this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2025
193 points (99.5% liked)

chapotraphouse

13669 readers
1213 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Weedian@hexbear.net 115 points 1 day ago (2 children)

remember when obungler campaigned on shutting that place down

[–] SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net 70 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thanks yet again for doing nothing and hurting tens of thousands in your inaction, liberals, Obama.

[–] AcidSmiley@hexbear.net 49 points 1 day ago (3 children)

"30,000 person migrant facility" most likely means they will cram 100k+ people in there.

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 32 points 1 day ago

I think they'll go up to ~6x max capacity so ~200k.

[–] Posadas@hexbear.net 30 points 1 day ago

Oh don't worry, the lowest biders will get those numbers down with rotted food that spreads diseases and lack of medical care.

[–] SchillMenaker@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago

This is the only motivation to become president that I've ever had. I could do a lot of good being allowed to strategically target 50-100k people and illegally render them to an extranational gulag.

[–] Posadas@hexbear.net 76 points 1 day ago

Sorry, remembering things is illegal.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 44 points 1 day ago

"See, tankies? If socialism works, then why does Cuba have a giant concentration camp?"

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 81 points 1 day ago

Obama's game with Gitmo was to pretend that all those random Lebanese cab drivers Bush kidnapped had to be kept imprisoned forever, then go around the country begging chud governors to let him lock them up in various local prisons. When this was obviously rejected he just sort of shrugged and said there was no other solution.

[–] ObamnaSoda@hexbear.net 68 points 1 day ago

"That's what you get tankies, Gaza crybabies, and minorities. What was happening quietly during the democrats now happens openly. I'm going to post this on r/leopardsatemyface for some heckin updoots"

[–] Cimbazarov@hexbear.net 68 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I remember this being a big thing before Obama got elected. And then it didn't happen and no one brought it up again.

I remember this as well, and it was even a big thing (for a short while) after he got elected. For the first couple of weeks into his presidency there was a deluge of news articles almost every single day of things he said he was going to do, like ending wars in the Middle East. I remember one article was about him saying he was going to close Guantanamo Bay, and all the libs in the comments were like "Damn, this guy is on a roll! He going to fix all of Bush' mistakes and restore America's reputation! Good job, Obama!". And then of course none of those things actually happened, and libs went back to sleep. It was around that time when my radicalization process began.

[–] MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay, good cop bad cop is the role-play / Those are real men don't forget / Locked up no charge four years and counting / And the pressure ain't really mounting / cause you media bods wanna keep your jobs / and you radio knobs wanna keep your jobs / And the good DJ's get nighttime slots / it's a load of crap, like planes made them two towers collapse / Like that? straight down? You're mad! / When we're old and grey kids'll be like "Mum! Dad! / surely Bush and Co were the enemy?" / Same way no one believes these days Oswald killed Kennedy / Change foreign policy the remedy / This was a war about energy supply / "It weren't about terror" that's a goddamn lie / And it's even been proved that our leader's lied / And the war on terror's racism in disguise / And we still don't vote when foreigners die.

Braintax - Syriana Style

[–] HexReplyBot@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 50 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"These 12 Senate Democrats voted for the Laken Riley Act" - the list of dems who voted to create the US's first concentration camp since 1946 includes Ossoff and Warnock. Vote blue no matter who.

---

Full textThese 12 Senate Democrats voted for the Laken Riley Act

Twelve Senate Democrats voted with Republicans on Monday to pass a bill on immigration, a topic that has faced congressional gridlock for years, to address one of President Donald Trump’s top campaign issues just hours after he was sworn in for a second term.

The legislation, known as the Laken Riley Act and named for a 22-year-old woman who was murdered last year while jogging at the University of Georgia, would allow for stricter punishments of undocumented immigrants who commit crimes in the United States.

The measure now goes to the House, which approved a previous version of the legislation earlier this month, with 48 House Democrats joining Republicans to vote in favor. Senate Democrats overwhelmingly voted to begin debate on the bill on Jan. 9, and 10 of them voted on Friday to advance the amended measure.

Here’s a look at the dozen Democrats who voted for the bill, most of whom hail from swing states. Some were just elected to the Senate last fall, while others are set to face tough reelection races next year.

Catherine Cortez Masto

Cortez Masto represents Nevada, a swing state that Trump won by 3 points last fall — the first Republican presidential nominee to do so since George W. Bush in 2004. “Anyone who commits a crime should be held accountable,” Cortez-Masto said Monday on social media. “Nevadans want solutions that keep their families safe, and I will continue to work across the aisle to deliver for our state.”

John Fetterman

The Pennsylvania Democrat co-sponsored the measure, which was led by his friend, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala. Fetterman, who didn’t vote Friday on the procedural motion, recently met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, with the president later describing the Democratic senator to the Washington Examiner as a “commonsense person.” November’s presidential election saw Pennsylvania voters back Trump for the second time, giving him a 2-point win over Kamala Harris.

Ruben Gallego

The freshman senator from Arizona, another co-sponsor of the legislation, voted for a version of the bill last year when he was a Phoenix-area congressman. “We must give law enforcement the means to take action when illegal immigrants break the law, to prevent situations like what occurred to Laken Riley,” the Democrat said in a Jan. 8 statement. While Arizona narrowly backed Joe Biden in 2020, the state swung toward Trump last fall, backing him by more than 5 points.

Maggie Hassan

The New Hampshire Democrat sits on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and made a visit to the southern border in 2022, the last time she was up for reelection. “Making it easier to remove undocumented immigrants who commit crimes from our country is a basic first step that Congress can take, but we cannot stop here,” she said in a statement earlier this month. The Granite State narrowly backed Kamala Harris last year, though Trump significantly cut into the Democratic winning margin.

Mark Kelly

Arizona’s senior senator said he supported the measure “because federal authorities need to protect our communities from criminals.” Kelly is not up for reelection until 2028.

Jon Ossoff

Ossoff is among the most vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection next year and represents the state where Riley was murdered. Like Arizona, Georgia also flipped in last fall’s presidential election, backing Trump by 2 points four years after voters there had given Biden a narrow win and elected Ossoff and Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock in a pair of run-off elections.

Gary Peters

The ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and former chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is also up for reelection next year in Michigan, a state Trump won in November. It was the second time Trump won the Wolverine State, which was seen as a key part of Democrats’ “blue wall” of must-win states.

Jacky Rosen

The Nevada Democrat narrowly won reelection last year while Trump was carrying the premier swing state out West.

Jeanne Shaheen

The new top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, Shaheen up for a fourth term in 2026, although she hasn’t announced whether she plans to run again. Earlier this month, after a vote to advance the legislation, the New Hampshire Democrat said she’d “long called for Congress to do more to address our nation’s broken immigration system.”

Elissa Slotkin

The newly sworn-in senator from Michigan voted for the bill when it came up in the House last year. She said this month that the nation “must get past petty partisanship that continues to dominate the immigration debate.”

Mark Warner

The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee is up for a fourth term next year. Virginia has voted blue in federal elections for the past two decades, but since Warner’s last election, the commonwealth backed Republican Glenn Youngkin for governor in 2021 and Trump in November cut into his losing presidential margin from four years earlier.

Raphael Warnock

The Georgia Democrat didn’t support a Friday procedural motion to move forward on the immigration measure, but he voted Monday to pass it. In a statement, Warnock said the bill wasn’t what he would have written, but added: “I hope today’s vote is a genuine step toward true bipartisan cooperation to secure and strengthen resources at our southern border, smooth our asylum processes, and find a dignified solution for the scores of law-abiding undocumented Georgians working on our farms and in our communities.”

[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 35 points 1 day ago

It’s going to be 4 years of talking about a nonexistant party while Trump does awful shit, isn’t it?

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 37 points 1 day ago

maybe-later-honey: “That would have AlIeNaTeD tHe WoRkInG cLaSs!1!1!1!”

[–] jameslkent@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I seem to recall there were two major issues regarding Gitmo. The desire to shut it down was real, but the first problem was figuring out where to transfer all the “prisoners of war” to. No federal or international institutions wanted them. Second, the cost of litigation for all the potential claims of improper detention skyrocket when you release long term prisoners without due process. What Obama found out was that the cost of maintaining a black prison for undesirables was much cheaper than the liability incurred by shutting it down and finding now homes/outcomes for the inmates. Sunk cost fallacy.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 day ago

Sounds like the desire to close it down wasn't real if the reasons it wasn't basically boil down to "we want to keep imprisoning people there"

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago

That would be a problem for a country which doesn't operate blacksites in heart of eu legal regime (poland), or dozens in middle east.

[–] coeliacmccarthy@hexbear.net 55 points 1 day ago (2 children)

parliamentarian said no sorry

[–] carpoftruth@hexbear.net 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

it wasn't exactly the parliamentarian but functionally it was a 'respect the process' type self-imposed roadblock by ocrumbo. the bush years had seen a bunch of people captured and held prisoner with no due process and letting them out would have meant having a process to deal with the fact that there was no due process, and presumably some level of accountability. imposing accountability gives libs a tummyache and so instead they just punted the issue

[–] coeliacmccarthy@hexbear.net 21 points 1 day ago

sorry parliamentarian says

[–] SevenSkalls@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago

Yup. I think it was that none of the states wanted them in their backyard, but you think he would've been able to figure something out if they weren't so obsessed with process. Everyone was worried terrorists would be released on their street corner, so there was no real path through Congress or the governors. They should've just released them if they were being held with no charge, but oh well.

[–] Posadas@hexbear.net 32 points 1 day ago

Parliamentary?

More like Nazimentarian.

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 40 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Serious question. Are their large decommissioned prisons in the US itself that Trump could use to make the undocumented suffer?

I'd bet money he'll start doing it this year. It's illegal but that's no biggie. Trump just needs to say the magic words "official act" and then it's legal.

[–] AcidSmiley@hexbear.net 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Right wing parties across the imperial core have largely pushed for migrant internment camps outside of their borders during the last years. Now, if Trump also plans to expand the prison-industrial complex, he could obviously just do that, but i'm expecting additional camps to be something like the Tories' plans for camps in Uganda, the EU's camps in Libya or the prison islands Australia has been using for a while.

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You make a good point. But it's my wild hunch Trump is going to use the "official acts" stuff because he wants to be special and as an extra special bonus - it will drive the libs absolutely insane. For example - if Trump says "I'm gonna make the first Foreign Enemies Jail in Denver..." and that night Joy Reid totally loses her shit on her show about Trump's racism because that was her hometown when she was growing up. She swears and is unseemly so the next day MSBNC says she's "on a vacation" as the execs try to figure out what to do.

[–] AcidSmiley@hexbear.net 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's absolutely possible, he tends to do random shit on a whim. Just saying that at this point, at the speed he's moving, most of this stuff is likely to have been drafted in advance by fashy think tanks and follows established playbooks.

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

drafted in advance by fashy think tanks and follows established playbooks.

I guess Gitmo is relatively simple because Trump's stooges at the Pentagon will somehow find the money from the DoD for housing all the people year after year. But what scares me is that a lot of what Trump wants to do requires an insane amount of money and resources. The math doesn't work at all. For example - ICE funding is only capable of doing a tiny bit of what he says he wants to do. So what are the actual plans? Like - how many people does Trump and/or the think tanks want to process a year? And what will be ultimately done with them?

Trump might say he wants to pay (aka bribe) a country like Egypt to take in - I dunno - a few hundred thousand detainees from countries all over the world. That's crazy. Under international law - that's highly illegal. Plus it would be an international relations nightmare. But Trump doesn't care about any of that.

And a yuge problem with my Foreign Enemies Jail joke is that housing people is even more expensive. Even if Trump made those jails as awful as possible to save money and even if succeeds in grabbing money illegally from other parts of the government - the math won't work either. Also there will be men, women, and kids. Trump would have to break any number of state laws to house them.

I guess Trump could use federal military facilities for the Foreign Enemies Jails. I have an awful feeling that Trump pushed so hard for Hegseth because Hegseth is a yes man and a toxic reactionary who will do whatever Trump wants so that Trump effectively runs the DoD himself. And if Trump says "I want the Pentagon budget to be 50% bigger." - the fucking dems will help him do that.

I wrote this comment as a stream of consciousness. But I stopped amusing myself. The more I think about it - the more I see the military as the center of all things with Trump in the center and in total control of all that naked power with no limitations at all. Yikes. I ended up really creeping myself out. I better stop here.

[–] REgon@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They could reopen Alcatraz I guess

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 3 points 23 hours ago

That would be surreal. And Trump would love that too. He could make endless jokes about the city across the water - dirty, bad, liberal San Francisco

[–] Antiwork@hexbear.net 48 points 1 day ago

Obama promised to do this every single year. When he didn't it was never going to happen

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 35 points 1 day ago

Because they are controlled opposition and nothing more

[–] Runcible@hexbear.net 16 points 1 day ago

Sure, that's easy. They like it

[–] REgon@hexbear.net 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The gosh darn parliamentarian shrug-outta-hecks also we had to keep it open for national security, the adults in the room understands this maybe-later-honey

[–] HelluvaBottomCarter@hexbear.net 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Because Trump would have called them communist in 2009 and that's a loss greater than they could bear.

[–] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 24 points 1 day ago

I'm one of the liberals on this site (jk, I'm the only leftist here but I'll still answer your question) and it's because the Democrats are also incredibly evil.

[–] CredibleBattery@hexbear.net 18 points 1 day ago

this is Cubazuela's tankie regime's fault

[–] Gorillatactics@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago

Trump 2 or jr Bush 3?

[–] Coolkidbozzy@hexbear.net 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hey lefties, I heard you like Gaza, a concentration camp full of refugees. If it's so great, why haven't they made Gaza 2?

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago
[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 13 points 1 day ago

It is because they are fascists.

He's prolly gonna send them somewhere else... shrug-outta-hecks

Can't say if its worse for the prisoners, but prolly good for Cuba's national sobrenia (then again, there must be a caveat/stipulation)