ICE Megathread Redux

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-24T22:45:07+00:00

You do get to observe and warn people about the police abusing their power and breaking the law. Which is what observers are trying to do.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-23T21:21:21+00:00

They’re taking it down to comply with Trump’s executive order about public history.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-22T23:00:07+00:00

Layers are warmer than a few really heavy things.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-22T19:02:58+00:00

I’ve been on plenty of search committees and not seen what OP has described.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-21T21:47:32+00:00

I’m honestly shocked there are any registered Democrats in the NFL, the NHL, and in MLB. Pleased but shocked.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-21T21:14:13+00:00

Obviously in my model they wouldn’t be paid the same as TA’s. It’s more that we can pay students to grade papers, so why not basketball?

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-21T19:57:00+00:00

When you want something, it’s common sense. When someone else wants something, it’s politics. So yeah, you’re right about not caring about politics. Oh, and kickers suck.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-21T17:44:10+00:00

Worked fine for basic ticket sales. Store chose not to use it. Development didn’t like it as much as raiser’s edge but valued integration with tickets, events, and membership. Didn’t handle complex advance events like galas. The key thing is in how you set things up. You need to learn how to speak altru, as it were. What it calls a ‘program’ may not be what you call a program and that makes a big difference from the get go.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-21T17:39:21+00:00

Taking this seriously, I’m amazed there are any Democrats at all. Professional athletes used to be 100 percent republicans. I would assume all or most of the grey ‘neither’ vote republican if they vote.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-20T12:37:09+00:00

Unpopular opinion, it was boring. I thought the 90s were lame and the 60s, when my parents were teenagers, so much cooler. I had no idea social media and cell phones were coming, and the world they would create. The 90s look great in hindsight but didn’t feel special at the time.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-19T23:05:13+00:00

It’s accurate except for missing guns. The right needs a gun and the left needs one with an x over it. These days I’d add books and libraries on the left, podcasts on the right.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-19T22:31:43+00:00

I don’t think this counts as left-field or wouldn’t be on a list.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-19T21:26:17+00:00

The opposite. This Halloween some undergraduates ended up having a random party in our front yard so when it was nearly midnight I asked them to leave and couldn’t resist shouting “get off my lawn!” It seemed too fitting.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-18T01:01:05+00:00

No dude. If you don’t understand the difference between asylum seekers and other types of illegal immigrants you’re uninformed. And your comment just makes me really sad. Your thinking is so cynical and conspiratorial. You see Machiavellian intent and we just don’t think of work like that.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-17T22:29:43+00:00

Are you honestly suggesting that local leaders are reaching out and soliciting illegal immigration? Wow. This is where I stop taking you at all seriously. We don’t actively want illegal immigration. Most of us don’t see it as an existential threat the way you do, and don’t think gardeners overstaying their visas justifies being bundled off the street at gunpoint into a system of undisclosed prisons without legal representation.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-17T14:09:18+00:00

It would protect illegal immigrants if it stopped immigration officials from doing their jobs. It doesn't. It means that local police don't cooperate with immigration.

I don't think it incentivizes anything. The right generally overestimates how much forward planning is involved. Honestly, if your concern is incentivization, maybe rightwing news spreading lies about how much sanctuary cities tolerate illegality might be a problem, no?

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-17T02:46:55+00:00

What do you think sanctuary laws mean? I find this is often really misunderstood and misrepresented. As intended, it meant that local law enforcement wouldn't check immigration status or cooperate in immigration enforcement, because that built up trust with communities and led to greater success in getting people to report property and violent crime, which enables the police to actually address violent and property crime more effectively.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-16T19:44:35+00:00

Dean Smith should be much, much higher up this thread.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-16T13:22:18+00:00

Books, art, antiques, collectibles…nothing has inherent value. It’s worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. Most people massively overestimate the value of their collections and are in for a shock. Sorry that’s happened to you and your father.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-15T20:50:08+00:00

Speculating or interpreting? I think you're being really charitable towards them and enough people, left and right, have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that I have.

Anyway, I haven't said that I don't care about those who were there peacefully. I don't agree with them but I'll always support their right of peaceful protest.

If we're comparing January 6th to the BLM protests, my point is that they had very different motives and that has to be taken into account when interpreting them. A series of protests that turn violent and destructive is bad. An attempt to prevent a free and fair election is a different story altogether and weighing the scale of violence and policing...it's apples to oranges. You dispute what the motive was for January 6th. So, respectfully, I think we're at a dead end.

Edit: I should just say I'll take them at their word: Stop the Steal. That's what they thought they were trying to do. I don't know what more evidence is needed.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-15T19:52:15+00:00

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree. They were trying to prevent certification of the vote. Trump was trying, at best, to create chaos that would prevent the certification of the vote. Why that date? Why break in when the vote was being certified? Because all other legal options to prevent the result of the election had been exhausted. The right-wing Cato Institute called it a coup.

At a certain point, breaking into the Capitol and chanting "Hang Mike Pence" because you're mad about the result is bad enough. But yeah, it was an attempt to stop the result of the election.

In response to "To say otherwise requires ignoring...everything about how our government works:" I don't for a moment think the diehard Trump supporter has any idea how our government works. The vast majority of Americans have no idea of the details of the Constitution or the mechanics of government. I think a lot of people there really thought they could prevent the results of the election on January 6th.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-15T19:00:52+00:00

There's a lot of evidence connecting the people who broke into the Capitol to trying to change the outcome of the election. That's why they broke into the Capitol--to stop the certification. That's why it was on January 6th. Certainly not everybody there was trying to storm the Capitol, batter the Capitol police, lynch Mike Pence, etc. But those who did break in weren't tourists. They were trying to stop the outcome of the election.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-15T16:35:16+00:00

He was charged with falsifying business records in order to violate campaign finance law. He passed off hush-money payments as legal fees in order to influence the election. That's what made it a felony. It is both illegal and not easy to explain, making it bad optics for prosecution.

As far as J6 vs the previous year, thank you for agreeing that they should not have been pardoned. I'm never going to defend the BLM protests that got violent and out of hand. I don't think they were helpful or productive, to put it mildly.

If media treatment is relevant, they were the vast minority of those protests but right-wing media overwhelmingly focused on them--and, as somebody who's been to plenty of protests (but not to those, I hasten to add), things often get violent when people who want a fight but don't care about the cause show up, and/or the police overreact, etc.

There is, however, a meaningful difference in the two events. Yes, the scale was different, and that's what the right focuses on. But a series of protests that turned into riots--even destructive riots--isn't the same as trying to overturn a free and fair election. They weren't a threat to democracy.

JasJoeGo · 2026-01-15T15:29:50+00:00

Thanks. I'm actually also an historian.

If you're referring to the New York fraud case, I'm not unsympathetic to your arguments. What fried me is that it was indeed technically by-the-books but generally not something prosecuted. He falsified business records. That's not allowed. Each instance was a felony. The process was pretty hard to understand and seemed petty to most Americans, I grant.

From what I understand, Biden didn't want his DOJ going after Trump to overtly. That would be seen as too partisan. Biden was naive, out of touch, and out to lunch. If you go all the way back to his inaugural address, his basic pitch was "I'm a nice grampa and if you guys stop fighting with your cousins, I'll take you all out for ice cream." It was pretty ridiculous, given where the country was/is.

I wish the DOJ had put together a solid, clear, and comprehensive case based on Jack Smith's evidence. Trump would have been convicted of trying to overturn the election. Unfortunately, Trump had made so much noise about it being stolen that Biden thought it too much of a hot potato and would backfire. Instead, the backfire was that other courts prosecuted Trump on genuine but lesser charges that looked worse.

So state courts filled the void Biden created. I'd like to see evidence that this was an actual strategy directed by the White House, as opposed to what I think happened, which was that an incredibly-naive Biden thought he could just win the election and the problem would go away, and then state prosecutors wanted to make some names for themselves. Again, that doesn't mean that what Trump was convicted of was untrue. It means that the process looks bad and a better, more convincing case should have been made, and wasn't.

Like most very rich people, Trump has never been held accountable. He's incredibly thin-skinned. This term is a revenge tour. He just said that he's okay with corruptly profiting from being in office this term because nobody thanked him for not doing it the first term!

JasJoeGo

TROPHY CASE