People Twitter

5268 readers

732 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a tweet or similar
No bullying or international politcs
Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

1307

Nov 5th? Is he planning to blow up parliament? (slrpnk.net)

submitted 2 months ago by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

149 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think you've been reading/watching a bit too much leftist media.

First of all, if you live in one of the 43 states that aren't battleground states, who you vote for will not impact the election at all. That's my point. If you live in one of those states (and statistically speaking, you probably do), you can safely vote for your preferred candidate without any worry about changing the outcome of the election. That is my main point here. Whether Trump or Harris wins the popular vote does not matter, only the Electoral College matters, and unless you think your state has a reasonable chance of flipping (i.e. if it's one of those 7 battleground states), you might as well signal to the major parties your preference. Maybe they'll look at that data for the next election, idk, but voting for one of the two major parties just signals that the choices are acceptable.

If you do live in one of those 7 battleground states, then you probably should vote for one of the two major parties, because every vote there counts.

That's the core of my argument here.

I could go through and show how a lot of Trump's statements have been taken out of context, or give examples of similar statements he made in 2016 and his complete lack of action during his presidency, but at the end of the day, I still think he's an absolutely terrible candidate and is unfit for office. I don't think he's a fascist though, I think he's just a self-centered man-child who craves public attention. He does court fascists though, because he wants them to support him so he wins, but I don't think he actually wants what they want. He's also really old, so he's far more interested in leaving a legacy than taking power for himself. But none of that's relevant because I agree with the underlying message, "DON'T VOTE FOR TRUMP," I just disagree with the reasoning (i.e. name-calling like "fascist" or "Nazi" or whatever). He's certainly dangerous, but not because he wants to subjugate minorities, but because he's largely incompetent.

But don't get distracted by any of that, I agree with the sentiment, I just disagree with the rhetoric. That kind of rhetoric just puts people on the defensive and strengthens their support of Trump, it does absolutely nothing to change anyone's mind.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Who do you consider minorities?

It was labeled as a "Muslim ban" by Trump, his aides,[3][4] as well as his critics,[5][6] and became widely known as such since the ban mostly impacted countries with predominantly Muslim populations.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_travel_ban

Over the course of four years, the Trump administration set an unprecedented pace for executive action on immigration, enacting 472 administrative changes that dismantled and reconstructed many elements of the U.S. immigration system. Humanitarian protections were severely diminished. The U.S.-Mexico border became more closed off. Immigration enforcement appeared more random. And legal immigration became out of reach for many. All of this was accomplished nearly exclusively by the executive branch, with sweeping presidential proclamations and executive orders, departmental policy guidance, and hundreds of small, technical adjustments.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/four-years-change-immigration-trump

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Muslims certainly count, but the goal here wasn't to persecute existing US residents and citizens, but to limit Muslims coming here, and I chalk it up more to FUD surrounding terrorism than a genuine intolerance toward a specific minority. We absolutely have had intolerance in the US, but it doesn't usually look like travel bans, but internment camps (FDR during WW2) and the war on drugs (mostly Reagan, which largely targeted hippies and black people).

And it's important to note that the Muslim travel ban was blocked by the Supreme Court (links to those cases are in the first link you provided), so there absolutely is precedence there for preventing anything like this happening. The executive can still block based on origin country, but not based on religious affiliation.

As for the second link, I'll just leave this quote:

it removed 935,000 noncitizens from the country during Trump’s term in office, compared to 1,160,000 in the prior four years.

As in, Obama's executive branch deported more people than Trump did. I'm not saying this to imply Obama was somehow worse on immigration than Trump, but to show that Trump's impact on immigration was... limited.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And it’s important to note that the Muslim travel ban was blocked by the Supreme Court

Different supreme court, it's now Trump's and extremely corrupt.

but to show that Trump’s impact on immigration was… limited.

You're going to have to explain that a little better. The kids and cages thing especially.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

Different supreme court

Sure, but I would honestly be surprised if even this conservative supreme court overturned that precedent, because it was grounded in first amendment protections, which applies to everyone on American soil and to border control agencies evaluating visas.

kids and cages thing

I'm pretty sure that existed before Obama, but given the state of search engines these days, I don't know if I'm going to be able to find something about it. All Trump did here was revoke some of Obama's EOs, he didn't really change any of the laws, so that nonsense was likely legal and commonplace.

The proper solution here is to pass laws, not EOs, yet nobody seems interested in doing that. And that's a big reason I'm very disappointed in both parties right now, immigration is a major concern of mine (I want more, and the process should be easier), but neither party seems interested in actually solving any problems with it, they just pass some EOs to make it a little better or a little worse.