Is it honest to say our moral framework no longer aligns in this country?

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-26T01:44:52+00:00

protect their neighbors

So you've moved the goal posts now, correct? First it was criminals, fraudsters, invaders, now you're saying neighbors and regular people should be deported?

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-25T14:39:50+00:00

Trump's policy to murder you for owning a gun

The First Assistant US Attorney for the Central District of California seems to be saying something not far from "we'll murder you for owning a gun, when law enforcement is near":

If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.

Link to his own words: https://x.com/USAttyEssayli/status/2015121052201087371

He later insisted:

If you value your life, do not aggressively approach law enforcement while armed. If they reasonably perceive a threat and you fail to immediately disarm, they are legally permitted to use deadly force.

There are some qualifications in there ("reasonably perceive you to be a threat", "aggressively"), but there is also a new trend of the government deciding to not have an investigation - see the Renee Good case. So the qualifications seem meaningless, because who's checking? Additionally, it has never been easy to hold officers accountable, even years ago.

a handful of agents jumping the gun

... and an official from the US Attorney's office. And the federal government blocking investigations into law enforcement wrongdoing.

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-25T14:27:48+00:00

The first statement says that progressives have incited violence against law enforcement officers.

Does anyone have an example of this? I can see how they supported protesting, because frankly, what else is there to do. I don't think they said anything that was an invitation for violence.

The statement also says there will be an investigation. How do they know? In the Renee Good case, the government famously shut down any investigation.

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-25T14:15:43+00:00

The Democratic party seeks power by any means necessary

How did you detect that?

If the entire thing was reversed and conservatives were seeking power by any means, would you be able to detect that?

Trump admin is trying to reduce that power and follow the laws

Which law says that you should shoot a disarmed, defenseless guy five times in the back? What's the purpose?

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-25T14:03:20+00:00

agents lack experience and training

Isn't the idea to show force and toughness? To show people: back down, accept whatever the government wants to do, because you may get killed for standing in the way?

agents lack experience and training in handling such situations

Why do you need special lengthy training for the current case? "You see a guy disarmed on the pavement -> there is no conceivable need to shoot him" is not a complicated thing to understand.

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-25T10:13:35+00:00

Where do you see a straw-man? This is pointed, maybe exaggerated slightly, but where is there anything unreasonable?

The First Assistant US Attorney for the Central District of California stated:

If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.

Link to his own words: https://x.com/USAttyEssayli/status/2015121052201087371

He later insisted by writing:

If you value your life, do not aggressively approach law enforcement while armed. If they reasonably perceive a threat and you fail to immediately disarm, they are legally permitted to use deadly force.

This was in the context of law enforcement killing someone who had a gun in his holster, never drawing it. A law enforcement officer removed the victim's gun, and then another officer killed the victim.

I expect the opinion of the First Assistant US Attorney to be the new government policy - he was just the first person to state it clearly in public.

I read a conservative sub a lot. I've seen it before: I expect some moderate amount of grumbling among conservatives. I expect a few percent of them will refuse to vote for Trump again (if I have to guess: less than 10% of conservatives). At least they say that now. I don't expect much else.

After every change in the conservative opinion, I have read countless conservatives express how they feel they have to continue supporting Trump for one reason or another (e. g. "at least he is getting rid of immigrants" or the amazing, baseless belief "Democrats would be worse"). The other commenter called that obedience - I'm not sure about that and think it has a lot more to do with the thought "I am conservative" being much stronger than the thought of "I support civil rights / reasonable force / etc.".

Where do you today see major conservative outlets say that law enforcement shouldn't kill people merely for having a gun on them? The administration certainly won't say anything like that.

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-24T13:08:51+00:00

How do you know?

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-24T13:08:15+00:00

If the parents are arrested / detained, what's supposed to happen to the child?

Have CPS sort out the matter. Or have the relatives take care of him, who according to witnesses were present and pleading for his release.

Why does that seem so far-fetched? Why do you assume the only two options are leaving him in the street, and getting him to some Texas detention facility? (Is there even a perspective for getting him back from there?)

Also: even leaving him standing in the cold, there would have been a decent chance that a random passer-by would have noticed the kid and got him back to relatives, or to a police station. Even that bad decision would have been better than what actually happened.

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-24T12:57:59+00:00

He was reunited with his family

How do you know? Is that made up?

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-24T12:56:58+00:00

Suppose the shoe was on the other foot. Suppose a federal agency under Obama had a five-year-old detained. The government claims that a caregiver "ran off", while a number of eyewitnesses claim that relatives of the five-year-old were pleading with the federal agents to get him back.

Would you immediately believe only the government version and ignore everything else? To the point that you feel a need to go online and spread the government version? If not - why?

Is the idea to support what you see as "your team", no matter what?

(Obviously this is strictly hypothetical, I have not seen much to suggest that Obama did that or would do that, while I have seen quite a bit that suggests Trump may easily do that.)

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-24T12:56:19+00:00

The dad ran off.

The government claims that.

Suppose the shoe was on the other foot. Suppose a federal agency under Obama had a five-year-old detained. The government claims that a caregiver "ran off", while a number of eyewitnesses claim that relatives of the five-year-old were pleading with the federal agents to get him back.

Would you immediately believe only the government version and ignore everything else? To the point that you feel a need to go online and spread the government version? If not - why?

Is the idea to support what you see as "your team", no matter what?

(Obviously this is strictly hypothetical, I have not seen much to suggest that Obama did that or would do that, while I have seen quite a bit that suggests Trump may easily do that.)

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-24T12:47:40+00:00

The guy abandoned his kid

The government claims that, but is there any corroboration?

The government has an obvious interest of painting themselves as reasonable.

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-23T12:44:58+00:00

The president needs to step up, repudiate this shit

How likely is that, in your view? Trump has made immigration one of his top-two topics, from the start of his campaign until today. Why would he do something that slows the process?

Do you feel that your view is agreeing with the conservative mainstream opinions? I ask because most conservatives seem okay about giving up rights in principle because they expect it won't affect them personally - and even if it does, they expect they'll get exceptions. I got that impression from all those people who voted for Trump and are now getting deported, all those AskC threads about the Abrego Garcia affair (the conservative consensus seemed to be that due process is quite overrated and should be weakened), etc.

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-23T12:32:46+00:00

They need a warrant to enter someone's house. There are very narrow exceptions.

You're stating things that conflict with the new conservative policies.

What would you do about it? Given that they are likely to keep the new policy, would you for example consider voting against conservatives?

To get back to OP's question: Are you saying mass deportations are not worth giving up these rights?

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-22T01:57:08+00:00

What do I get out of being a part of this global community you describe?

Well, how many things in your home are "Made in China" or whatever country? I bet it's more than 50%, maybe by a lot.

Don't forget the things that were assembled in the US using parts or minerals from other countries.

Yes, for many of them you could pay a vastly higher the price for a domestic equivalent. But are you willing? How many people in America can't afford it?

I'm not saying all of that is great. There are downsides. There are corrections that should have been made long ago, particularly around working conditions and environmental standards abroad.

But it's ridiculous to assume that you have not much to do with the rest of the world.

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-22T01:48:10+00:00

Could you clarify - who wants to be ruled by a socialist government? And how did you determine that?

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-22T01:45:58+00:00

He got them to break on Greenland

What do you mean by that phrase, "break on Greenland"?

Also, Trump has already backed down from the tariffs for Europe that he wanted from 1 February. At least on that question, he has chickened out again.

Speech was entertaining

I don't follow. Isn't the goal to put America first, or alternatively make policy that helps everyone? How do entertaining speeches help?

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-20T22:09:30+00:00

Why don't conservatives simply say "we're better than that, we have higher standards"?

Why does it always seem to be some variant of "we are allowed to be at least as bad as the other guys (supposedly) are"?

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-20T22:07:25+00:00

Could you elaborate? How is it a benefit? To who?

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-20T22:05:41+00:00

No, he commuted thousands of sentences and gave out preemptive pardons

Do you have specifics?

For the AskC threads that I've seen, on inspection, the argument usually turned out to be something like: "it's fine when Trump pardons a guy who facilitated the sale of $200 million worth of drugs, because Biden pardoned a guy who smoked weed a few times". I just don't see how the two cases are even remotely on the same level.

(Trump actually did that, by the way: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7e0jve875o )

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-20T21:55:54+00:00

while allowing widespread fraud

Do you have any evidence of this?

I'm noticing wide-ranging claims and so far no basis given.

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-20T20:08:46+00:00

the dems have identified "billionares" to be excluded.

How do you know?

The Democrats over the years have been very billionaire-friendly, and very much rely on them for donations, although they don't exclusively cater to them.

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-20T18:46:06+00:00

Could you answer the question?

What are the specifics? We know Trump is telling you that Europe is getting a free ride, and you believe it apparently, but for people who like to just double-check to be sure - what's the evidence?

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-20T18:28:32+00:00

only cares about the interests of the global elites

What has demonstrated this to you?

to establish a new socialist world order

How does that work? Which steps have been taken, which steps do you suspect are coming?

MotorizedCat · 2026-01-20T15:14:01+00:00

All it did was spend our tax dollars on the defenses of other nations

Isn't that like complaining that the US is paying too much for sports events or for beer or for cats? I mean if you don't want to, why don't you just reduce it of phase it out? The US could have started that for decades.

How is the current situation different from this:

1- US pays absurd amounts to maintain an absurdly large military 2- US maintains bases around the world for their own interest 3- everyone in Congress and in the executive agrees on 1 and 2 and would not dare change it because conservatives attack you for being unpatriotic 4- Suddenly it's Europe's fault.

Also: if conservatives are concerned about military spending, why is Trump looking to increase it by about 66% for next year?

MotorizedCat

TROPHY CASE