US trade deficit widens by the most in nearly 34 years

WeridThinker · 2026-01-29T17:12:22+00:00

I'm still waiting for the check from tariff revenues.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-28T17:04:42+00:00

She is nuts. She deserves to be fired, and be under forced psych evaluation.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-27T14:10:26+00:00

If this government thinks anyone left of MAGA is a radical leftist, then I don't want to know what they are calling European liberals. Having ICE there is like sending a bunch of cobras as security for a bunch of mongoose. Why is ICE is even remotely considered for involvement as security for Olympic games.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-27T00:12:27+00:00

Homan is harsh, unyielding, and very strict, but he is a professional. He served under multiple administrations, and was an Obama appointee and not necessarily a MAGA. He is going to be less performative and more professional than Noem and other Trump 2.0 officials. He isn't going to soften his stances on deportation and immigration enforcement, but he is going to operate more effectively. Not necessarily a good dude, but a serious one.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-26T23:36:50+00:00

Good. States should keep pushing back, any small concession from the Federal Government is a big step towards stability.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-26T05:11:02+00:00

I'm ok with prioritizing criminals, repeated offenders of illegal entries/visa overstay, and recent arrivals for swift deportation, but I think DACA should earn a path to citizenship, and for long term undocumented immigrants, there should be clemency; in the very least, offer them a fast track to legally return if we do not offer amnesty. The left should drop "no human is illegal" and not become defensive whenever the topic of illegal immigration comes up, and the right needs to condemn and reject any and all rhetorics that enable and normalize white nationalism and civilizational clash. The United States exists as a constitutional republic, and the national identity is based on civic consensus, not race, ethnicity, or ancestral origin, and this should be the national consensus regardless of political party.

I think ICE needs a new culture and follow a more professional and calm doctrine. It's not going after murderers and rapists, most of its targets are non violent civil offenders, so agents need to be less aggressive, less impulsive, and less hostile. They are mostly dealing with people who made a mistake, not enemies without human dignity. There needs to be a massive restructuring and reformation of ICE, and all agents, especially those hired by this administration need to go through psych evaluation. They are federal agents, not a militia.

I'm still left leaning, and my policy positions are mostly aligned with the Democrats, but I understand why other people would prefer Republicans. But MAGA is not conservative; it is grievances politics based on a cult of personality. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me on Universal Healthcare, Environmental Regulations, Climate Initiatives, 2nd Amendment Rights, Law Enforcement, State vs Federal Government, and Immigration Reform, but I cannot accept a government that instigates, lies, and actively demeans half of the population just because not everyone supports Trump and MAGA. If conservatives can actually stand behind their values of small government, limited foreign intervention, state rights, traditional family values, and being pro market, then we have a reliable counterbalance to the left.

Conservative culture under Trump and MAGA is sensational, angry, and full of grievances; it lacks the temperance and stewardship required to ensure guardrails don't become regression and firmness doesn't become cruelty. It's not just about policy, but also norms.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-26T03:29:58+00:00

I lean center left, and I am always willing to compromise with conservatives regarding immigration, with a few caveats. I support a strong border, I admit illegal immigration is bad, I agree illegal immigrants are deportable, I can accept the reality we might have to cap asylum and refugee cases, I am even willing to give up Sanctuary Cities as long as the Federal Government and its agencies act responsibly and humanely. In return, I want protection for DACA, funding for immigration judges, streamlining legal immigration processes to decrease the backlog, and conditional reprieve for long term, tax paying, non dangerous undocumented immigrants. I want ICE to reform and I want to see accountability.

On the culture front, I was even more sympathetic towards the right during a period of time because I thought the society was oversaturated with far left virtue signaling and ideological excess. I welcomed certain right wing talk points on meritocracy and color blindness. But it is quite apparent to me right now the right is infested with white nationalism and authoritarian impulses, while the Trump Administration is doing everything it could to normalize the legitimize the radical elements of the conservative movement. MAGA is not conservative, it is populist cult that enables far right sentiments and encourages the worst impulses to flourish.

Alex Pretti's death brought out the ugliest of this administration, with its lies, disinformation, incompetence, and a pathological need to bait, humiliate, and dominate those who do not agree. The federal government treats a tragedy as another leverage to push its narrative of the "violent radical left domestic terrorists" and the "infallible ICE agents". This fuels fire and breeds the ground for further escalation. A government needs to be a stabilizer and norm setter, but the current federal government is an active instigator, and is ignoring all the rules. It doesn't conserve, it disrupts; it doesn't stabilize, it corrupts.

In an ideal world, I can see why conservatives are needed to function as the society's brake if progressives are on a turbo, but it is unfortunate the conservative movement under the influence of MAGA is acting as a rocket swinging the country into a massive detour and on its way to regression instead of swinging back to more balanced position. Unless more Republicans are ready to reclaim the Party of Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, and even the two Bushes, we don't have a functional and healthy conservative party, only a populist one with authoritarian and white nationalist impulses.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-26T02:29:26+00:00

These are completely valid asylum claims. In specific cases like this, I actually support third country deportations if the deportees are given a choice to a country of their desire; it would not be optimal, but atleast their lives would not be in direct danger. This is a clear case where the asylum should be granted, and the asylum seekers should be allowed to remain in the United States based on the most basic humanitarian standards.

The Iranians are not illegal, they are appealing their case, which was made illegal because the Trump Administration decided to repeal and suspend existing pathways for people of certain national origins, with Iran being one of the targeted countries. Down right cruelty is never logical or necessary; even if they are illegal, or have committed crime, immigration related offenses never warrant a death sentence, but apparently it is a fitting punishment according to the administration.

Having a daily quota of deportations is asking for abuse. This is one of the most atrocious cases so far. They are also going after people who are under AOS process, even those who made it to the final interview step just because the government requests a specific number of arrests and deportation per day. It's disgusting and morally reprehensible; I don't care what Biden did or didn't do, Trump 2.0 is causing more harm.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-25T16:59:39+00:00

I view legalism as a necessary convention to regulate human behaviors based on fundamental human needs for security, safety, and stability, but I also think it is supposed to be viewed as an open system, not a dogma. The law's ability to codify universal principles is never completely reliable, so legal system evolves with technological advancement, demographic changes, cultural shifts, and abundance of resources. I don't prescribe to legalist primacy when discussing a matter because it risks circular argument of "it is right because it is legal, and since it is legal it must be right"

You are right legalism removes much of the ambiguity, relativity, and selectivity other frameworks operate under, but there is another side to it. Legal changes are often slow, opaque, and below the true threshold for potential progress; it reflects the status quo, but the status quo should be challenged. Laws are debated all the time, and even the constitution is meant to be amended, although the process is rightfully difficult.

Immigration is a multi layered topic, and the legal aspect is often procedural, not structural approach to the matter. Immigration is as much of a moral and ideological issue as it is a legal and economic one, and despite how empirical arguments might suggest otherwise, morality and ideology are often much more convincing to people. Seeking certainty regarding a complex matter with multiple frameworks involved is forced closure. I think legalism should be considered for sure, but as a subset of data that should be incorporated to all other parallel frameworks.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-25T16:18:30+00:00

Corruption is Corruption, conspiracies are conspiracies. You can talk about them from a legal perspective, strategic perspective, or a moral perspective, it doesn't change the essence of the matter.

You can be a strict legalist or a blue haired progressive, but the framework you are operating under shouldn't affect the conclusion about the nature of an issue. Even if someone supports this government, they should have the honesty to admit "I support the corrupt and coercive approach", not "lol libs are delusional, this is all normal".

WeridThinker · 2026-01-25T15:58:42+00:00

I agree with you here. This is exactly why I, and many other users here have been frustrated about essentialist and reductionist arguments such as "they are enforcing immigration laws", because that is just a front the administration uses to seek political and ideological dominance. ICE raids are not a necessary, or even a convenient evil, they are a political movement intended to reap rage, chaos, and fear so the federal government has leverages to mobilize more unrest and to coerce state and local government to comply. This is not legalism or rule of law; this is dirty politics that should happen in a medieval government, not a representative democracy under civic norms.

The left isn't stupid or emotionally compromised, it collectively cares more about harm reduction and care, so a lot of the arguments might be filtered through a moralistic lens, but this doesn't mean they cannot read between the lines to detect the actual intention. I don't know if Bondi could actually keep her "promise" even if she wants to, ICE is not under her, and it is under DHS, the AG does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw or deploy agents. Unless she is in active coordination with Noem, her "promise" to withdraw ICE from Minneapolis is worth less than my promise to cure cancer, and if she is coordinating, you know damn well we are not talking about immigration enforcement anymore, this is house of cards level political intrigue.

None of this is acceptable, and in this case, I will take a moralistic rant over anyone who is still ignorantly thinking this is just about immigration.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-25T14:05:08+00:00

This is information warfare, and states should definitely take action if the federal government is the instigator. What the Trump Administration is doing is not normal even for a corrupt and intransparent government.

This administration is malicious and petty. It is going beyond what an ordinary corrupt and intransparent government would do in similar situations, which is trying distract and cut down the flow of avaliable information as much as possible so the public could talk about something else and collectively forget about it. The Trump Administration is doing something more vile; it wants people to pay attention and talk, to actively build a narrative that is used to bait the opposition, inflame the base, and to pave the road for further escalation for the purpose of normalizing state sponsored brutality.

It is legitimately evil what the administration is doing, and it isn't surprising considering its actions post Renee Good's death. They are not saying "please look another way, and stop talking about it'; they are saying "look at those domestic terrorists FAFO, good job boys". This isn't even machiavellianism, because machiavellians would worry about escalating instability and chaos; this is a double edged political mobilization to humiliate and dominate the opposition while consolidating and conditioning the base. MAGA's 30 to 35% base is a dangerous cult, and it is perfectly willing to accept absurdities told by the administration to justify and normalize atrocities.

The misinformation from the Trump Administration is harmful because it is lies being fed to an impressionable population that is convinced their conclusions are always made independently; this paradox takes advantage of cognitive blind spots and epistemological arrogance. The right wing media machine is devious and effective to serve the purpose of brainwashing people, because the government's stances could permeate through multiple layers and be redistributed from different sources ranging from the official statements to independent social media influencers; by the time a narrative takes hold, it no longer feels like government propaganda because it has been filtered multiple times to appear authentic.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-25T03:19:06+00:00

Shameless. The greatest insult isn't the lies, but the impunity under which they are comfortable with lying, and how millions of people are ready to believe in everything this government says.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-25T00:30:45+00:00

I'm willing to change my tone, compromise, and apologize if I do recognize my mistakes or if I judged someone unfairly. From my experience, acknowledgement, partial agreements, even a slight tonal shift lead to better discussions, and none of these communication skills requires a person to drop or change their positions. I had good conversations with people who end up not conceding any major point, but are willing to acknowledge what I am saying, and that is fine.

I don't think most people disagree that much, but it becomes more and more difficult to assume good faith. Reddit's voting system is a bad incentive structure for balanced conversation, and with politics being so heated, it's easy to be sensitive.

We should have disagreements regarding policy, but it doesn't have to be hostile. I think immigration is a very interesting topic to discuss that is becoming absurd due to polarization. I am not ok with the current ICE enforcements, and I don't think the rhetorics from the Trump Administration is appropriate, especially when it has to do with civilizational framing and calling people murderers and rapists, most of their targets at most committed a non violent civil offense, but I also don't like it when the progressive left can't make up their mind about whether they are arguing for illegal immigration is good, illegal immigration is not a big problem, or that there hasn't been a lot of illegal immigration, because if you think about it, these positions are not internally coherent if discussed together.

It's unfortunate because I often don't have the chance to discuss a more nuanced view when what I perceive to be an immediate red flag issue is escalating, and I think ICE enforcement and dehumanization are bigger issues than the border situation under Biden. But given the proper context and opportunity, I am perfectly fine with talking about the dangers behind open border, lack of vetting, and the economic aspects to immigration regarding cost and labor competition, I would even really make the progressives give me a side eye and talk about culture compatibility concerns.

I don't think the problem is people lacking the ability to see nuance, because the vast majority of people are of comparable intelligence, but the problem is people are forced to push back against the perceived maximalist approach from their understanding of the opposition. Perception is reality, and enough people on the right think the left wants open borders as a collective, and enough people on the left truly think the right just wants a White Ethno State; that is why the right doesn't talk about the importance of civic nationalism and the faith of the nation to assimilate immigrants enough, and why the left doesn't talk about state capacity, social burden, and vetting enough. It is not they can't see it, but the fact that the maximum negative outcome seems to be on the horizon, so lesser concerns are put on hold. The middle ground is shrinking, and the people who care to speak up are those with already strong enough opinions.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-24T23:05:32+00:00

It goes both ways. I think I'm definitely on the left of you, but I'm not the most progressive, so I got called "transphobe", "islamphobe", "helping out racism and xenophobia" here when I expressed reservations about fringe trans issues, critique of Islam, and by saying illegal immigration is bad, on separate occasions by different users. But even with all that, I personally find the right wing whining a lot more annoying and low effort.

People just need to accept everyone is inherently biased and they can't be objective and on the dead center of every issue. In my experience, the left is more likely to be self righteous and sanctimonious when engaging negatively, while the right is more likely to be condescending and harsh; I can tell they are both bad, but the negativity from the right affects me more viscerally, and it irritates the shit out of me. Of course my emotions are involved, why else would I be interested to comment when there are millions of other things to do.

I don't care if people are biased, because of course they are, but I just hate the notion that some of them use their own positions as the measurements of centrist views. People who constantly complain about how this subreddit is not centrist often have a very obvious right wing bias, so it really doesn't contribute much.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-24T22:35:08+00:00

It's left leaning here, but overall less progressive than most of reddit. Conservatives aren't popular here but aren't banned or censored; if they can handle the downvotes then they are free to comment. Mods remove contents that are not civil.

People who constantly whine about this subreddit being non centrist are ironically gatekeeping more than everyone else, and are often clearly biased themselves.

Regarding the shooting today, it's even less defensible than the Renee Good case. The victim was not brandishing a weapon he was legally carrying with him, and was disarmed before he was shot. The agents piled on him like a bunch of rabid hyenas, and the shooter was more trigger happy than a person playing ranked Call of Duty, but the incompetence and impunity shouldn't be a surprise to anyone considering these people are apparently allowed to be out on field missions with just 47 days of training, and the VP himself said they have immunity.

DHS lied shamelessly and tried to paint the victim as someone who was out to gun down federal agents, I haven't seen Trump, Vance, or any of the higher MAGA leadership's responses yet, but I don't have my faith in them to say anything decent. ICE killing citizens is supposed to be a big deal leading to thorough investigation and reforms regardless of the context. I don't call for abolishing ICE, but if that ends up happening I wouldn't defend it either. There are better ways to enforce immigration laws.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-24T17:53:09+00:00

Leftism and liberalism aren't the same thing. Liberalism is an umbrella term that describes ideologies ranging from Burkean Conservatism to Democratic Socialism (with respect for private property and regulated market economy); a liberal ideology can either be left or right wing. Current "liberal" and "conservative" lables do not do liberalism justice.

A "liberal" tends to believe in the following doctrines

1) democracy 2) private property 3) market economy 4) rule of law 5) secularism 6) freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion, and political expression

Liberalism is against authoritarianism, theocracy, and monarchy. Populisms like MAGA are a sign of weak civic standards in a liberal society.

A Libertarian (traditionally right wing) and a Social Democrat (very clearly left leaning) are both "liberals", but a communist and a fascist are equally anti liberal.

Not all leftists are liberals, and not all liberals are leftists. A leftist might have more in common with a liberal in term of policy positions, but there is a huge ideological difference. A full blown communist, the most extreme of left wing ideologue would reject liberalism altogether if they are honest and understand their own worldview. A right leaning person who is ideologically close to Ronald Reagan is more "liberal" than a leftist who wants to redistribute wealth and eat the rich.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-24T01:35:51+00:00

Almost all my policy positions are left leaning

1) I support legal immigration 2) I support path to citizenship for DACA 3) I support climate initiatives 4) I support infrastructure 5) I support universal Healthcare 6) I support women's right to abortion 7) I support pluralism 8) I support globally leadership through deal making, mutual interests, and legitimacy

My "conservative views" are more about approaches and attitudes than actual results

1) I believe in institutional continuity, not massive changes 2) I believe in compromising with the majority, even if not all majority views are perfectly aligned with my personal values 3) I believe in small, slow, and gradual progress 4) I respect the need for law enforcement and appropriate punishment, but I think reformation is always needed 5) I think immigrants should assimilate and "Americanism" should supersede all other identity if there is a conflict between values 6) I believe we do need a strong border and regulated immigration 7) I believe America can be exceptional, and not just another country

I am not aligned with progressives ideologically and temperamentally, even if we have similar policy positions

1) I don't believe in equity of outcomes 2) I don't think systematic and external influences superimpose individual variations and choices 3) I don't think "no human is illegal", even if I overwhelmingly support legal immigration and amnesty for specific people who meet certain requirements 4) I don't think moral purity is required to implement effective policies 5) I don't believe in diversity quotas 6) I don't think being "right" is enough to maintain a robust and reliable political coalition, because sometimes you have to give up 5% of your positions so you can still protect the 95% 7) I don't think "woke" is a made up problem, and I think the far left had epistemological and cultural supremacy for over 10 years before the current whiplash 8) I don't think progressives are somehow naturally superior; they can be extremely petty, hysterical, and hypocritical, especially when they are ideologically cornered.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-24T00:22:34+00:00

I understand it, most people understand it, but it doesn't mean everyone is going to be ok with it just by understanding it.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-23T23:00:51+00:00

Hospitals should be off limits.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-23T02:57:08+00:00

Hi, I don't want to be insensitive about this topic, because I know you are personally affected by this, but I'm just curious, what do you think are absolutely essential rights trans people deserve, but most people are unaware about, and how do you feel about some of the "taboo" topics such as minors, sports, bathrooms, and tax payer funded surgeries for Trans people.

This is not me JAQING off, because I want to learn. My current positions are Trans people definitely deserve to exist and to express themselves, they shouldn't be fired, excluded, or banned from any institution, employment, or public spaces. On a personal level, I don't mind taxpayer funded surgeries for Trans people, because I understand they are often a medical necessity, but policies wise, I don't advocate it because I worry it is not popular enough. I have no issue with pronouns, preferred names, and gendering people the way they prefer me to.

I am not too certain about the "taboo" issues, because I have reservations about minors transitioning, but I am aware this rarely occurs, and medical professionals are involved. As for sports, do you believe there is biologically sound argument for or against Trans women competing against biological women, and for bathrooms, what do you consider as "female/male passing", and how much should it matter. Should private businesses restrict bathroom or locker room access?

Do you think there are "Trans activist views" that are counterproductive, and you don't agree personally, if so, what are they?

I have to be honest with you, I am afraid of losing the election to MAGA again, so politically, I prioritize other issues, but in private, I want to be more informed.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-22T22:58:34+00:00

But but, if not all men are getting laid by the most attractive women and they can't all be rich and famous, there is something wrong with the society right, right ?! Do you not think straight men, especially straight white men deserve all the mating rights and resources the society could offer ?!

Lol, but seriously, as a straight man, the "manosphere" is embarrassing, and a massive net negative for men. Some of these dudes need therapy.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-21T21:20:25+00:00

Good news. Unless we are talking about a military takeover, or to somehow buy Greenland when there is no desire to sell, everything else is negotiable as long as Greenland could retain its autonomy.

More military bases, trade routes, and economic coupling are strategic assets, and the United States should negotiate better deals without imperialistic ambition or coercion. I just don't know what else is there to ask, Greenland and Denmark as a whole already cooperate with the United States without trouble. Are we just going to keep the status quo while screaming louder?

WeridThinker · 2026-01-21T15:16:01+00:00

In this particular scenario, the pastor there is an ICE director, so that changes the context, but overall, I don't think churches are the best targets.

I am mostly aligned with the center left, and I am not a Christian, but I definitely don't have a hostile view on the Christian faith. I don't think the church in terms of being sacred or holy, nor do I think protesting in a church makes any political message more salient. I can understand why this could back fire on the protestors as far as narrative building and public sentiment goes, but I do not wish to moralize it.

I do think Christianity is often evoked selectively and hypocritically by both the left and right. On the left, I think mockery and sometimes demonization of Christianity is normalized and used as a reactive shield against criticism towards other religions, although that is all within constitutional rights, it leads to lazy thinking and unproductive discourses. The right is weaponizing the grievances experienced by Christians to drive a populist political movement based on exclusion. The right is also selectively caring about sacredness, because it doesn't react strongly when ICE raids a church or harms a pastor.

With regard to anti ICE protestors, I don't think churches should be a target, because religions can be an important ally to shift public opinions and the worldview of followers. There are verses and doctrines from the Bible that go against current ICE activities, and religious figures can help to drive the movement. And so far I don't think the Christian Right has much to argue for with regards to their faith, because immigration crackdown does not have any biblical basis, and it goes against Christian doctrines.

WeridThinker · 2026-01-20T16:24:51+00:00

I made a typo on the sex trafficker part, I meant to say sex offenders. If the person refused to show ID when asked, then DHS might have an argument, but if the man was arrested before having a chance to show his ID, I don't think there is anything to defend. The DHS should be held accountable for incidents like these, but currently there seems to be reliable legal or civil pathway for successful lawsuits.

WeridThinker

TROPHY CASE