Double_R

I was atheist on debate.org. I hope I didnt make that argument.

Oh no, that certainly wasn’t you. He was too smart.

I don’t remember the person’s screen name. The resolution for the debate was “No one deserves to go to hell”, the instigator was trying to debate a theist by having the theist justify how anyone could be sent there. He started by listing all of the reasons no person could ever live an evil enough life to warrant eternal torture. The challenger came on and started off by accepting every argument the theist made, almost as if he was conceding the debate, then turned every argument against him by pointing out how the one who’s responsible for everything would then deserve the punishment he created, and that person is God himself.

It was a genius move. What caused it to change my position is the fact that it was the first time I ever really confronted just how silly of a concept hell was. Once I started to see it as silly rather than scary, it no longer had the power to stop me from applying the same critical thinking towards my religious views as anything else. And religion does not survive very well in that atmosphere.

What was your username on DDO?

I don't see the issue with this; Canada has no term limits and left wingers don't care. But Trump is different because either they have a party to stick too or the status quo to stick too

The purpose of term limits to serve as a check against dictatorship. One of the things that keeps our president’s from breaking down our institutions and consolidating power for themselves is the fact that they would only have a limited time to do so and in the event they achieved total power they wouldn’t be able to hide it by pretending they just won their 5th straight election with 90% of the vote.

The fact that you are calling this a liberal position demonstrates just how thoroughly Trump has warped the minds of those on the political right.

The fact that Canada doesn’t have this check is irrelevant to the conversation about what to do here in the US. I would argue not having this check is a bad thing, but that is an entirely different issue from having the check in place, then having a president take power who fits the mold a of wannabe dictator in every way, then trying to remove that check.

You don’t see the issue here because you don’t want to. It’s starting at you.

You are the right candidate for A.I.

Compliment or insult?

I grew up in a family of believers, but we weren’t heavily religious, we didn’t regularly go to church. What changed my mind was actually debate.org. Although I was a believer, I didn’t really participate in religious debates. It was just a thing I believed but never really questioned why.

Then I came across a debate that blew the hole wide open. The debater made the argument that if any person deserved to go to hell, it would have to be God himself, because he is ultimately responsible for the suffering caused in hell.

This debate made me realize that I knew deep down inside religious ideas were silly, but what kept me from questioning them (which is why I avoided the religious forum) was the fear religion installed in me to never question God. Once I realized what it was that was keeping me from applying the same critical thinking towards religion as I did towards everything else in life, that disappeared.

This policy combines **economic prudence, humane treatment, and legal enforcement**, providing a **realistic, fair, and implementable framework** for managing immigration in the United States.

Not sure who exactly this plan would be marketed to, if the intent is to find a middle ground between MAGA and the left, your mistake would be believing that MAGA cares about any of the things they are complaining about.

People don't cheer "build that wall" at Trump rallies because they're looking for a more sensible immigration policy.

Pop quiz; what do the following have in common:

1. I think these people should do it "the right way" and not be able to cut the line
2. By deporting all these people Trump is making America safer
3. These people are taking jobs away from "real Americans"
4. We need to protect our culture

Answer: Ostensibly - Nothing. They're all just excuses to mask the real reason why MAGA is so hardline on immigration: bigotry against brown people. You don't need to look any further to understand what's motivating them. And as the old saying goes, you cannot reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

This is NOT NEW to my view, raids have long been an issue.

You ignored every point I made about why this one was different only so that you could continue to do exactly what I just described - you "found" similarities in order to claim others instances are similar. The Hitler/JD Vance analogy remains applicable and untouched.

You ignored every point I made about the 4th amendment, treating a purposeful and blatant disregard for the constitution as "business as usual, nothing to see here".

You excused every possibility that you yourself raised as to what this might have actually been about by couching each one as a 'maybe, but who knows?'.

In many ways, that last point is the most concerning. You clearly do not know anything about history - this is how authoritarianism grows, with people doing exactly what you're doing now.

I picked up on about 5 different "maybes" you listed:

1. Using ICE to stage a show of strength.
2. Targeting blue states for political gain.
3. Stoking fear for electoral reasons.
4. Lashing out in retribution.
5. Orchastrating this to distract from other failures.

Every single one of these on their own is disqualifying. If any other president had engaged in any of these, Congress would be writing articles of impeachment. But since all of these are legitimate possibilities, it's "Well who knows?". In other words you act as if the plausibility of multiple egregious possibilities makes itt better, not worse. That's absurd.

Sam Harris made a great point when he noted that if Trump were half as bad he would seem worse, cause at least then his awefulness would be recognizable. You are the poster child for this.

You talk about "police and such agencies" engaging in this kind of abuse as if that is any way on par with it coming from the federal government with the full backing of the president. It's not. We live in a country of 340 million people, of course you will be able to find examples of someone somewhere in some town or city abusing their power. In those instances, there are checks on their power. The only check on the federal government is us, and you're just sitting there pretending it's all fine. That's what makes this so infuriating.

This is kind of your MO though I have noticed. Nothing is a big deal, nothing is new, everything will be ok, somehow. You are that meme of the dog (or whatever it is) in the room on fire saying "this is fine".

I don't think your union troops wasted a lot of time apologizing to federal insurrectionists who refused to obey federal laws regarding slavery during and after your civil war.

Wow. So... slavery, that's our standard of governance. Great argument.

Leaning is correct, none of your attempted oversimplifications here are unprecedented.

He is correct in refuting a point I never made, and clarified further in the post you are responding to.

Do you not have anything better to do?

I am not understanding what you think makes it new and new concerning.

I never argued anything was "new". Slavery happened, Japanese internment camps happened, so of course, you can always find historical parallels if you dig deep enough.

What's different here from your other examples and is deeply concerning is that this was coordinated, deliberate, and unapologetic. Border Patrol (a federal agency meant for borders) deployed in military-style raids in a Chicago neighborhood. Black Hawks over rooftops, doors kicked in, families dragged out at gunpoint. No wrong address. No “bad intel”, this wasn’t a mistake. They didn’t care who got hurt as long as they got their show of force, because that was the point.

And even now, a week later, there’s no clear evidence anyone had a warrant. No accountability. No transparency. Just silence, or spin.

All of that is relatively new and is bad enough, and anyone not concerned about this is braindead.

But layered on top of that, this fits perfectly within the profile of everything we have been saying about Trump since the election and before. He is enacting a campaign of retribution against any and everyone he sees as being against him, even and including entire US states and especially blue cities. That is clearly what all of this is about.

So no, this isn't something we as a nation need to "work on", this is an assault on the constitution (4th amendment) by the Trump administration as part of a larger assault on our democratic principals.

Do you still not understand the issue here? Tell me I'm wrong about any of this.

it appears to me that Double_R is arguing this is new, and worthy of open armed rebellion.

Well, not that Double_R is arguing rebellion, but that 2nd amendment supporters and/or Chicago ought rebel and/or shoot federal agents.

I did not argue that. I am using the logic of the second amendment advocates to reach the conclusion of their logic and asking them to explain to me how this is not the exact scenario they've been fear mongering about for decades.

My position is that this country is flooded with guns, which is deeply dangerous and harmful to us as a nation. Their position is that that harm is necessary because we must be able to fight back against government tyranny. Well if this isn't tyranny, what is?

Imagine Obama having done this in Little Rock after declaring that he would make red states pay for the decisions of their Congressional leadership. They would have been forming their own para-military groups the next day and declaring secession.

Do you have a point?

That wouldn't pass a court muster on multiple levels

This isn't a court of law genius.

So you also don't understand standards of evidence and how it relates to epistemology. I'll add that to the growing list.

Witnesses heard something and assumed an ICE officer said that. It is far more likely one of the child traffickers got pissed off and said that, as the motive would fit such a person. That would make sense.

One of the child traffickers got pissed off? WTF are you talking about?

The witness was talking explicitly about the federal agents stating "they was clearly laughing, one of them was standing right here, he said fuck them kids". Her account was clear.

You are clearly trolling, no one is this stupid.

I'm not doubting that might have been overheard, it's just far more likely the person saying that was a child trafficker, not a child rescuer.

That makes absolutely no sense.

The witness stated explicitly that this was said in response to her complaint to the federal agents that what they were doing was detrimental to the children. The context makes crystal clear who was saying this.

You're just making shit up. Whatever is convenient for your narrative you're just inserting into the story with no evidence or rationale behind it. You are egregiously dishonest.

Oversimplification seems to be the hammer you’re swinging at every nail on this site, hmm?

No genius, this is your recent obsession. It doesn't even make sense what you're talking about, I haven't oversimplified anything, the fact that I haven't written 20 paragraphs on this doesn't mean there isn't more to say. You're just throwing words around with no apparent understanding of what they mean.

They're 'kind of similar.

No, there are similarities we can point to. That doesn't make them similar any more than I can claim Hitler and JD Vance are similar cause they both have facial hair.

When we talk about analogous examples, we're talking about examples that are similar with regards to the parts that matter. In the Chicago example, the (apparently) flagrant and purposeful disregard for human rights and constitutional protections is the point, and that cannot be said about any of your other examples. The context as well, with a president who has shown himself repeatedly to rely on intimidation tactics and retribution against people he sees as being against him cannot be ignored here either.

A raid like this one specifically would not have occurred under any other president in our lifetimes.

A statement from the agency noted a preliminary review of the operation found that the 37 people arrested were undocumented and that subjects were “believed to be involved in drug trafficking and distribution, weapons crimes, and immigration violators.”

Which means nothing coming from an administration that believes Portland is a war ravaged city and repeatedly tells us they're going after the "worts of the worst" as they round up farm workers and nannies.

Americans are unfit to pick a president to lead them. Proof of this is them electing Trump for a second term. And possibly a third term if possible.

Agreed, the problem is we have no alternative. We get the government we deserve. All I can do is hold onto hope that the next generation will be better than this one, history suggests that's most likely.

Dude, yet more tinfoil.

Do you even know what that means?

None of that hyperbole is going to manipulate normal people. It's far more likely that one of the child sex traffickers said that than someone rescuing them.

This is just stupid. The "fuck them kids" line came from an eyewitness on the ground at the time of the raid. If you're going to just dismiss that out of hand with no evidence or reason to think it's made up no wonder you believe the stupid things you do.

Or maybe stop making more people.

Its part of the process.

Not according to the constitution.

This is nothing new.

See my previous post to leaning.

Your posts and history make it clear you dislike the republican party via trump.

My posts make it clear that I have very good reason to dislike Trump and the republican party.

You can find 1000 things wrong, but i wonder, can you find 10 things right?

President's don't deserve a medal for carrying out the very basics of their job duties and their oath to the constitution, that's what every American should demand as a bare minimum, and Trump cannot even meet that mark. So no, if the man cannot honor basic American principals like free speech, or the idea that half the country are not the enemy from within which you need to sick the military on, I couldn't care less to "find" anything to credit him with. The man is grotesquely unfit to hold this office.

Not one of the examples you listed is analogous to this. Every one of them in some way eludes to the raid being a mistake or based on bad intelligence. What happened here, as far as we so far know, was not botched, it was the point.

They raided an entire apartment building. There's no way they got a warrant which basically said "you may search every residence within the building", nor is it at all plausible to suggest they could have possibly had good reason to think everyone inside was part of some Venezuelan gang.

Everything we know about this, including what has been said by Trump admin officials suggests that they knew full well many innocent people would get caught up in this and didn't care. As one ICE officer put it when one of the residents complained about what they were doing to the kids..."fuck them kids".

That's the US government now.

Exactly, nowhere are people protected from all searches.

No one claimed this. What is wrong with you, can you read?

Your courts have always allowed things like the bank example under the “exigent circumstances” and “protective sweep” doctrines..

Google "unreasonable search and seizure". Then read the constitution.

Ah, there it is. The good old standby for weak debaters: oversimplification.

Some things really are that simple. What weak debaters do is obfuscate with strawman arguments and conspiracy theories.

You can scream "mah rights" all day long, but your laws allow for detaining and questioning.

No, it doesn't, not at the level actuated in this example.

The federal government does not get to raid first and ask questions later, that's why we have a 4th amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Living in a "law and order society" does not require us to surrender our rights, it means government officials have to work a little harder to ensure they are targeting people who are likely involved in wrongdoing, not throwing a massive dragnet and then claiming the bad ones within the group justify tangling up all the innocent people in it as well.

This is really basic stuff. And if you were dragged out of your bed at gunpoint at 1am for the crime of living in the same building as alleged gang members you would not be singing the same tune as you head back to your trashed, broken windows, door-less apartment.

USA isnt a country of freedom.

Well thanks for admitting that. That's progress, I guess...

So you think foreign gangs don't exist in your country? You guys are into all sorts of tinfoil....

Yeah, caricatures are normally quite stupid.

Perhaps next time you'd care to comment on positions we've actually stated.

If the kids you saw being zip-tied were a part of the process of isolating them from their captors, they will probably redact those names in the released court documents

Irrelevant to the thread. *If* they were being trafficked, that would make the situation much better, still does not address the American citizens who did nothing wrong being dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night at gunpoint by federal agents. Strange how you still have nothing to say about that.

What's your solution if a foreign gang takes over an apartment building for years and the local government is too afraid/incompetent/complicit to do anything about it?

Then the federal government would need a warrant for each individual apartment they raided. Not only have we not seen any evidence of this, administration officials have yet to even claim they obtained one.

Following the raid, the administration should acknowledge the grotesque violation of rights that was just committed and make a massive effort to assure the pubic that this was necessary. They've done nothing of the sort. All they've done is scream "Tren de aragua!" and pretend we're all supposed to be satisfied. That's absurd. It's right on par with what Russia does when a public official critical of Putin "falls out of a window". It's not meant to be sincere, it's meant to intimidate. The lack of transparency is the point.

I don't know if there were actual foreign gangs in the apartment block or not.

Exactly, neither do any of us. Even if they provided an airtight case tomorrow the delay would still be unacceptable.

I was just asking how you would deal with it if the problem goes on for years unaddressed like the 1930's mafia problem

Immigration is just the latest right wing boogeyman created to justify rights violations such as this. It works because people like yourself are perfectly fine with being too dumb to see how you're being manipulated.

"Pertissue Fisher is still recovering from being detained by federal immigration agents who burst into her South Shore apartment building and pulled her and other residents from their beds early Wednesday morning.

An agent put a gun in her face, she said. Another placed her in handcuffs tight enough to leave bruises.

Fisher and other victims of the raid are U.S. citizens, but they were still held for hours."

https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/05/congress-members-rally-south-shore-apartment-ice-raid

So this is America now, a raid on a residential apartment building forcing American citizens out of their beds in the middle of the night at gunpoint because the administration says they were looking for Venezuelan gangs, to which they have yet to provide any evidence were prevalent in those building. These citizens also include children, some of which were ziptied and dragged outside naked.

Very curious to know what the Trump supporting immigration hardliners have to say about this.

I'm also especially interested in knowing what the 2nd amendment advocates here have to say. For years, despite how objectively dangerous and deadly it is to have a country flooded with guns, these folks insisted it was needed to fight back against government tyranny. So I assume then that you support Chicagoans arming themselves and getting ready to shoot down federal agents?

We're not a fascist dictatorship.

We're certainly headed in that direction

Congress today is useless because only the most extreme candidates on both sides can win their primaries, which is all that matters in the majority of Congressional districts. What we end up with are 400+ people whose mission their constituents sent them to complete is to own the other side.

What would go a long way in solving this problem is to ban Gerrymandering nation wide. Democrats tried to pass it but the republicans blocked it. So join us, and welcome to the resistance.

This is curious because people think otherwise nowadays, that depopulation is a threat. Fewer people wants to have children and that would be a serious risk for the sustainability of the system.

For our political system yes it would be catastrophic, particularly those running large deficits. Countries like the US depend on a growing population to pay back it's massive deficit and they depend on a workforce filled with young workers to pay into the system allowing the older population to retire. So economically, it would be terrible.

But people utilize the Earth's resources, and that is very finite. Only about 1% of the world's water is drinkable, and that's running out. Food is also a concern at the rate we're continuing to grow. Then there's pollution...

It's estimated that if everyone on earth lived like Americans the earth could only support about 2-3 billion people. We're at 8 and growing.

Every nation worldwide had an annual military budget of $0 annually?

If it were somehow possible to ensure and/or enforce this, militaries would still exist but be voluntary (and of course no where near as powerful). Never underestimate the human ability to remain paranoid.

If everything pops into existence, then God does too, so God exists.

I already accepted Double_R concession where he said:

""if things can pop into existence then God can pop into existence", but this isn't an argument at all, it's a tautology. So long as God qualifies as a something, it's definitionally true."

It wasn't a concession genius. A tautology cannot be used to prove anything, that's the whole point of coming up with a word for it.

I recall explaining this to someone on this site before, of only I could remember who.

if women go to war and eventually die, a society loses its capacity to reproduce and recover from depopulation.

One of the greatest threats against the well being of human civilization is overpopulation.