| SanAndreasX said: I agree with this law as a protection for women (and men). But I do not trust Pam Bondi to enforce this fairly or to not weaponize it against criticism of Trump or Musk. |
Eh, I hear you. Risks come attached to everything and nothing is perfect, but we have to start somewhere and waiting another four years to do anything seems preposterous.
sundin13 said:
Disagree. Laken Riley Act always felt to me like bad policy wrapped in a fairly reasonable package. Classic propaganda stuff, so you can point to all the people who voted against it and say "They voted against a bill that would do this reasonable thing" while completely ignoring the rest of the stuff packaged with it. Having ICE automatically detain someone who is convicted of manslaughter is pretty reasonable. I think there could potentially be some issues with it in execution, as deportation doesn't always result in imprisonment in the destination country basically allowing some people to escape punishment and potentially just come back to America, but overall, I'm not too concerned about that. But handling all theft related crimes this way seems like a bridge too far. Sending someone who steals a candy bar to ICE detainment isn't something I can support as I don't feel like it is imperative for public safety to protect the poor Americans from crimes regularly committed by babies. And sending them to ICE for just for being accused of a crime? I mean, I feel like we don't need to look too far past what is happening literally right now to see that due process is on shaky footing, making that a pretty dangerous road. Just look at the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Accusing someone of a crime is easy, but convicting them of a crime is hard (and for good reason). In a country where an accusation can be on the basis of the clothes someone is wearing and incredibly dubious tattoo interpretations, we shouldn't enable further assaults on due process. And the part that allows states to sue DHS? Woof. All that is doing is allowing the Republican Judiciary to hijack control of America's immigration system whenever Democrats are in power... |
This. All of this. The Laken Riley Act cynically uses this woman's memory in a blatant power grab. It's facilitated this complete lack of due process.
sundin13 said:
Disagree. Laken Riley Act always felt to me like bad policy wrapped in a fairly reasonable package. Classic propaganda stuff, so you can point to all the people who voted against it and say "They voted against a bill that would do this reasonable thing" while completely ignoring the rest of the stuff packaged with it. Having ICE automatically detain someone who is convicted of manslaughter is pretty reasonable. I think there could potentially be some issues with it in execution, as deportation doesn't always result in imprisonment in the destination country basically allowing some people to escape punishment and potentially just come back to America, but overall, I'm not too concerned about that. But handling all theft related crimes this way seems like a bridge too far. Sending someone who steals a candy bar to ICE detainment isn't something I can support as I don't feel like it is imperative for public safety to protect the poor Americans from crimes regularly committed by babies. And sending them to ICE for just for being accused of a crime? I mean, I feel like we don't need to look too far past what is happening literally right now to see that due process is on shaky footing, making that a pretty dangerous road. Just look at the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Accusing someone of a crime is easy, but convicting them of a crime is hard (and for good reason). In a country where an accusation can be on the basis of the clothes someone is wearing and incredibly dubious tattoo interpretations, we shouldn't enable further assaults on due process. And the part that allows states to sue DHS? Woof. All that is doing is allowing the Republican Judiciary to hijack control of America's immigration system whenever Democrats are in power... |
Frankly, I have noticed a longstanding pattern with you of opposing just about everything that involves enforcing laws and of demeaning the victims of crimes (especially when they're female). The Laken Riley Act is so-named because doing what you propose to do differently from what was done in the past (nothing) resulted in unnecessary bloodshed. I feel like that fact is getting lost to your want of conflating more or less the entire concept of border security with Trumpism. There are reasons why Trump won last year's election and some of them have roots in very real problems. One ingredient of that was that the nation was simply unwilling to just tolerate limitless volumes of illegal mass migration while suffering a partially consequent housing shortage and a drug overdose epidemic of unprecedented scale. Word of violent crimes being committed by people with records who weren't supposed to be here anyway served as the icing on the cake for many. Something different had to be done!
None of that is to say that I'm in favor of deporting American citizens anywhere, let alone to foreign prisons notorious for deprivation and even torture, and least of all if they have clean records. But you will also recognize that that xenophobic shit is being done not as a result of the Laken Riley Act, but rather because we have a fascist in the Oval Office (or wherever he's spending his time, I dunno) who rules by decree and just does whatever he wants that way and Congress is too timid to stop him, so it falls to the courts and to whether the administration is willing to abide by their verdicts and...well you know all this by now. You keep up with events. Anyway, the fact that this "law-and-order" administration in fact has no respect for the rule of law (to the point that the president actually claimed recently that he's not sure it's his job to uphold the Constitution!) isn't a good reason to just let what really did happen to Laken Riley and others continue to happen when there are simple things we could do to reduce their prevalence of such crimes that aren't fascism.
Or in short: 1) fascism is bad, so don't vote for fascists, and 2) border security is not fascism, it's just an issue that aspiring tyrants exploit. If you don't let them have the issue, they'll have a tougher time winning elections.
Last edited by Jaicee - on 04 May 2025
| Jaicee said: Frankly, I have noticed a longstanding pattern with you of opposing just about everything that involves enforcing laws and of demeaning the victims of crimes (especially when they're female). The Laken Riley Act is so-named because doing what you propose to do differently from what was done in the past (nothing) resulted in unnecessary bloodshed. I feel like that fact is getting lost to your want of conflating more or less the entire concept of border security with Trumpism. There are reasons why Trump won last year's election and some of them have roots in very real problems. One ingredient of that was that the nation was simply unwilling to just tolerate limitless volumes of illegal mass migration while suffering a partially consequent housing shortage and a drug overdose epidemic of unprecedented scale. Word of violent crimes being committed by people with records who weren't supposed to be here anyway served as the icing on the cake for many. Something different had to be done! None of that is to say that I'm in favor of deporting American citizens anywhere, let alone to foreign prisons notorious for deprivation and even torture, and least of all if they have clean records. But you will also recognize that that xenophobic shit is being done not as a result of the Laken Riley Act, but rather because we have a fascist in the Oval Office (or wherever he's spending his time, I dunno) who rules by decree and just does whatever he wants that way and Congress is too timid to stop him, so it falls to the courts and to whether the administration is willing to abide by their verdicts and...well you know all this by now. You keep up with events. Anyway, the fact that this "law-and-order" administration in fact has no respect for the rule of law (to the point that the president actually claimed recently that he's not sure it's his job to uphold the Constitution!) isn't a good reason to just let what really did happen to Laken Riley and others continue to happen when there are simple things we could do to reduce their prevalence of such crimes that aren't fascism. Or in short: 1) fascism is bad, so don't vote for fascists, and 2) border security is not fascism, it's just an issue that aspiring tyrants exploit. If you don't let them have the issue, they'll have a tougher time winning elections. |
Lol, what?
What did I say about any victims of crimes? This is what I mean about propagandizing bills. Hit 'em with the old "Oh, you disagree with this bill? How dare you demean this victim". Just absurd.
Now, as for the bill's namesake, I kind of do have an issue with this brand of thinking. At the end of the day, criminality will exist in any suitably large population. As a population grows, to an extent, so too will that criminality (in raw numbers, not rates). The fact of the matter is: any substantial increase in population will lead to an increase in "unnecessary bloodshed". Now, is that cause for population control? I am of the mind that it is not. I feel that that is a scare tactic used by fascists who seek to other a group of people, and it is so easy. It is so easy to say "Hey, if we eliminated this group of people, we could protect the real Americans," but does that actually make this country safer? Immigrants (both documented and undocumented) commit less crime that native born Americans. I feel like if we were genuinely interested in taking action to make the people of this country safer, we would start with the native born Americans (that is somewhat satirical, just to be clear). And as a bonus, if you get rid of a few hundred million people, the amount of unnecessary bloodshed in this country would plummet.
But would that be good policy?
"But something has to be done!" Undocumented immigrants are and have always been a scapegoat for our homegrown problems. The housing crisis, and the drug epidemic, and the crime rate aren't problems caused by illegal immigrants. They are as American as apple pie at this point, and I feel like it is people like you who are willing to accept the scapegoats as if they were actual solutions who are perpetuating the status quo of inaction. You say it yourself: Border security is an issue that aspiring tyrants exploit, so why are you letting yourself be exploited? Because it feels good to do something (even if that something is primarily there to give power to fascists and make the rest of us feel good about it).
| Ryuu96 said: How does this...How do you even...What...I'm...I don't even know where to begin. What's next, a 100% tariff on videogames outside of the USA? Lmfao. I thought the right hated Hollywood too! Holy shit man I can't believe anyone can look at this guy and think he is smart, except fellow idiots. |
Feels like a lot of anime groups are especially worried about this.
Although liking anime doesn't make someone right wing, but there is the stereotype there.
| Ryuu96 said: Wat. |
Cool, and now let's put a 100% tariff on any movie from an American studio running in European, Australian and other cinemas..let's see who's a threat to the national security of other countries with their movie industry flooding other countries.
Sure, movies from American studios are also "produced" outside of USA but I'm sure the US industry makes more money in Europe as vice versa 😄
Last edited by crissindahouse - on 05 May 2025
| Ryuu96 said: How does this...How do you even...What...I'm...I don't even know where to begin. What's next, a 100% tariff on videogames outside of the USA? Lmfao. I thought the right hated Hollywood too! Holy shit man I can't believe anyone can look at this guy and think he is smart, except fellow idiots. |
How the fuck do you tariff data? 
Because that’s all a movie is. It’s not a physical good you can import or export or slap any kind of value on.
JFC and people seriously thought this imbecile was fit to run the highest office in the world?
KManX89 said:
How the fuck do you tariff data? Because that’s all a movie is. It’s not a physical good you can import or export or slap any kind of value on. JFC and people seriously thought this imbecile was fit to run the highest office in the world? |
I was running all the how/why/what in my head then I realised I'd be putting more thought into it than Trump ever did and gave up.
KManX89 said:
How the fuck do you tariff data? JFC and people seriously thought this imbecile was fit to run the highest office in the world? |
Southern grievance is one hell of a drug.
| Ryuu96 said: How does this...How do you even...What...I'm...I don't even know where to begin. What's next, a 100% tariff on videogames outside of the USA? Lmfao. I thought the right hated Hollywood too! Holy shit man I can't believe anyone can look at this guy and think he is smart, except fellow idiots. |
These people are dumb as fuck.
The right has spent almost the entire period since World War II ended demonizing Hollywood, and California in general. Reagan was a snitch for HUAC. Dalton Trumbo spent 11 months in a federal prison in Kentucky for refusing to cooperate with HUAC (there's an excellent movie called Trumbo, starring Bryan Cranston as Dalton Trumbo, that you might want to check out).
The movie industry is one of the few areas where the U.S. has an overwhelmingly favorable trade balance. There are a few European films that get shown in the U.S., an occasional Japanese or Korean production, and a niche interest in Bollywood. Otherwise, it's mostly the U.S. exporting movies onto the international market. Hollywood also probably the single biggest source of soft U.S. power. Really, Hollywood has been a good source of pro-American propaganda. Republican anger at Hollywood is typically more offended Southern sensibilities. But now that Trump has gone and pissed off over a hundred countries, including the biggest foreign market for American movies, China, that's about to change. China just had a movie gross over $2 billion on its domestic market alone, Ne Zha 2, and they've also put an embargo on American movies. The Republicans are sabotaging one of the best tools the U.S. has for projecting soft power. People in overseas markets certainly aren't going to line up for movies like the dreadful hagiography, Reagan, or God's Not Dead.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
). That certainly includes me. Mocking and excoriating this administration's general policy direction and attitude is something I find easy and often fun and cathartic too. Thought I'd do something different for a change of pace here though because no, I don't actually disapprove of just everything that's being done in Washington right now, believe it or not. I supported the Laken Riley Act, for example, and was glad that it passed and that not every Democrat voted against it.
Currently Online 
