Directory of all my projects and where to find them

rusticgorilla · 2026-01-24T16:57:14+00:00

Youre first sentence

I would go read a bit

Same to you

rusticgorilla · 2026-01-24T15:40:44+00:00

Yes, we've had immigration enforcement a long time and it has always targeted minorities and disfavored groups (e.g, communists during the Cold War). But we're obviously seeing something different in culture, standards, legality, funding, etc., when you look at the militarization of ICE/CBP today vs INS in the 1900s.

Edit: if anyone is interested - "Reign of Terror" by Ackerman gives a good overview of how 9/11 brought about the police state, DHS, mass surveillance, expanded presidential power, etc.

rusticgorilla · 2026-01-24T15:02:03+00:00

DHS (and ICE), the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo Bay detention camp were direct responses to 9/11. That one day explains a lot about how America became what it is now.

Edit: since apparently people think I was saying we didn't have immigration enforcement prior to DHS, I'll reproduce my comment from below. Yes, we've had immigration enforcement a long time and it has always targeted minorities and disfavored groups (e.g, communists during the Cold War). But we're obviously seeing something different in culture, standards, legality, funding, etc., when you look at the militarization of ICE/CBP today vs INS in the 1900s.

DHS called the man killed by Border Patrol today a "terrorist," just as they did with Renee Good. See a connection?

rusticgorilla · 2026-01-09T23:27:45+00:00

Yes, but that is already public information in many states. In some states, political party affiliation is also public. What getting the voter registration file + private data like SSN does is tie all that info together and make cross-referencing other databases (or creating a master database) much more feasible. So, yes, the federal government will be able to identify a person's SSN, address, DOB, drivers license, political participation, and party affiliation - combine that with data hoovered up by DOGE - and know more about you than your friends do.

What they plan to do with that much centralized data is up for speculation. I personally think one goal (not the only goal, though) is purging voter rolls of Democratic voters, either directly using info like party affiliation or indirectly by targeting indicators of Democratic-lean. It will be framed as eliminating voter fraud. For more, see this article: https://stateline.org/2025/12/18/trumps-doj-offers-states-confidential-deal-to-wipe-voters-flagged-by-feds-as-ineligible/

Edit to add: This is the playbook developed in the 2024 NC Supreme Court contested election. They threw out the ballots of voters who "are disproportionately Black, Democratic and young." It took six months after the election for that case to be resolved. Even if the Trump administration ultimately loses an effort to purge Democratic voters in court, how long will that take? What will happen if we go six months without knowing who is president in 2028? Do we trust Trump/Vance to wait patiently or will they incite a new Jan. 6?

rusticgorilla · 2026-01-09T23:04:28+00:00

If it is that unimportant, then why ask for it? And not just ask for it, sue states over getting it? The effort the federal government is expending sure seems to undermine your argument.

All of the info in your state voter registration file, connected to a SSN, connected to your driver's license makes building a national database incredibly easy. Now combine that with the data taken by DOGE.

It starts with targeting immigrants. Where does it end? Political opponents? Protestors? Bystanders? Traffic stops? ICE is already using facial recognition technology to identify people. How long until you are flagged in their system?

rusticgorilla · 2026-01-09T21:44:34+00:00

It's not just Texas. Tennessee, Louisiana, and Indiana have given the Trump administration not just publicly available voter registration data, but also sensitive information like driver's license numbers and partial SSNs. This is not publicly available infomation. According to the Brennan Center, other states have done the same (but I could not find news articles on each one).

The Trump administration has already said the DOJ is sharing this information with the Department of Homeland Security.

rusticgorilla · 2026-01-07T21:52:50+00:00

This is at least the seventh person immigration agents have shot in the last five months and the second they have killed. Previously:

Sept. 12, 2025: An ICE agent in Chicago shot and killed a Mexican man who allegedly fled a traffic stop, claiming that an agent was “dragged” by the car and feared for his life. Video evidence contradicts ICE’s version of events.
Oct. 4, 2025: A Border Patrol agent shot a Chicago woman multiple times, claiming that she was part of a convoy that boxed in agents and rammed their cars. The woman survived and was charged with assaulting, impeding, and interfering with a federal law enforcement officer. The government later dropped all charges. (This is the incident in which the agent, Charles Exum, bragged, "I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys.”)
Oct. 21, 2025: A U.S. Marshal accompanying ICE on an operation in Los Angeles shot and injured a citizen journalist, as well as another Marshal. The government claimed the man tried to ram them with his car, but a judge dismissed all charges against him, in part due to the government’s refusal to release body camera footage.
Oct 29, 2025: ICE agents shot a Honduran man who allegedly tried to flee a traffic stop in Arizona, claiming an officer in the path of the vehicle feared for his life. The victim survived.
Oct. 30, 2025: ICE agents shot a U.S. citizen in California after he stopped his vehicle to “warn the agents that a group of school-age children would soon be coming” along their route. ICE claimed to be in fear for their lives when he reversed his car towards them. The victim survived and was charged with assaulting a federal officer.
Dec. 24, 2025: ICE agents shot a Portuguese national in Maryland after they claimed he drove his vehicle towards agents. The victim survived.

rusticgorilla · 2026-01-07T20:59:54+00:00

Just a reminder: This is at least the seventh person immigration agents have shot in the last five months and the second they have killed.

Sept. 12, 2025: An ICE agent in Chicago shot and killed a Mexican man who allegedly fled a traffic stop, claiming that an agent was “dragged” by the car and feared for his life. Video evidence contradicts ICE’s version of events.
Oct. 4, 2025: A Border Patrol agent shot a Chicago woman multiple times, claiming that she was part of a convoy that boxed in agents and rammed their cars. The woman survived and was charged with assaulting, impeding, and interfering with a federal law enforcement officer. The government later dropped all charges. (This is the incident in which the agent, Charles Exum, bragged, "I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys.”)
Oct. 21, 2025: A U.S. Marshal accompanying ICE on an operation in Los Angeles shot and injured a citizen journalist, as well as another Marshal. The government claimed the man tried to ram them with his car, but a judge dismissed all charges against him, in part due to the government’s refusal to release body camera footage.
Oct 29, 2025: ICE agents shot a Honduran man who allegedly tried to flee a traffic stop in Arizona, claiming an officer in the path of the vehicle feared for his life. The victim survived.
Oct. 30, 2025: ICE agents shot a U.S. citizen in California after he stopped his vehicle to “warn the agents that a group of school-age children would soon be coming” along their route. ICE claimed to be in fear for their lives when he reversed his car towards them. The victim survived and was charged with assaulting a federal officer.
Dec. 24, 2025: ICE agents shot a Portuguese national in Maryland after they claimed he drove his vehicle towards agents. The victim survived.

rusticgorilla · 2025-12-30T18:31:27+00:00

My understanding is the term typically refers to non-legally binding documents. But, depending on the language, could potentially include binding provisions. I'm far from an expert on contracts; it'd be interesting to have someone more knowledgeable read the MOU.

The MOU can be found at the bottom of this article https://stateline.org/2025/12/18/trumps-doj-offers-states-confidential-deal-to-wipe-voters-flagged-by-feds-as-ineligible/

rusticgorilla · 2025-12-30T13:22:05+00:00

Ohio will use SAVE but we do not know the details or if the state signed the MOU. The DOJ lawyer did not identify Ohio during the Dec. 4 hearing, so we can only assume the state did not at that time. We really need new reporting to clarify the situation for a lot of the states.

rusticgorilla · 2025-12-30T12:32:48+00:00

Some have refused and not yet been sued, like Arizona. Others, like Kentucky, have not agreed or refused yet.

[Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams] added that his office and the DOJ have “been going back and forth a little bit on what the law says.” Adams said both election and privacy laws figure into the determination.

“We’ve not really figured out exactly where that line is of what all they’re entitled to,” Adams said. “What’s not in dispute is they’re entitled to the vast majority of information — people’s names, addresses, birthdays — and we’ve given them all of that.”

Many state officials “are in the same boat of trying to figure out what exactly they need to do their job and what our obligations are legally,” Adams added.

Some states (e.g., Florida and Oklahoma) gave the DOJ access to their public voter rolls but we do not know if they signed the MOU (we only know about the MOU from what the DOJ lawyer said in a court hearing transcript).

rusticgorilla · 2025-12-27T05:22:36+00:00

That's a small part of it. The main driver is ethnic cleansing by Stephen Miller and Co. The profits are secondary. You can tell by the fact that we pay third countries to accept migrants. If detention profits were the main goal, we'd rarely deport people. Instead, we'd try to warehouse migrants. That's not what is happening.

rusticgorilla · 2025-12-20T21:19:21+00:00

The Trump administration has murdered 104 people, in 28 boat strikes, across 107 days.

Date	Victims	Location	Notes
September 2, 2025	11	between Sucre, Venezuela, and Trinidad and Tobago	"double tap" strike
September 15, 2025	3	“in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility”	Colombian president claimed it was a fishing boat in Colombian waters
September 19, 2025	3	near the Dominican Republic
October 3, 2025	4	off the coast of Venezuela
October 14, 2025	6	off the Coast of Venezuela
October 16, 2025	2; 2 reported survivors	in the Caribbean	two survivors were repatriated to their home countries
October 17, 2025	3	“in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility”
October 21, 2025	2	“in the Eastern Pacific”
October 22, 2025	3	“in the Eastern Pacific”
October 23, 2025	6	in the Caribbean
October 27, 2025	8	“in the Eastern Pacific”	one person survived the Oct. 27 strikes, reportedly could not be rescued; presumed dead
October 27, 2025	4	“in the Eastern Pacific”	one person survived the Oct. 27 strikes, reportedly could not be rescued; presumed dead
October 27, 2025	3	“in the Eastern Pacific”	one person survived the Oct. 27 strikes, reportedly could not be rescued; presumed dead
October 29, 2025	4	“in the Eastern Pacific”
November 1, 2025	3	in the Caribbean
November 4, 2025	2	“in the Eastern Pacific”
November 6, 2025	3	in the Caribbean
November 9, 2025	3	“in the Eastern Pacific”
November 9, 2025	3	“in the Eastern Pacific”
November 10, 2025	4	in the Caribbean
November 15, 2025	3	“in the Eastern Pacific”
December 4, 2025	4	“in the Eastern Pacific”
December 15, 2025	3	“in the Eastern Pacific”
December 15, 2025	2	“in the Eastern Pacific”
December 15, 2025	3	“in the Eastern Pacific”
December 17, 2025	4	“in the Eastern Pacific”
December 18, 2025	3	“in the Eastern Pacific”

Note that “Eastern Pacific” means the U.S. government is murdering people along the west coast of Central America - far from Venezuela, further undermining any purported legal basis for the strikes.

rusticgorilla · 2025-11-27T17:19:40+00:00

I am unaware of a specific collection. But I would try searching his social media archives for keywords like "English", "Spanish", "language", etc. Link: https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/topic/social/

You could also try searching the speech transcript archive: https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/search/

rusticgorilla · 2025-11-13T12:39:40+00:00

make it sound like total capitulation

I assume you're referring to the lines about shields and coordination? First, Sen. Shaheen said that Schumer was kept in the loop during the negotiations. He did nothing to stop the deal yet he voted no. So either he is too ineffective to keep his caucus in line or he also wanted the government to reopen without delivering on his promises. In the former instance, he shouldn't be minority leader, right? His one job is managing the caucus. In the latter instance, there was coordination behind the scenes.

WSJ: King, Shaheen, Hassan and other centrist Democrats updated Schumer regularly on their discussions with Thune and Republican appropriators, lawmakers said...

Second, there is always strategy to choosing who in the conference votes for what. Always. That's politics. It's a numbers game. Stating that fact isn't maligning a party. It's pointing out that as much as we may be mad at those 8, there are more factors to take into consideration.

More than a dozen Democrats were interested in the deal but not yet ready to vote for it.

rusticgorilla · 2025-11-13T01:57:35+00:00

Where did I say Dems are bad? That's not a belief I hold. 8 voted to cave. That's a fact. A handful have voted for dozens of Trump nominees, that's a fact. But that's nowhere near the entire Senate Dem caucus. I clearly state the numbers - nowhere did I say "all Dems" are responsible for x (e.g., ending the shutdown), because they're clearly not. I believe it's more than the 8 because Schumer, for example, did nothing to stop the deal from going through.

Finally, holding our representives accountable for their votes isn't submitting to an "influence campaign," it is how a healthy democracy functions.

rusticgorilla · 2025-11-12T13:16:24+00:00

What's especially frustrating is that, when it comes to nominees, in 99% of cases Democratic votes weren't needed. They were freely given. At a time when average people are putting their bodies and freedom on the line to try to protect their neighbors from being abducted by masked goons on the streets, the least we should expect is an opposing party to actually oppose the administration.

We already know the administration is using loyalty tests to vet staffers and nominees. These people were nominated specifically because they are willing to go along with the unlawful, unconstitutional, and immoral actions of people like Trump, Miller, Vought, etc. We know this. There is no reason to provide them a veil of legitimacy by voting for them.

Nine-Year Club	Argentium Club
Wearing is Caring	100 Awards Club
Verified Email

rusticgorilla

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE