Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ tolerance 4 days ago

Am I wrong for suspecting that the policy that colors the current Administration’s tyranny has its roots in those prior (Bush II, Obama)? Were we not warned of the possible consequences when less sensational or consenting news broke back then?

▲kristopolous 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I was certainly talking about exactly this.

Trust me, people thought you were some wild crazy freak.

See here's how it works, watch:

There's going to be concentration camps. The volume of deportation required demands it. There always needs to be two sides agreeing in a deportation, the sending and the receiving. If there's a bottleneck at the receiving or an incompetence in the sending then you warehouse. It's inherent to any logistics.

No that feeling you have that I'm crazy, that's what I'm talking about.

Anyways... See you in a year or so and I'll link back to this.

▲stuartjohnson12 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I normally try to avoid commenting on politics because this account is tied to my identity and therefore my profession and it's generally not advisable to tie those things together.

So it is with no degree of lightness that I say that I agree and this concerns me gravely.

▲potato3732842 4 days ago | parent [-]

The time to be concerned was 10-15yr ago when these tactics were being normalized (if you take issue with the means) and the policies that teed up the current immigration showdown were being figured out (if you take issue with the end).

▲boston_clone 4 days ago | parent [-]

To paraphrase planting trees for shade, the second best time to be concerned is right now.

▲account42 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe the people who have enabled massive illegal immigration should have thought of the consequences.

▲tolerance 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The general consensus in response to this suggests a non-trivial shift in the Overton window in the last 20 years.

How about we rain check...see you in 5–10?

▲h4ck_th3_pl4n3t 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The solution to the warehouse cost problem is pretty easy, you just need to burn them because ashes are more compact, ergo less transportation costs.

You just don't want to realize that this has nothing to do with ethics anymore. It's about control and money.

▲bloomingeek 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Absolutely, we were warned. No one heeded and then came the destruction of the Republican party by the likes of Rush, Newt and Rove who convinced the voting public everyone is evil who doesn't agree with them. Centrist and left leaning voters hoped it would just run it's course and go away, then evangelicals signed up with the Republicans and here we are.

▲EasyMark 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

they've lost all sense of nuance. Everyone is evil if they don't have an R beside their name. It's all about shutting off the brain and trusting the process (of indoctrination)

▲tolerance 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Right, I’ve heard this story before. But what are we attributing to whom we’d otherwise label incompetent or malicious from among the center and left, from among the electorate and the elected?

Or, what absolves them from not being held accountable for not taking heed to these warnings, being passive?

▲anecdatas 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The left was a Cassandra the whole time -- it's been nothing but warnings from the left. The Democrats (note: the Dems are not a left party) refused to listen, assuring everyone it was fine, that we just needed to return to norms and decorum. If we just elected the most proper guy, if we just went a little more rightwards in our policies, all this would be fine.

Meanwhile, the left out there pointing at Obama's extrajudicial killings, Bush's whole post 9/11 fiasco, Clinton's "Superpredators" nonsense, etc. etc. and making tons of noise about how this was all going to end.

Turns out, the left was right, the Dems were wrong. But the Dems are still fighting to try and shut down the left. Look at how hard the Dem establishment hates Mamdani.

▲tolerance 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

My line of questioning could be interpreted as a conflation of the left ("the electorate") with Democrats ("the elected"). Thanks for pointing out that distinction. I think it offers some directive as far as accountability can be considered.

I’m curious to see where the Mamdani Experiment takes you all. His constituents are one group who are for certain no stranger to the armed presence reported elsewhere today. Under pretenses all too familiar.

▲ThrowMeAway1618 4 days ago | parent [-]

>I’m curious to see where the Mamdani Experiment takes you all. His constituents are one group who are for certain no stranger to the armed presence reported elsewhere today. Under pretenses all too familiar.

What are you going on about? Mamdani may or may not be a good mayor for NYC. Ask me in two years.

But he's not some sort of jihadi, Commie pinko. He's a New Yorker who is actually talking about issues that New Yorkers care about.

It certainly helps that his competition are a disgraced serial sexual harasser (Cuomo), a corrupt sitting mayor whose administration (as well as himself) is riddled with corruption and a lack of accountability (Adams) and a clownish jerk whose claim to fame is that he used to ride the subways at night with his gang and beat up whoever they felt like (Sliwa).

Given the competition. is it any wonder that Mamdani is a cinch to win the mayoralty?

And all that has absolutely zero to do with the mud being slung at him. He will be the next mayor of NYC and I look forward to his tenure -- especially since it means the other folks will go away, at least for a few years.

Mamdani may suck at being mayor. I don't know. But it would be difficult for him to be worse than his field of opponents.

And none of that stuff has anything to do with national politics or the DNC.

I say all this as an old white guy of Jewish extraction.

I don't know where you're from or where you live, but you're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too. Yuck!

Edit: I may have, as anecdata (thanks for calling me out, anecdata!) suggested (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45193191 ), misunderstood your post. Upon reflection, I probably should have been more charitable in my reading of it. That said, you're flat wrong about Mamdani's "constituents." He, for the reasons I mentioned above, is supported not just by the minorities being targeted by the Trump administration, but by huge numbers of regular New Yorkers (of all ethnicities and melanin content levels), because he's the best candidate.

I'd add that Mamdani didn't just fly in from an Iranian terrorist training camp to run for mayor. He grew up in NYC, went to NYC public schools and has been an elected member of the New York State Assembly for the past four years.

If I misunderstood your comment as to Mamdani, his constituents (the residents of State Assembly District 36 in Queens), and/or his validity/viability as a mayoral candidate, my apologies.

▲dotnet00 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

They weren't attacking Mamdani, they were saying that it would be interesting how things play out, considering that, being a brown person, he's in the group of people that the RNC would love to toss into a camp before making them disappear.

▲ThrowMeAway1618 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah. I get that now.

It's an interesting, if horrifying thought -- stripping someone of their citizenship because folks don't like his religion and/or level of melanin.

It's disgusting.

I said it already, but I'll say it again -- I have no idea whether or not Mamdani will make a good mayor -- but he's far and away the best candidate in the race.

▲anecdatas 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the person you are responding to was suggesting Mamdani voters were likely the sort of people who are being targeted by the current administration. I think you might be misunderstanding their (admittedly obtuse) post.

▲ThrowMeAway1618 4 days ago | parent [-]

Thanks for pointing that out.

I should have been more charitable in my reading of GP's comment.

I've edited my comment to reflect that.

▲McAlpine5892 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Meanwhile, the left out there pointing at Obama's extrajudicial killings, Bush's whole post 9/11 fiasco, Clinton's "Superpredators" nonsense, etc. etc. and making tons of noise about how this was all going to end.

I had a whole comment written up but, meh. The noisy people are made out to be conspiracy theorists, even when someone like Chomsky brings all the receipts. People want to believe the person they voted for is the "good guy" in a superhero sort of way.

Trump is partly able to do what he does because of these extreme expansion of powers from previous presidents. This is why "but my guy good!!" is among the worst forms of reasoning for justify $bad_thing.

▲anecdatas 4 days ago | parent [-]

> The noisy people are made out to be conspiracy theorists, even when someone like Chomsky brings all the receipts.

Yes. This is what I was saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra

▲McAlpine5892 4 days ago | parent [-]

My bad! Learned a new expression today.

▲Terr_ 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They aren't absolved, but it's pretty normal to put more blame and attention on willful criminals as opposed to neglectful bystanders.

▲AnishLaddha 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

since reagan, actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

John Yoo is probably the most influential lawyer of the 21st century.

▲EasyMark 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the president's power has expanded far too much over the past 30 years. The supreme court and congress are really failing at their jobs.

▲efreak 4 days ago | parent [-]

Closer to 100 years iirc. Didn't presidential power start expanding in the 30s?

▲ 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲cheald 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The use of Stingrays to conduct mass surveillance dates back decades, yes.

▲potato3732842 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>Were we not warned of the possible consequences when less sensational or consenting news broke back then?

People were screeching about this stuff then but they were brushed off by as "conspiracy weirdos" or "yeah they're probably doing it but who cares because it'd be unconstitutional" or "they won't use it on petty criminals" depending upon the exact year and political context you brought it up in.