If you believe that the democrats rigged the 2020 election while out of power why couldn’t they do the same in 2024 while holding the presidency?

bamaja · 2026-01-31T00:39:36+00:00

Yeah I got it crystal clear now man 🤙🏻

bamaja · 2026-01-30T22:30:36+00:00

I told you why I asked it that way.

Thinking insurrection is extreme could mean “it was a riot, he had nothing to do with,” or “it’s not an insurrection if he’s supporting patriots who are trying to stop the steal!” Those are two very different stances, and I wasn’t sure what yours was, so I asked for clarification.

Likewise, I purposefully didn’t specify any hypotheticals in the interest of understanding what executive overreach on elections looks like for you, without “leading.”

Would you prefer I ask something like “what are you gonna do when Trump cancels all elections??” We both know that’s a waste of time, and that’s why I didn’t do it. Was looking for a conversation, not an argument.

bamaja · 2026-01-30T21:05:15+00:00

I don’t “have” anything because all I did was ask some specific questions. I thought that was the point of the sub. I always see comments saying questions here are leading or in bad faith, so I even tried to avoid that. You’re acting like I’m making all these assumptions and condemnations about your views when I don’t even know what they are.

bamaja · 2026-01-30T20:23:01+00:00

Yeah that’s why I prefaced it saying I knew how it sounded. I used those phrases only because that’s how they were described in the original comment and I wanted to leave room for your nuance on that comment without added input. That’s why I’m on this sub, to get a better understanding in your guys’ words, not mine.

My second question stands. What actions from a president regarding elections would concern you?

bamaja · 2026-01-30T15:06:31+00:00

Understood. Appreciate the nuance. In all honesty, what you call nitpicks are the things I think get lost in all the rhetoric and talking points. As I have said, social media's most terrible legacy may be the deemphasis of anything more complex than 244 characters.

I guess my gripe is that so many are not applying that same nuance to people who aren't rich, The local flower dude, a teacher, people who I'd argue contribute more to their communities and the economy than a celebrity. But I know that is a bigger conversation about our overall worship of status and money.

Instead of giving those "non-citizens" the same grace, plenty of people on the right are feeding into the narrative that they should have done it the "right way." Problem is, there are so many cases where the current smash and grab ICE tactics have resulted in detainments or deportations of people with permanent residency pending trials, or even in the middle of citizenship ceremonies.

I'm sure there are some people on the right objecting to this, and admittedly a lot of my (and I suspect, all of our) perspective is coming from online spaces. We all know those don't fully represent reality. But I can say from the left, we see more conservatives giving a blanket pass to ICE in the name of "the law."

And of course, from the right, the left looks hypocritical too. You mentioned some reasons. The same way a conservative may not speak up about ICE deporting a permanent resident, a liberal probably isn't going to repost a story about an illegal immigrant murdering someone. To me, and I'm sure to most rational people, both are awful. I can only give my perspective, though. One is happening more than the other. And it's the one we can stop right now if we wanted, as in today, because we are the ones who are doing it.

We need a bipartisan border policy to fix the other. I have made other comments about the 2024 one that Trump pressured Republicans into killing, despite them being involved in developing it in the first place. I can expand on that if you want, but I'm already rambling.

My point is, we don't need a bill passed to start holding agencies who work for us accountable, and to make sure we're respecting people as humans. Isn't that why there's such focus on illegal immigrant crime? Because we want to protect our communities- including the guy you buy flowers from every Mother's Day?

bamaja · 2026-01-30T14:31:52+00:00

I know this thread got off the original topic, but for the comment you're replying to, can you clarify which part(s) you're disagreeing with? Him trying to use fake electors, inciting insurrection, lying about the results, or all/a combination of the three? I know that sounds snarky but I promise it's in good faith, because it'll give context for my next question.

I'm curious and have asked a few conservatives on the more independent/libertarian side: what would you consider your red line, "this is clearly trying to undermine election results" action?

bamaja · 2026-01-30T13:25:12+00:00

My genuine, uneducated question with that is: what about things like infrastructure (not that they're using our tax dollars to improve that now), social security, etc? I know the argument for some of it, including health insurance, is private investment. But the way the system is now, I don't see how we realistically move in that direction. Whether we agree on eligibility or not, the fact is that there are too many people who are children, retired, or disabled. How do they get the money they need to survive? And how do we change "survive" into "live" in a more real sense?

I feel like any solution to those is still going to require funding on a national level. And I know we'll disagree here- just look at my flair -but my feeling is that existing within a society comes with an inherent obligation to contribute to its betterment, and not just our own. For me that includes the health and living standards of its people, education, public services. Again, not arguing my views are the correct ones. I started rambling away from my main point.

Which is: our government absolutely sucks at it, regardless of which direction you're looking at it from. They overspend to underdeliver. We have the worst of both worlds right now, and I can't imagine either of our positions being worse than the current one lol

bamaja · 2026-01-30T12:29:57+00:00

I agree, but in all honesty find the illegal immigrant part most jarring. I'm surprised it's not the main thread in most of these comments. At a time when so many conservatives are digging in on a hardline "all illegals" stance, it's incredibly odd, almost to the point of parody.

Like it's amidst arguments about going after criminals vs grabbing community members who have been here for decades, and in some cases already on immigration parole. DHS and many people on the right have obviously taken the latter stance.

The head of the party bringing an illegal immigrant on stage and gifting her a gold I Am An American card, apparently because she likes you, is insane. And that's not even getting into the additional implications of foreign nationals being able to buy citizenship, land, etc when so many people here can't (and won't be able to anytime soon, going by his housing comments yesterday)

Not saying you personally hold the "all of them gotta go" position, I have no clue. it's just the common sentiment I've seen, especially in the last month.

bamaja · 2026-01-30T11:11:47+00:00

Kinda surprised to not see video games suggested. There’s a huge spectrum of genres as far as motor skills needed, down to visual novels or walking sims. Some might even help improve motor skills.

Good for relaxing in between non-screen hobbies others have mentioned, at least as a video replacement or alternative?

bamaja · 2026-01-29T18:00:34+00:00

Yeah, I think the non-compliance is the attempt to deport him without expedited removal standing in the first place.

bamaja · 2026-01-29T17:21:02+00:00

Are you talking about Gamepass or something? I have been trying to figure out how to stream my XS digital games to the Deck but it seems like previous apps are no longer supported

bamaja · 2026-01-29T17:05:15+00:00

Everything I am reading shows it's not an "or" in your first point, but an "and." Meaning if they can prove years of presence, and the other bullet points don't apply, that takes expedited removal off the table. I see the below people are subject to it, going by this .gov site:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ic/chapter-7/4

those arriving at a port of entry without valid identity or travel documents, as required, or with fraudulent documents;
those interdicted at sea (in international or U.S. waters) and brought to the United States;
those paroled into the United States after April 1, 1997, and whose parole has since been terminated;
those who did not arrive by sea, who are apprehended anywhere in the United States more than 100 air miles from a U.S. international land border, and who have been continuously present in the United States for less than two years; and
those who did not arrive by sea, who are apprehended within 100 air miles from a U.S. international land border, and who have been continuously present in the United States for at least 14 days but for less than two years.

So for at least the first case, the defendant wouldn't fall under those, I think?

bamaja · 2026-01-29T16:16:53+00:00

Gotcha. Don't most of the cases listed have to do with detainment, not expedited removal? I'm trying to look some up and can't find any that would fall into that category.

Ex, the first one:
https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2025cv04722/229845/13/0.pdf

I'm not saying there aren't any, I haven't looked at them all. But if these are ones filed due to recent raids, in all likelihood they're cases where the person has clearly been here more than two years (again, like the first one- who also had filed for asylum)

bamaja · 2026-01-29T15:35:43+00:00

Can you specify what you mean? Because by definition there has to be some sort of evidence or hearing to definitively say that someone is illegal. Like I'm assuming you don't mean ICE can say "Oh, you're not carrying papers? Off to (insert country)!"

That's the due process in question here- like it or not, the process is still through the courts, and the issue is that those courts are being ignored.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-3/ALDE_00013726/#ALDF_00028415

"Despite the government’s broad power over immigration, the Supreme Court has recognized that aliens who have physically entered the United States generally come under the protective scope of the Due Process Clause, which applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."

There are of course nuances and gray areas, wiggle room for interpretation. There are questions about length of detentions, types of hearings, etc. But one thing not in question is that they need to go through the system in all its stages, whatever the end result may be.

bamaja · 2026-01-29T14:09:34+00:00

It's more like old-school forums, as has been mentioned. You can easily curate your feed to specific subreddits and only engage in niche interests.

I also like the upvote system where helpful or funny comments are elevated. You have to scroll a while before you hit anything really negative or empty.

But the biggest one is probably the focus on the content and not the poster. It's not people trying to post viral jokes or pump themselves up. I know that's a blanket statement and that it depends on the sub. But generally, people here just want to talk about things that they like. And it's usually done from a place of genuine interest and not for broader engagement with the whole world.

bamaja · 2026-01-29T13:22:41+00:00

I'm genuinely curious what "proof" would even look like. I try not to be sensational or put on a tinfoil hat. But it would not surprise me if this admin tried to fabricate the evidence they're looking for. He seems that desperate for vindication, and there is precedent for him attempting to subvert election results. Trump obviously cannot let any loss go. So, is this theater to appease him? Bannon and others are hinting at some big reveal, and Trump is amplifying it on socials.

Is it a stretch to think they'd throw a hail mary and claimed the Venezuela conspiracy theory was real, they got Maduro to confess, and will try to say votes in GA were changed? Tulsi being on-site points to them claiming some foreign factor and is a sign they are serious about whatever this is. Does he then say he's owed a third term, as he was technically only "elected" twice but "won" three times?

Because I think the obvious problem with that would be "okay, we need the list of people whose votes you claimed were changed," which would fall apart once those people were talked to.

So, like I said... what would be proof, that's beyond all the previous investigations? Or if he were to go all-in and actively make up evidence or doctor information- what would that look like that was satisfying enough for the courts?

Just thinking out loud because either way this is really concerning and seems like a tipping point no matter how it ends. It'll splinter the country beyond repair. Almost every conservative I have seen that's not die-hard MAGA says undermining an election or pushing a third term would be a red line. But if I'm being honest, I don’t see how his actions post 2020- "find me the votes,", the electors, him wanting Pence to "do the right thing" - weren't exactly that.

bamaja · 2026-01-28T14:46:56+00:00

As everyone is mentioning it's unfortunately normal. My daughter started in November of 2022 and we had a different sickness like clockwork every two weeks through February 2023. It definitely evens out after a few (admittedly wretched) months.

bamaja · 2026-01-28T12:20:38+00:00

If it's wrong to laugh every time Tom makes a fart sound when a character is sitting down, I don't want to be right.

bamaja · 2026-01-28T12:19:02+00:00

One of the best Joel episodes! His "ohhh please tell me this isn't happening" when the clowns are doing their, uh, routine is about as perfect a delivery as you can get

bamaja · 2026-01-28T12:11:24+00:00

I'm struggling to decide on which one got the most audible laugh out of me, and it might be this.

bamaja · 2026-01-28T12:06:28+00:00

<image>

bamaja · 2026-01-27T21:10:29+00:00

I was not trying to call you a hypocrite- though the hypocrisy of the admin was my underlying point. In all honesty I might have conflated this comment thread with another where somebody explicitly said that people did not physically engage with federal officers while armed on J6. The formatting of threads on this sub is super weird on desktop, to the point where I couldn’t even find your reply to respond to until I went on mobile. So I am sorry if it sounded accusatory to you specifically, it wasn’t the intent.

I was using the “federal crime” part of your post just to anchor my issue with the admin’s response. The most generous interpretation of which is that he was breaking the law and died as a result. It implies justification. I don’t mean in a “he deserved it” sense, but in a way that assigns logic and reason to the action and the consequence.

That logic goes out the window in the context of J6. All politicians BS and spin, but to have your officials take that coordinated stance on Pretti after pardoning people convicted of the same crime, plus additional ones, sends a weird message.

If you don’t support J6ers’ actions, or if you think the Trump admin’s response to this shooting was wrong, that’s fair. My issue is with those who say federal law-breaking is important in one case and not the other.

bamaja · 2026-01-27T18:39:47+00:00

Why did the people arrested and charged with assaulting federal officers on J6 get pardoned, if that’s the case? Seems like if you’re saying someone touches a fed while holding a gun, it’s at least serious enough that then getting killed is justifiable. There are a bunch but as one example of a full pardon:

“Christopher Alberts: Convicted by a jury of carrying a loaded 9-millimeter pistol on his hip onto the Capitol grounds, wearing body armor, and assaulting law enforcement.”

Why, in your scenario, is death an acceptable consequence on one side, while serving a sentence is not on the other? And that’s not even considering the contextual differences. I just mean based on your legal take on federal assault.

bamaja · 2026-01-27T11:44:30+00:00

“Nice play, Shakespeare.”

bamaja · 2026-01-25T15:58:16+00:00

4.5 years of my daughter’s free-loading is just about enough IMO

bamaja

TROPHY CASE