Hikuro-93

deleted by creator

• Step 1: Claim you want a baby boom.
• Step 2: Step in to remove authority from parents, while replacing them in the ‘education’ of the new generation.
• Step 3: Enjoy elite life with an entire population of modern slaves who don’t know or dream of better.

Vance and co. needs meat for his economic meat grinder when he reaches Trump’s age. Trump, egomaniacal as can be, is doing it “for the greater good”, whatever it may mean for him.

The US’s founding fathers would be proud of how the nation they forcibly took away from the British Empire is being used as a dirty rag against every single democratic value and representation of the individual in a fair society. The very same values which allowed these wannabe kings to rise from peasants who would otherwise have to kneel before the british monarch.

Shameless, to betray the very foundation of the nation that took them and their ancestors in and allowed them to prosper, to be able to enjoy the “american dream” they so want to deny others.

Well, Europe welcomes them, their talents and their research. And it’s a stable place, which in any other circumstance would just be the bare minimum instead of an actual benefit.

Oh shoot. What did Biden do this time? Who’s constantly letting him sneak back into the White House to sign random stuff with the DJT signature?

I mean, every apologist and defender of capitalist apocalyptic hellscapes will have that view, sadly. So long as it makes them an extra buck it’s good for them, consequences to society or environment be damned.

As an European who does advocate and see value in the use of AI, but not at any cost, I’ll take his opinion as a compliment. As they say, “I want AI to do my dishes while I create art, not for me to do the dishes while the AI produces insta-art”.

And eventually if AI gets capitalistically out of hand and leads to many people in service-based economies to poverty and unhappiness we’re sure to see a revolution to restore balance, as many times in history when a few elites made things unbearable for the rest of the population. AI is here to serve humanity, that’s where the value is, not to serve only a select few.

Oh no. If this happens Canada could lose its “shut pornhub down” card. How dare the US take that gun and willingly shoot itself in the foot?

What’s next, they’ll start taxing themselves on Europe’s use of their digital goods and send the money to Europe before they can impose the taxes on their consumers? 47D chess moves here.

My first thought seeing this news was “Why would Trump get such a plane for other future Presidents?”.

Firstly, Trump being Trump would find a way to make the plane personally his, even placing some of those special Rolls Royce-made silent engines he likes so much. Secondly he already has his own Trump Force 1 to compete with the current AF1 - would he really be able to see another president flying around on his lux-plane while he has to return to the “poor-billionaire’s” TF1?

Smells like yet another small sign that he isn’t really planning on leaving. Seems like he’s just getting his own upgraded Trump Force 1 under the guise of presidency, using taxpayer money, to serve him until he dies - not until the end of the term - and spend a heck-a-ton more taxpayer money in operating costs to fund his weekly golf trips.

I hear good things about this Pope, from how he spent a relatively long time in Peru, to how Pope Francis liked him and how both share about the same views on the world.

I must confess I was a bit wary when I heard the new Pope was American, but at least he seems like a good one, thankfully.

That, however, does not erase the very real pressure he’ll face from MAGA, who will undoubtedly try to make him their puppet through whatever means necessary, be it flattery, or even attempts at blackmailing behind closed doors - expect this especially if Vance or Trump rush to visit him now. In their mind he’s surely American before being Pope, ergo he’s expected to bend the knee to them, ergo they surely think they already own the Vatican.

My hopes are up for Pope Leo XIV to show them how wrong they are, and prove the critics of his nationality wrong.

You don’t even need to ask. Donnie has a mouth as big as they can get. 110% guarantee if a single country worth naming “begged”, as he likes to put it, he’d be waving it in our faces like it was the biggest achievement made by mankind.

But yes, do keep asking. He may not admit it, but it helps him know that we don’t forget his lies, and hold him to them. Not only that, the constant pressure wears him down and makes him even sloppier - even admitting in front of cameras he “doesn’t know” if a POTUS must uphold the constitution.

All of it serves as recorded proof for when the reckoning time comes. For him, and the rest of his dear MAGA admin.

You are actually very right. Calling them Republicans is not appropriate or correct, as the Republican movement was founded on a very different set of values and one only has to look at their history to compare the “then” with the “now”.

These are indeed MAGA Nazi’s in the true sense of the name. Just like the original Nazi’s adopted a symbol of peace, the Swastika, and corrupted its meaning, these lowlifes co-opted the republican name and gave it new meaning.

They should absolutely be called what they act as, not what they say they are.

US could do that, sure.

But I bet it’d quickly find out just how much of its power, safety and bravado is due to being located in a geographically safe and isolated area with no real hostile armies trying to end them from the other side of the border.

Just how much of that willingness to fight comes from invading foreign underdeveloped territories across the sea, with little chance for the fight to make its way back to US cities and US civilians.

Easy to start fights from the comfort of a distant home, sending only military lives into the far away battlefield.

Something Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East can’t claim, as they have to contend with potentially bad neighbors due to all sorts of reasons.

Go ahead, poke the bear, FAFO.

If not Nazi, why Sieg Heil-shaped? 🙄

On a completely unrelated topic, just look at Hitler sending his heart out to his people, how heartwarming.

I really wouldn’t, even though it’s not my fight.

Harris was not the answer before, it won’t be now. If the Democrat party still hasn’t reached the obvious conclusion why they lost to such a pitiful opponent as Trump, then America is truly doomed since the only choices are Dumb and Dumber. Or who’s the lesser evil.

There’s a reason why many people did not vote for either party, which ultimately gave Trump the needed edge to win.

Keep the word salads, empty buzzwords and lack of accountability, keep the flashy fanfare, the cheap insults, and the over-the-top celebrity endorsements, keep showing the people how big and wasteful your show is while they starve on food stamps, keep hiding Biden’s mental state while he’s in office, keep underestimating and mocking the other side instead of breaking the cycle and actually leading by example. No wonder Trump simply had to tell the people he’d lower prices and end suffering and people gobbled it up knowing it came from the orange nepo baby fraudster, because they were that much desperate.

Keep showing you’re part of the problem and not the solution, and then wonder why people don’t see an obvious choice as to who is better for them.

Trump is not planning on ending this 2nd mandate, that much is obvious. But if you can get him out by any means it may take, it won’t be that long before another Trump eventually makes its way into power.

Show why you’re better, don’t limit yourself to tell people why the other side sucks. They already know that much, and they’re desperate for something better beyond appearance.

And anyone blindly defending the democrats just because the republicans are worse this time, instead of expecting them to do better, are part of the problem just as much as MAGA.

Right move. He really thinks everyone’s as stupid as he is, or his supporters.

Not that he won’t press the matter further, or even try to do it anyway if he sees the chance.

The only appropriate response to someone who is used to take others by force is a complete rejection and threat of painful consequences, since that’s what savage Neanderthals respond to. Give an inch, he’ll take Mexico whole.

Sigh. Pot call the kettle black. This isn’t reddit, nor is it a community specifically about US news, and it’s also hosted on lemmy.world, y’know, so it still doesn’t justify defaultism even if you tell that to yourself all day and night.

Try as you may, it still doesn’t erase the fact that not everyone commenting on a US post must absolutely be american, especially since these matters indirectly affect way more than the US by itself (and before you jump to conclusions, no, not by my choice or vote, yet I have to face reality others voted for as it is). That’s just hubris, and you’ll have to find a way to accept that while you can disagree with someone, you can’t take their voice away from them. Just like you’re well allowed to come here and whine about any particular sentence that you dislike, ignoring all context, just like you’re completely free to make up any justification to tell yourself you’re right.

Also doesn’t erase the fact that by your own logic you’re as cringe as me and all the people triggered for no reason and twisting my words or using my comment condemning the lack of due process in the article to derail the topic due to their own personal coping issues and lack of reading comprehension.

Cheers, and despite all I do hope you can sort out that frustration and contrarian attitude that got you riled up enough to actually come here and criticize others for doing exactly what you’re doing. Feel free to cringe-rant and double down on “making a big deal” out of what I said if your pride demands it, but know it’ll be in an echo chamber.

Thanks, and apologies as well.

I do not disagree with the original statement, since it essentially reinforces my original point that everyone should get fair treatment.

What I disagree with is with someone taking my words out of context or putting words in my mouth (I.e. saying anyone who breaks the law should be ready to face consequences, regardless of how they feel) and implying they mean something else, such as condoning the seemingly unfair treatment of the people in the article. Which is what the first commenter implied by echoing pretty much my whole point, but in an argumentative and twisted manner:

Nobody should be deported their “legality” shouldn’t matter. Nobody is illegal.

No disagreements with the above statement at face value, but I don’t know why deportation is even part of it since I did not mention it and it has nothing to do with what I said first. That’s just jumping to conclusions for the sake of creating drama where there’s no need for it.

If it’s illegal and all that, yes, they should be held to standard.

But given the fact that this administration likes to slap the word “illegal” on anything they don’t like, was it really? Or is it a boy crying wolf again?

If I had said only the first part of my original comment I could see how someone might arrive to that conclusion, even if there’s an “if” in there, but I did clarify in the next sentence that it’s nearly impossible to deem them criminals since there’s no fair standard to guide it with the current administration.

Disagreeing is one thing, and I don’t mind it as someone who defends everyone’s right to freedom of expression, but twisting/adding words words to something I said to imply something else is just dishonest and contrarian by nature. And between two people who overall agree with each other, no less, which suggests the first commenter was just looking for some place to vent regardless of the subject.

Now the kicker. The first commenter then replies again, further clearing up that they actually meant to have an actually radical stance on the matter, stating:

yes no prisons or police should exist. “lawlessness” is a good thing.

So yes, answering your question of “What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished?”, pretty much this. Which would be considered an extreme stance, even if they’re entitled to it.

Apologies, and thank you for the clarity. I certainly can’t criticize anyone for verbal subtlety being misinterpreted, that’s for sure. Cheers.

Let me be clear, I didn’t say “this type of lawlessness” anywhere. You’re likely refering to:

I don’t agree with authoritarianism, but I won’t defend lawlessness either.

Which is not at all the same statement, and that misquote implies a very different meaning to what I actually said.

What I implied is that IF it’s found that the people in that nightclub were indeed something illegal (and I don’t mean according to Trump, but according to the pre-established constitution), then they should face the consequences stated in the constitution for breaking the law just like anybody else - another thing I never mentioned is “deportation”, or even that they were immigrants, for that matter. It had nothing to do with the people involved and instead intended as a subtle criticism about how “at this moment we can’t be sure of what’s legal and what’s not” because there’s blatant abuse of the justice system, as my further statements in the original post reinforced.

Misquoting me by saying “This type of lawlessness” implies that I already decided they are indeed illegal immigrants, that they do not deserve due process, and that the automatic punishment for that is deportation. Which is the polar opposite of what I believe in and said.

Furthermore, interpreting any neutral statement (which mine wasn’t, as I’m against these discriminatory policies, but people will read it as they want to anyway) as being pro-Trump, not caring for context or semantic nuance, is pretty extreme.

I didn’t buy a Tesla, no. Yet it is not illegal for me because he’s not my president and he has no legal power over me, even if I’m also indirectly affected by his policies. American defaultism is pretty cringe, imho.

Did you buy one? Because if so you unironically contributed to the mess which allowed the richest man to buy his way into presidency.

See? I can also reply nonsense and immature “gotcha” stuff that has nothing to do with what I originally said as well. 🥸

I think you should re-read. I didn’t say due process was “extreme and radical”. You’re reading what you want to read and trying to polarize and derail this discussion, like the other commenter.

Just to state this will be my last reply to this sort of reply, since there’s no discussion to be had with people who had their minds set on blind hate before even entering, which, ironically, is a rather radical stance to have by itself. I know you won’t believe it and try to distort it to suit your internal frutration, but I’m on your side. Cheers.