[RD] Trump in Charge: The MAGA Presidency

[Birdjaguar]

My wife got a offer of $1000 in crypto currency if she would be a "paid sitter" at Trump's parade, but she would have to wear red, white and blue and and a red hat.

 

[Arakhor]

Didn't Trump accuse people at Harris or Biden rallies of being paid actors? It's either chronic projection or shameless hypocrisy.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Watch: Hegseth suggests Pentagon has 'contingency' plans to take Greenland by force​

In a congressional hearing on Thursday, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked if the US needs to be prepared "to take Greenland and Panama by force".

Hegseth avoided directly answering the question but suggested the US has plans for "any contingency".
https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cy0krz2jyw3o

 

[Arakhor]

That one's fair enough, at least, given that we now know that the US had secret war plans for attacking Britain after WWI, I think.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Tell me if I'm wrong: I'm not sure what winning formula exists to try and advance those who largely don't want to integrate into American life...
it could be a very moral thing to do, sure, but not a politically winning one.

Oh, I missed this bit.

I'm not sure what is meant by those who don't want to integrate into American life. I'm going to presume that you refer to protestors waving American flags and, reportedly, attacking ICE agents with cinderblock shards, at least according to LAPD.

Is the protest winning politically? I dunno, I think both sides are damaged in normie eyes. The Trumpist reaction is excessive. Military deployment is, in and of itself, outrageous, and dangerous socially. It is scorned traditionally for very good reasons; it can so easily be a tool of real tyranny. Wise people do know that, and there will be some cumulative effect in time of so many respected voices on the ground whispering concerns that Trump is a little nuts.

Protests, and protestors themselves, though, yeah, they are pretty despised by the normies. There is little sympathy and it would have been entirely losing for Dems had Trump not reacted that way. Progressive activists tend to have binary moral worldviews, and so they don't really care about how their actions are perceived, even if they fail to convince the public of their righteousness and become counterproductive, which yeah, is really damaging.

I think you've probably noticed that. The morality is imperative. I guess the thinking is "if we win the moral argument, the politics will sort itself out eventually". That's been a solid presumption since 1960, because each generation has become progressively more liberal than the last since, but 2024 results now cast doubt that that is still occuring. There's so much historical ideological momentum towards things like protest that realistically, it's not like adaptation can be expected. People are slow learners.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Oh, I missed this bit.

I'm not sure what is meant by those who don't want to integrate into American life. I'm going to presume that you refer to protestors waving American flags and, reportedly, attacking ICE agents with cinderblock shards, at least according to LAPD.

Is the protest winning politically? I dunno, I think both sides are damaged in normie eyes. The Trumpist reaction is excessive. Military deployment is, in and of itself, outrageous, and dangerous socially. It is scorned traditionally for very good reasons; it can so easily be a tool of real tyranny. Wise people do know that, and there will be some cumulative effect in time of so many respected voices on the ground whispering concerns that Trump is a little nuts.

Protests, and protestors themselves, though, yeah, they are pretty despised by the normies. There is little sympathy and it would have been entirely losing for Dems had Trump not reacted that way. Progressive activists tend to have binary moral worldviews, and so they don't really care about how their actions are perceived, even if they fail to convince the public of their righteousness and become counterproductive, which yeah, is really damaging.

I think you've probably noticed that. The morality is imperative. I guess the thinking is "if we win the moral argument, the politics will sort itself out eventually". That's been a solid presumption since 1960, because each generation has become progressively more liberal than the last since, but 2024 results now cast doubt that that is still occuring. There's so much historical ideological momentum towards things like protest that realistically, it's not like adaptation can be expected. People are slow learners.

The long progression you note had a 10 year setback with Reagan and Bush 1 and another reactionary period under W. Liberal moral forces will continue to grow (with setbacks) in influence until democracy collapses into fascism, then it goes underground. Fascism and authoritarianism are the ways one can put a stop to people wanting to help other people just because we are all people.

 

[Arwon]

Christ this is evil rhetoric. Just full elimination foreshadowing some very dark and violent path. Really highlights how facile the focus on tut-tutting the specifics of the opposition is.

 

[Broken_Erika]

US orders 500,000 citizens of four countries to leave​

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were given special permission to come to the US will be told that they must leave the country immediately.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement Thursday that Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans who were previously temporarily shielded from deportation will be emailed notices telling them to go.

The DHS said that more than half a million people from the four countries were allowed to remain in the US for two years under orders issued by former President Joe Biden.

The directive is expected to face legal challenges from opponents of the Trump administration's mass deportation programme.
During his time in office Biden expanded the protection, which is called "humanitarian parole" and dates back to the Cold War, due to conditions in each of the four countries.

The DHS previously said that through the end of November 2024, a total of 531,670 people were granted permission to stay in the US under the programme, and that as a result, illegal crossings from citizens of the four countries had decreased by 98%.

It's unclear exactly how many people will be affected by the new directive, however, as some of the immigrants from those countries may have acquired legal status to remain in the US under other visa programmes.

The Biden administration had said the immigrants, who each required a US-based sponsor, were screened and vetted. However, the Trump administration disagreed.

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin called the Biden-era programme "disastrous" and in a statement said it opened the door for fraudulent claims and crime and it undercut American workers.

The programme became an issue during last year's presidential campaign, particularly when Trump and his allies focused attention on cities like Springfield, Ohio, which in recent years has seen a large influx of Haitian immigrants - many of whom were permitted to stay in the country under the programme.

Trump and others made inflammatory statements about Haitian immigrants eating pets, which were found to be lacking in evidence. However, Trump's running mate, Vice-President JD Vance, defended what he described as "creating a story" to highlight high levels of immigration and what he called "the suffering of the American people."

President Trump cancelled Biden's order on parole with an executive order of his own shortly after he took office in January. In May the Supreme Court upheld his suspension of the humanitarian parole programme while a legal battle continues in lower courts.

The DHS has promised travel assistance and a $1,000 "exit bonus" to migrants without legal permission to be in the US who voluntarily leave the country.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgq7wd7xg2o

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

It's MAGA that does not want to integrate into American life. They hate almost everything about America, from our immigrant heritage and our ethnically and religiously diverse population to our political traditions of divided power and protections for individual rights. And because they hate America they are trying to turn it into the kind of tyranny that the first generation of Americans fought a war to escape.

Absolutely. But cracking down on sanctuary cities who themselves flaunt the law is not that...

I guess you could say the law is dumb so screw it. Fine. Resist it civilly. But it is not some Trump/MAGA concoction; it existed before that.

Oh, I missed this bit.

I'm not sure what is meant by those who don't want to integrate into American life. I'm going to presume that you refer to protestors waving American flags and, reportedly, attacking ICE agents with cinderblock shards, at least according to LAPD.

Is the protest winning politically? I dunno, I think both sides are damaged in normie eyes. The Trumpist reaction is excessive. Military deployment is, in and of itself, outrageous, and dangerous socially. It is scorned traditionally for very good reasons; it can so easily be a tool of real tyranny. Wise people do know that, and there will be some cumulative effect in time of so many respected voices on the ground whispering concerns that Trump is a little nuts.

Protests, and protestors themselves, though, yeah, they are pretty despised by the normies. There is little sympathy and it would have been entirely losing for Dems had Trump not reacted that way. Progressive activists tend to have binary moral worldviews, and so they don't really care about how their actions are perceived, even if they fail to convince the public of their righteousness and become counterproductive, which yeah, is really damaging.

I think you've probably noticed that. The morality is imperative. I guess the thinking is "if we win the moral argument, the politics will sort itself out eventually". That's been a solid presumption since 1960, because each generation has become progressively more liberal than the last since, but 2024 results now cast doubt that that is still occuring. There's so much historical ideological momentum towards things like protest that realistically, it's not like adaptation can be expected. People are slow learners.

I meant illegal immigrants, as in, I'm not sure there's really a drive anymore to make them citizens, even by the Left-wing. As they believe ignoring the root issue (or, to be fairer, not treating it as any sort of problem) is the way to go. I think Pres. Obama's executive action with amnesty ("prosecutorial discretion" when it came to deportations) that was struck down really soiled that effort.
But I'm truly not sure if they're the ones engaged in the behavior being reported. I like to think they are keeping their heads down and not risking exposure.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I meant illegal immigrants, as in, I'm not sure there's really a drive anymore to make them citizens, even by the Left-wing

Immigration is an "oh ****" issue for anyone left of center, yeah.

The bougie left loves it and tends to see borders as morally despicable, and they're joined by liberals who think of it as helping people in need. The actual working class is generally opposed to it and support measures which regulate it, firmly believing it protects the interests of native workers.

Creates a near unwinnable situation. Support a porous border or weak enforcement, and alienate the historical base further. Support strong enforcement and you'll be called all manner of things.

But I'm truly not sure if they're the ones engaged in the behavior being reported. I like to think they are keeping their heads down and not risking exposure.

Have my doubts too.

 

[danjuno]

The bougie left loves it and tends to see borders as morally despicable, and they're joined by liberals who think of it as helping people in need. The actual working class is generally opposed to it and support measures which regulate it, firmly believing it protects the interests of native workers.

 

[Voidwalkin]

On immigration, the white working class is fearful

On June 23rd, Brookings and the Public Religion Research Institute released findings from a new poll highlight views on immigration. In this post, Bill Galston explores the stark differences in opinion between white working class voters and other white voters. The fear among white working class...

www.brookings.edu

Attitudes Toward Immigration: In Black and White

African Americans are often more sympathetic to immigrants - except when it comes to jobs.

www.pewresearch.org

I did not need a poll to tell me that, though. My lived experience, presently working in manufacturing, with extremely diverse coworkers, was enough to inform me.

 

[KMRblue1027]

The white working class that abandoned the Democratic party 60 years ago due to the civil rights act? That white working class? They've always been this way.

 

[Voidwalkin]

The white working class that abandoned the Democratic party 60 years ago due to the civil rights act? That white working class? They've always been this way.

No, they have not been, A, and B, this trend in voting habits is now spreading outside of that demographic.

Regardless, when speaking of the protests specifically, it is noteworthy that the last poll I saw concluded deportation still has the support of a slight majority. I think it can be acknowledged safely that Trump has advantages on immigration.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Creates a near unwinnable situation. Support a porous border or weak enforcement, and alienate the historical base further. Support strong enforcement and you'll be called all manner of things.

This is how you can begin approaching the issue, if you're in politics: "I see no reason why Mexico, Central and Latin America should not fix their economic inequalities motivating these 'push' factors. And instead encourage the fleeing of their poor to the US just to clean house. Where these people can only get by as second-class citizens. So, having an immigration policy which basically doesn't care about this phenomenon is not allowable...People should not have to flee to the US."

This is, to me, not particularly a nationalistic argument. In fact it sounds like the complete opposite. It puts other countries on notice towards their withholding of any progressive agenda, it acknowledges the shadow that illegals aliens here live under, and it validates US laws to try and curtail its continuation. Of course, there's a lot of foreign policy implications to unpack there. But I think it's presentable within a broader agenda.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Trump administration blocked from deploying National Guard to LA​

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's deployment of California's National Guard to Los Angeles and called the move illegal.

The judge's order to return control of the troops to California Governor Gavin Newsom will not go into effect immediately and the administration has filed an appeal.

The state sued President Donald Trump on Monday over his order to deploy the troops without Newsom's consent.

Trump said he was sending the troops - who are typically under the governor's authority - to stop LA from "burning down" in protests against his immigration crackdown. Local authorities have argued they have the situation in hand and do not need troops.

US District Judge Charles Breyer said the question presented by California's request was whether Trump followed the law set by Congress on the deployment of a state's National Guard.

"He did not," the judge wrote in his decision. "His actions were illegal... He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith."

But the judge stayed the order until Friday afternoon to give the Trump administration time to appeal against it. The administration did so almost immediately after the order was issued.

Newsom posted on social media on Thursday afternoon that "the court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets".

The Trump administration has said it took over California's National Guard to restore order and to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as they swept up people in Los Angeles who were believed to be in the country illegally.

Despite Newsom's objections, Trump ordered a total of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to help quell the unrest. Some of the Guard troops are now authorised to detain people until police can arrest them.

A president last deployed the National Guard without a governor's consent more than 50 years ago - during the civil rights era. It is more common for a governor to activate troops to deal with natural disasters and other emergencies, and then ask for federal assistance.

Before a packed courtroom on Thursday, a justice department attorney told Judge Breyer that Newsom did not need to be consulted when Trump issued his order.

"Governor Newsom was fully aware of this order…he objected to it," Attorney Brett Shumate said. "There is one commander-in-chief of the US armed forces."

"No," Judge Breyer, the younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, responded.

"The president isn't the commander -in-chief of the National Guard," he said but added there were times and situations where the president could become the head of the troops.

Breyer, who had donned a light blue bowtie, invoked the Constitution multiple times during the hearing, holding up a booklet copy of the document at one point.

"We're talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is, of course, limited in his authority," he said. "That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.".

The Trump administration used a law that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when a "rebellion" is happening.

But California said in its lawsuit that the protests that have spanned nearly a week in LA - and included more than 300 arrests and the shutting down of a major freeway - did not rise to that level.

"At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years," the lawsuit read.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd62d8jp046o

 

[GenMarshall]

No, they have not been, A, and B, this trend in voting habits is now spreading outside of that demographic.

Regardless, when speaking of the protests specifically, it is noteworthy that the last poll I saw concluded deportation still has the support of a slight majority. I think it can be acknowledged safely that Trump has advantages on immigration.

Just to be clear. Is the poll asking in regards if there’s support for deporting illegal immigrants?

 

[Voidwalkin]

This is how you can begin approaching the issue, if you're in politics: "I see no reason why Mexico, Central and Latin America should not fix their economic inequalities motivating these 'push' factors. And instead encourage the fleeing of their poor to the US just to clean house. Where these people can only get by as second-class citizens. So, having an immigration policy which basically doesn't care about this phenomenon is not allowable...People should not have to flee to the US."

This is, to me, not particularly a nationalistic argument. In fact it sounds like the complete opposite. It puts other countries on notice towards their withholding of any progressive agenda, it acknowledges the shadow that illegals aliens here live under, and it validates US laws to try and curtail its continuation. Of course, there's a lot of foreign policy implications to unpack there. But I think it's presentable within a broader agenda.

I mean, sure, but this is a long-term approach that Harris was supposed to be more or less working towards, and she arguably lost on the immigration issue foremost. Patience required. People are not known to give it. I am personally unsure that you can favor restriction on the left, either. Sanders in 2016 did, and was so beleaguered by other leftists he shifted in 2020, not that it did him any good.

I just cannot honestly fathom any winning move left of center whatsoever for the next few cycles. It belongs to Trump and the right more generally. It is deportation or nothing, get criticized internally if you support it, while demoralizing your most passionate activists, or don't, and alienate an impatient public that is increasingly concerned.

Just to be clear. Is the poll asking in regards if there’s support for deporting illegal immigrants (e.g. the ones who overstayed their visas and/or crossed the border without going through the legal process to become permanent residents or become naturalized citizens)?

Illegals. 54 to 46. The poll referenced is a CBS News poll released on the 9th.

 

[amadeus]

That one's fair enough, at least, given that we now know that the US had secret war plans for attacking Britain after WWI, I think.

War Plan Red!

For context for those unfamiliar: the U.S. had a series of color-coded plans developed as a training exercise. To the best of my knowledge, the plans were developed by junior officers and not considered to be likely actual scenarios.

 

[Samson]

Being armed with mangos does not a revolution make!!

Judge Charles Breyer finds that President Trump exceeded the scope of his authority and violated the 10th Amendment by federalizing the California National Guard and orders him to return control to Governor Newsom.

Spoiler Big image :