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. 🥸

Is it violence only when there’s a bullet fired, a knife stabbing or an explosive collision?

There are plenty of ways to inflict violence on another just by way of policy and letting extremists have their way with no constraints.

Would you say the millions upon millions of people who died under Hitler’s policies aren’t comparable to the “lots of real people” of 9/11 just because it wasn’t Hitler himself firing all the bullets and setting off all the gas chambers? All violence can be traced back from the direct perpetrator to the one who gave the order, and both are accountable for it.

Is it violence only when there’s a bullet fired, a knife stabbing or an explosive collision?

There are plenty of ways to inflict violence on another just by way of policy and letting extremists have their way with no constraints.

Would you say the millions upon millions of people who died under Hitler’s policies aren’t comparable to the “lots of real people” of 9/11 just because it wasn’t Hitler himself firing all the bullets and setting off all the gas chambers? All violence can be traced back from the direct perpetrator to the one who gave the order, and both are accountable for it.

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.

I wouldn’t call them “left stances” per say, as it’s something the right also tends to do. Especially when comparing it to the current administration, which despite expecting it to be bad, I certainly didn’t expect it to be this unprecedentally bad.

What I mean, mostly, is that if “you” want people to stand by you showing why the other side sucks isn’t nearly enough. The people already know the other side sucks - they want something better, not more of the same but with a different coat of paint. Unless you can convince the people you are better than the other options, badmouthing the opposition won’t do much to people who’ve seen this play out a thousand times before.

Why was Trump elected (and note, I’m not entirely convince he actually was, but that’s another whole discussion)? Biden wasn’t doing anything nearly as outlandish as this administration is doing, but they were still concealing Biden’s mental state when it was obvious to most. Harris made sure to make her campaign pure spectacle and fanfare through celebrities and huge amounts of spending, focusing way more on appearance than on substance, while the people craved better living conditions overall. And regardless of the obvious answer, what did Trump run his campaign on? Precisely what the people were desperate to hear, even if they knew coming from him it might be bs (which everyone sees it actually was all along).

This is not just a political issue, but a cultural one as well. People don’t vote for policies, they vote for colors, for their preferred celebrities, and for whoever can throw the flashiest party - and on that regard allow me a bit of hippocrisy, as in my country it’s not that different, even if we do have more parties to choose from (I.e., what I’m saying isn’t valid just for the US, but for many more so-called democratic nations, which irks me to the bone). In practical terms there isn’t even any other option available because people won’t even consider them. And on that department as long as mentalities don’t change, neither will the system. And after years of this tug war by both sides pulling to themselves while badmouthing the other, one of them decided it was time to solve this impasse once and for all, by any means necessary.

The current administration, even if Trump kicks the bucket midway, is clearly not planning to leave unless forced through sweat and blood. Otherwise they wouldn’t go to so much trouble and not care about their unpopularity when someone else can just come later and undo everything they did. Of course the problem runs deeper than this already long text, but if discussed at lenght this would make a book.

Who said they should be deported? And if they are indeed commiting an illegal act under the written law, why shouldn’t they be subject to any consequences for breaking said law?

I don’t agree with authoritarianism, but I won’t defend lawlessness either. These extreme and radical stances from either party are why the US is where it currently is.

I cast my doubt over the the very foundation of the act of imprisoning these people, not if they’re innocent or not. Because without due process everyone is guilty until proven otherwise - and even then not really. I think you missed my entire point.

Of course experiences differ from person to person, culture to culture, and between different circumstances. But in my experience…

• Have a brother-in-law who married my SO’s older sister many years before we even met. Had 3 children together. Out of nowhere he decided to run away and live with another woman, then got back, decided “people felt different” and left again, only to again try to return and be denied by my sister-in-law. They were the favorites of my mother-in-law until the separation.

• Have another BIL, married my SO’s younger sister. 2 kids together, just months ago he threatened to leave to a younger woman (a friend of his younger sister). He was the only one to sympathize and side with the first BIL, guess why. Might still run away, because he clearly is only there for convenience.

• Me and my SO, not married, 13 years together through thick and thin, we never saw any real point to it since we always built our relationship based in trust and mutual understanding. Still going strong and any time we have issues we face them together. Now my MIL tends to favor us over the other ‘couples’, now “marriage doesn’t guarantee anything after all”, not that I personally care about that.

The point being. Marry if you want, but never feel forced to do it. If you need a fancy piece of paper by the government or religion to stay together then it’s nothing more than a self-imposed cage, and it’s far from a guarantee against infidelity.

You only have this one single life. Live happily, don’t try to please everyone against your own happiness. Everyone will still be unpleased, and you’ll only get increasingly miserable.

At the moment the portuguese defense minister won’t rule out a cyber attack, and the task force created to investigate it says it seems like the problem originated outside Portugal.

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?

I didn’t ask for “plastic toy pizza”, just an actual edible pizza.

It’s so perfectly fake. To the point it becomes really obvious.

Yeah, but as I said in another post on the day of the meeting, this scenario was pretty predictable and that’s just this week’s statement. After you talk to Putin or your cheerleaders of chaos you’ll then condemn Zelensky and Ukraine again.

Not a single own thought, only “who last talked to Donnie”. And Zelensky, Macron, Starmer and others have the disadvantage there since they don’t live on the White House or have a special hotline straight to the Oval Office like Putin does.

Meanwhile an unnamed soldier on the battlefield doesn’t know if he’s gonna live or die today, not knowing his life is subject to the whims of a childish leader who can’t handle global-scale power.

A POTUS, arguably the most influential seat on the planet who can make Russia back the fuck off by default, occupied by an empty shell of a puppet who doesn’t have a mind of his own, who needs to be told what to think.

Just wait for ‘cooked’, ‘unalived’, ‘cap’, ‘low-key’ and so on to enter the chat.

“Just in, the top dog of wherever-istan got unalived by the opposition, some say it’s cap, others want to let them cook. Some say stability might be low-key burned. Follow us for more rad news!”

Sleepy Don.

Hope Biden took the chance to take a selfie next to sleeping beauty with #whossleepynow.

Best thing for Zelensky is really meeting Trump one on one, without his chaotic advisors dissuading and adding fuel to the fire.

Trump is a coward at heart, he’ll be less likely to throw tantrums and play the “big man” act without his cheerleaders around. Plus, meeting on neutral ground is also great, since the worst place to meet a bully is in his own home, where he feels safe and calls the shots.

Still, not that it matters much in the end. Even if Zelensky convinced Trump of anything through stroking his ego, his cheerleaders will talk him right out of it as soon as he leaves the Vatican. Or Putin, after a quick call. That’s how fickle he is.

Trump and co. completely jelly in the corner.

deleted by creator

Luigi is just a symptom of a larger disease - unchecked greed and corruption.

Time and time again, throughout history, the corrupt elite tried to profit off of the suffering of the lower classes. Some held on more than others, but eventually all crooks meet their end when the people say “enough is enough”.

Luigi was just the first, and the way he’s getting maximum severity treatment while some orange nepo baby felon and his ilk roam free and get to live their best lives is being noticed.

The pressure is rising, and it’ll absolutely create more Luigis as more people are lead to utter despair. I have no sympathy for the people who contribute to this mess. They’ll eventually fall like every tyrant before them.

Maybe they should also investigate that 2016 (and onwards) intel about Russian interference and backing of far right elections…

Unless this isn’t actually about justice and holding corruption accountable, of course.