." Deportation itself does not involve either punishment or a restriction on liberty. It's merely a return to one's home country.

Oh look, when you want to you do read stuff. Now read this from the same blog.... I will of course help you out with some underlining and perhaps a touch of bold text....
Moving back to President Trump’s tweet, it is accurate that undocumented immigrants need not necessarily be afforded “court cases” to argue against deportation. They can fight deportation through civil proceedings, which don’t have the same range of constitutional protections as trials.[13] Still, the deportation officer must provide a deportable non-citizen an opportunity to be heard in a full and fair hearing.[14]

To comport with Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements, a notice to appear at a removal proceeding must provide the nature of the proceeding, the legal authority under which the proceeding is conducted, the acts or conduct alleged to be in violation of the law and the statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.[15] The notice must also be reasonably calculated to reach the alien, as holding a hearing in absentia without reasonable notice would be a due process violation.[16] The alien also has the right to a neutral fact-finder and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his behalf.[17]

The Federal Rules of Evidence don’t apply in an immigration hearing and hearsay is admissible in an immigration proceeding, but evidence must be probative and its admission fundamentally fair. The exclusionary rule, which excludes evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights in a criminal proceeding, also does not apply in this proceeding. However, evidence can be excluded in the case of an “egregious” violation, which occurs when the government deliberately violates the subject’s Fourth Amendment rights.[18]

Thus, despite the President’s tweet, a robust system exists to protect the due process rights of people, even non-citizens, in the United States, and federal courts, under a long line of Supreme Court cases, are tasked with the job of making sure it will always be so.

Read the underlined. The Court ruled that government has every right to deport. The putative deportee has rights to be notified so that they can take up their right to a civil procedure to fight the matter.

This was already information you had though, it was in the Sotomayor concurrence when the supreme court ruled 9 to 0 against the position you are arguing.... "That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with due process of law, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings."

Thanks for that , Flash.

[Gary Childress]

I did that earlier. "Due process" is only useful for people who have some reason why they should be where they are. In order to make an appeal, one has to have some grounds. Exactly what would one's "appeal" sound like, if one has nothing to say?

According to interpretations of the law by US courts, all "persons" are guaranteed the right to due process.

What's the answer to my final question, there?

Imagine you've been picked up as an illegal migrant. You have a right to "due process." Okay. What's your excuse for being in the US, in a gang, selling drugs and prostitutes, killing children and soaking up the Biden benefits. How will you employ "due process" to your aid?

Let's hear the defense you would mount.

See, it's like if you come home, and there's somebody in your house. He's broken a window to get in. He's stealing your stuff, and he's assaulted your wife and children, and made himself comfortable in your easy chair, and is eating food out of your refrigerator. What's his reasonable defense for being there?

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not familiar with immigration law. I just know that everyone has a right to due process. If due process has been denied, then it's in violation of the Constitution. I don't know what that would look like in the particulars.

[Belinda]

I find it fascinating that the Lefties always want to complain about "process" things, but not about truth or results. Here's another example: they complain elaborately that government cuts are being done the wrong way...by which, it seems, they're not meaning inefficiently, not unjustly, and not without quite clear justification, but just...impolitely or not-nicely, in some vague sense. And this, they hope to ramp up to some sort of allegation of extremism. But what they do not dare to contest is the important issue: whether or not the graft, inefficiency and outright theft of public funds that has been the rule on Washington was actually going on. The evidence is far too elaborate that it has been, and to the tune of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars.

Here is my own report -- about my own perspectives -- on just about everything the new administration is doing:

I have no idea what, or who, to trust. I read or watch much doom & gloom reporting from tariffs to deportations. But I also read or watch the other side. It is very hard to feel one is getting "accurate information".

Agreed. The mainline press is partisan now, and the internet sources are of variable quality.

This fits in with a time of dramatic change, power-battles, narrative spin, and information warfare.

Decidedly so.

In my own case my hope is: That the US stabilizes itself as the global hegemon. I follow Meershiemer in holding to a political realism stance. Far better that the US dominates, even if there is injustice and corruption, than China. Put another way it is better for China to be taken down a number of notches. If it does happen that "industry is returned to the US" I am all for it.

It is a simple formula. But it is the one that makes sense (from a perspective of political realism).

We agree on that, too.

Unfortunately, the struggles between the forces of convention (the present power-system) and the more radical Left/Progressive Neo-Communist forces (I regard this faction as real) will not abate. The power struggle within the US will go on. And I do not think that things will settle down (culturally, socially, emotionally).

I agree, but with one caution: there is such a thing as "the fallacy of the middle way," which is the error of supposing that the right answer always has to lie between extremes, right in the middle position. This is sometimes the right call, but sometimes not: what, for example, is the "middle way" on genocide or Southern slavery? Not something good, right?

In the present case, I agree with you that there are two extremes. However, the differences are notable, and willingness to debate is one of them. The Left, in general, does not discuss: it shuts down, insults, censors, bullies, silences, deplatforms, stereotypes its enemies, and regards discussion as a form of collusion. A recent example of this has been furnished by Bill Maher's conversation with Trump: Maher (of whom I am no fan) has been criticized, insulted, called a 'traitor' and a 'compromiser' for even having gone to meet with Trump. Maher didn't like everything about Trump, and has been a long-time Trump critic: but this did no save him from being excoriated by the Left for even having had a conversation with "the enemy." How is discourse supposed to develop, though, if you insist on regarding your adversary as so beyond the pale that even to speak to him or listen to him is indicted as evil?

By contrast, you can find multiple cases of Leftists going to rallies on the moderate right, fully expecting to be shut down, insulted, and bullied..and finding that their opponents simply agreed to disagree, but let them talk, and even treated them well. This has produced a "walk-away" movement from the Left, in some cases, because the stereotype of the other side simply did not pan out. It turns out that refusing to discuss isn't a signal of high moral courage, but rather a craven tactic of those who fear their position is vulnerable, or who have been indoctrinated to project Leftist behaviours and motives onto people whose motives are not the same as the Left. You don't find calls for silencing, deplatforming and whatnot on the Right these days; you find a lot of advocacy for open debate and controversy, though.

The reasons for the difference are, of course, ideological: the moderate right and centrists on the left tend to see debate as a means to progress and negotiation, and reason as an ally. The Left sees the political scene as a gnostic struggle of the enlightened against the benighted, in a scene they view as inevitably conflictual, inauthentic, and characterized by Foucaultian or Nietzschean power-grabs, not by a search for truth. So the only way to play the game is to "shut down" the power-grabs (they attribute to) the other side. Content, reason and logic, in this way of thinking, are not neutral tools of thought available to both sides equitably, but rather "artifacts" of "patriarchy," or "whiteness" or "the establishment," or "privilege," tools which they think it's better to drop than to use, especially since the application of such things as reason, logic and debate tend not to end up promoting the ideological agenda of the Left.

Additionally, I look forward to the day when Donald Trump has reached his 'expire' date and when he is no longer part of the political landscape. I have said that I support a newer Republican Party and (naturally) many of its conservative objectives. I hope that other and far less controversial figures replace him.

Well, I'm not in the Trump camp myself, and right now, he's being pretty hard on my country. I hope we can survive it, but there's a real danger we won't. At the same time, in a spirit of fairness, I have to recognize that there are some really outstandingly promising things for America he's at least self-presenting as doing right now, things that just might save his country from ruin, if the time is not too late already.

Cutting the bureaucrats is one of them. If that is not done, countries will simply go bankrupt, due to the graft, incompetence and corruption that is so rife in our governments. The ordinary, hard-working American taxpayer does not deserve to find himself or herself funding people who do nothing, or send their money to absurd causes like free condoms for Gazans, gay theatre in Ireland, or trans-surgeries in Guatemala -- all real examples of what was going on. Americans deserve good roads, clean water, better schools, safer streets, a properly-supplied civil defense, secure borders, better medical systems...THESE are what their tax dollars should be going to. And I hope, for America's sake, that that is what ensues when the cuts to the civil service are complete. But it's definitely needed to happen; and if a DT is what was needed to shock the system into fiscal responsibility, then I'd be glad for that, for the sake of the Americans. I have no desire to see the US go down. The world still needs an America, even if she's in pretty rough shape at the moment.

Impartial sources don't seek power or money for themselves. Cults do seek power or money for themselves.

[Immanuel Can]

...the deportation officer must provide a deportable non-citizen an opportunity to be heard in a full and fair hearing.

What's your evidence that this has not been done?

Are you serious?

Absolutely. What's your evidence that this has not been done?

[Immanuel Can]

According to interpretations of the law by US courts, all "persons" are guaranteed the right to due process.

What's the answer to my final question, there?

Imagine you've been picked up as an illegal migrant. You have a right to "due process." Okay. What's your excuse for being in the US, in a gang, selling drugs and prostitutes, killing children and soaking up the Biden benefits. How will you employ "due process" to your aid?

Let's hear the defense you would mount.

See, it's like if you come home, and there's somebody in your house. He's broken a window to get in. He's stealing your stuff, and he's assaulted your wife and children, and made himself comfortable in your easy chair, and is eating food out of your refrigerator. What's his reasonable defense for being there?

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not familiar with immigration law. I just know that everyone has a right to due process. If due process has been denied, then it's in violation of the Constitution. I don't know what that would look like in the particulars.

Well, the particulars are where any "violation" would take place. One would have to know those particulars in order to say there was any "violation."

You see, Gary...it's not enough to just hate the present administration. That won't justify an accusation against them if you don't have knowledge that they have done something specific that it is not their right to do, or have failed to do something that it was their duty to do.

Do you know that? Apparently not. So what is your exact quibble with the deportation policy regarding illegal aliens at the present moment?

[Immanuel Can]

Here is my own report -- about my own perspectives -- on just about everything the new administration is doing:

I have no idea what, or who, to trust. I read or watch much doom & gloom reporting from tariffs to deportations. But I also read or watch the other side. It is very hard to feel one is getting "accurate information".

Agreed. The mainline press is partisan now, and the internet sources are of variable quality.

This fits in with a time of dramatic change, power-battles, narrative spin, and information warfare.

Decidedly so.

In my own case my hope is: That the US stabilizes itself as the global hegemon. I follow Meershiemer in holding to a political realism stance. Far better that the US dominates, even if there is injustice and corruption, than China. Put another way it is better for China to be taken down a number of notches. If it does happen that "industry is returned to the US" I am all for it.

It is a simple formula. But it is the one that makes sense (from a perspective of political realism).

We agree on that, too.

Unfortunately, the struggles between the forces of convention (the present power-system) and the more radical Left/Progressive Neo-Communist forces (I regard this faction as real) will not abate. The power struggle within the US will go on. And I do not think that things will settle down (culturally, socially, emotionally).

I agree, but with one caution: there is such a thing as "the fallacy of the middle way," which is the error of supposing that the right answer always has to lie between extremes, right in the middle position. This is sometimes the right call, but sometimes not: what, for example, is the "middle way" on genocide or Southern slavery? Not something good, right?

In the present case, I agree with you that there are two extremes. However, the differences are notable, and willingness to debate is one of them. The Left, in general, does not discuss: it shuts down, insults, censors, bullies, silences, deplatforms, stereotypes its enemies, and regards discussion as a form of collusion. A recent example of this has been furnished by Bill Maher's conversation with Trump: Maher (of whom I am no fan) has been criticized, insulted, called a 'traitor' and a 'compromiser' for even having gone to meet with Trump. Maher didn't like everything about Trump, and has been a long-time Trump critic: but this did no save him from being excoriated by the Left for even having had a conversation with "the enemy." How is discourse supposed to develop, though, if you insist on regarding your adversary as so beyond the pale that even to speak to him or listen to him is indicted as evil?

By contrast, you can find multiple cases of Leftists going to rallies on the moderate right, fully expecting to be shut down, insulted, and bullied..and finding that their opponents simply agreed to disagree, but let them talk, and even treated them well. This has produced a "walk-away" movement from the Left, in some cases, because the stereotype of the other side simply did not pan out. It turns out that refusing to discuss isn't a signal of high moral courage, but rather a craven tactic of those who fear their position is vulnerable, or who have been indoctrinated to project Leftist behaviours and motives onto people whose motives are not the same as the Left. You don't find calls for silencing, deplatforming and whatnot on the Right these days; you find a lot of advocacy for open debate and controversy, though.

The reasons for the difference are, of course, ideological: the moderate right and centrists on the left tend to see debate as a means to progress and negotiation, and reason as an ally. The Left sees the political scene as a gnostic struggle of the enlightened against the benighted, in a scene they view as inevitably conflictual, inauthentic, and characterized by Foucaultian or Nietzschean power-grabs, not by a search for truth. So the only way to play the game is to "shut down" the power-grabs (they attribute to) the other side. Content, reason and logic, in this way of thinking, are not neutral tools of thought available to both sides equitably, but rather "artifacts" of "patriarchy," or "whiteness" or "the establishment," or "privilege," tools which they think it's better to drop than to use, especially since the application of such things as reason, logic and debate tend not to end up promoting the ideological agenda of the Left.

Additionally, I look forward to the day when Donald Trump has reached his 'expire' date and when he is no longer part of the political landscape. I have said that I support a newer Republican Party and (naturally) many of its conservative objectives. I hope that other and far less controversial figures replace him.

Well, I'm not in the Trump camp myself, and right now, he's being pretty hard on my country. I hope we can survive it, but there's a real danger we won't. At the same time, in a spirit of fairness, I have to recognize that there are some really outstandingly promising things for America he's at least self-presenting as doing right now, things that just might save his country from ruin, if the time is not too late already.

Cutting the bureaucrats is one of them. If that is not done, countries will simply go bankrupt, due to the graft, incompetence and corruption that is so rife in our governments. The ordinary, hard-working American taxpayer does not deserve to find himself or herself funding people who do nothing, or send their money to absurd causes like free condoms for Gazans, gay theatre in Ireland, or trans-surgeries in Guatemala -- all real examples of what was going on. Americans deserve good roads, clean water, better schools, safer streets, a properly-supplied civil defense, secure borders, better medical systems...THESE are what their tax dollars should be going to. And I hope, for America's sake, that that is what ensues when the cuts to the civil service are complete. But it's definitely needed to happen; and if a DT is what was needed to shock the system into fiscal responsibility, then I'd be glad for that, for the sake of the Americans. I have no desire to see the US go down. The world still needs an America, even if she's in pretty rough shape at the moment.

Impartial sources don't seek power or money for themselves. Cults do seek power or money for themselves.

Well, the Democrats aren't impartial, and do seek power and money. Are you calling them a cult?

[FlashDangerpants]

What's your evidence that this has not been done?

Are you serious?

Absolutely. What's your evidence that this has not been done?

the Sotomayor concurrence when the supreme court ruled 9 to 0 against the position you are arguing.... "That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with due process of law, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings."

[Belinda]

Agreed. The mainline press is partisan now, and the internet sources are of variable quality.

Decidedly so.

We agree on that, too.

I agree, but with one caution: there is such a thing as "the fallacy of the middle way," which is the error of supposing that the right answer always has to lie between extremes, right in the middle position. This is sometimes the right call, but sometimes not: what, for example, is the "middle way" on genocide or Southern slavery? Not something good, right?

In the present case, I agree with you that there are two extremes. However, the differences are notable, and willingness to debate is one of them. The Left, in general, does not discuss: it shuts down, insults, censors, bullies, silences, deplatforms, stereotypes its enemies, and regards discussion as a form of collusion. A recent example of this has been furnished by Bill Maher's conversation with Trump: Maher (of whom I am no fan) has been criticized, insulted, called a 'traitor' and a 'compromiser' for even having gone to meet with Trump. Maher didn't like everything about Trump, and has been a long-time Trump critic: but this did no save him from being excoriated by the Left for even having had a conversation with "the enemy." How is discourse supposed to develop, though, if you insist on regarding your adversary as so beyond the pale that even to speak to him or listen to him is indicted as evil?

By contrast, you can find multiple cases of Leftists going to rallies on the moderate right, fully expecting to be shut down, insulted, and bullied..and finding that their opponents simply agreed to disagree, but let them talk, and even treated them well. This has produced a "walk-away" movement from the Left, in some cases, because the stereotype of the other side simply did not pan out. It turns out that refusing to discuss isn't a signal of high moral courage, but rather a craven tactic of those who fear their position is vulnerable, or who have been indoctrinated to project Leftist behaviours and motives onto people whose motives are not the same as the Left. You don't find calls for silencing, deplatforming and whatnot on the Right these days; you find a lot of advocacy for open debate and controversy, though.

The reasons for the difference are, of course, ideological: the moderate right and centrists on the left tend to see debate as a means to progress and negotiation, and reason as an ally. The Left sees the political scene as a gnostic struggle of the enlightened against the benighted, in a scene they view as inevitably conflictual, inauthentic, and characterized by Foucaultian or Nietzschean power-grabs, not by a search for truth. So the only way to play the game is to "shut down" the power-grabs (they attribute to) the other side. Content, reason and logic, in this way of thinking, are not neutral tools of thought available to both sides equitably, but rather "artifacts" of "patriarchy," or "whiteness" or "the establishment," or "privilege," tools which they think it's better to drop than to use, especially since the application of such things as reason, logic and debate tend not to end up promoting the ideological agenda of the Left.


Well, I'm not in the Trump camp myself, and right now, he's being pretty hard on my country. I hope we can survive it, but there's a real danger we won't. At the same time, in a spirit of fairness, I have to recognize that there are some really outstandingly promising things for America he's at least self-presenting as doing right now, things that just might save his country from ruin, if the time is not too late already.

Cutting the bureaucrats is one of them. If that is not done, countries will simply go bankrupt, due to the graft, incompetence and corruption that is so rife in our governments. The ordinary, hard-working American taxpayer does not deserve to find himself or herself funding people who do nothing, or send their money to absurd causes like free condoms for Gazans, gay theatre in Ireland, or trans-surgeries in Guatemala -- all real examples of what was going on. Americans deserve good roads, clean water, better schools, safer streets, a properly-supplied civil defense, secure borders, better medical systems...THESE are what their tax dollars should be going to. And I hope, for America's sake, that that is what ensues when the cuts to the civil service are complete. But it's definitely needed to happen; and if a DT is what was needed to shock the system into fiscal responsibility, then I'd be glad for that, for the sake of the Americans. I have no desire to see the US go down. The world still needs an America, even if she's in pretty rough shape at the moment.

Impartial sources don't seek power or money for themselves. Cults do seek power or money for themselves.

Well, the Democrats aren't impartial, and do seek power and money. Are you calling them a cult?

Immanuel, insofar as