He wants it from people who are useful to him. I’m not blind.

Look at how he treated Zelensky and Machado. They come in and suck up, but he doesn’t see them as useful.

Other leaders who openly dislike him (and he dislikes back, on a political level), such as Mamdani, Sheinbaum, and even Kim Jong Un, more easily get on his good side without sucking up (they sometimes throw a little praise his way, as you’ve observed).

When you take it too far it falls flat

Yeah sure either way he isn’t into it.

Even during the founding of the US there were abolitionists, anti-racists and what we would call today communist and anarchists. US history has been driven by the white supremacist’s agenda, but there has always been a strong push against it.

Totally

I think many ‘Americans’ do see the US as a bastion of freedom for refugees and people of all races. That has been the promoted image of the US, obviously we know the state doesn’t adhere to that idealized version but many people here do seem to see that image as the ‘true America’.

Right, many people do see it that way. Particularly with the resources and modern interpretations we have available in 2026, we can look back through history and see how that was a lie (or at least “propaganda” of some form). It’s fine if you want it to be true, but in reality the US constitution did not build a truly democratic government structure (this was by design). I think current events (beyond the Donald Trump presidencies) clearly illustrate that nothing short of a new constitutional convention will be able to resolve this.

If there were a new constitution, it would no longer be the “United States of America” as we know it today, of course, it would be something else entirely.

It also isn’t effective, Trump doesn’t actually respect people who grovel toward him, especially if they aren’t useful to him.

I’m not sure whether the quantity of deportations would have to do with the reorg, or if it has more to do with overall executive policy (or other factors).

Regardless I don’t think there needs to be a dedicated police agency dedicated to the internal enforcement of immigration. Whatever enforcent does take place does not need to be conducted by a militarized agency (which, is my primary concern with being part of “DHS”). ICE is already have been shit for a long time, not to mention the 2018 calls for “abolish ICE” because of the “kids in cages” (which were built under the Obama admin) which was already the correct call.

They don’t offer anything useful, even when they don’t have Trump’s trillion dollar funding package. Toss them and start over, it isn’t even a big deal.

Why so rude? What is even the “deep end”?

If any suggestion of “consider this other point of view” provokes such a reaction, I guess you aren’t wrong, but isn’t that simple closed-mindedness on your part?

Is there anything I can clarify about what I meant?

Crockett is behind in the latest primary polling, right? 🙏🏻

No you pretty much laid it out in you comment, I think it tracks.

Having a misleading UI and making not-unprobable assumptions about viewers feels less problematic though?

I don’t think I particularly matters where the situation lands on the “scale of problematicness”, but youre correct it does exist and it isn’t at the far end of the spectrum. Nonetheless, it is a symptom of a greater social issue (patriarchy), and it warrants discussion and criticism.

The porn industry is made up of corporations, which will tend to reproduce the same heiarchies that exist in society, since that’s what’s most profitable. It isn’t inherently problematic to objectify people in a sexual context, however it isn’t applied equally, and is reproduced in the user controls on most porn sites.

They just assume everyone is a straight male or a gay male, so the choice that gets presented is “gay stuff” or “everything else”. This is reflected in user stats, but it is also going to be self fulfilling. It would make more sense to be able to select one or more options of the broad “straight/gay/les/other” if pornhub existed in a relatively equal society. I don’t expect them to do this, but I do expect my online community to be able to discuss it and how it both reflects and reproduces harmful social constructs.

Idk if that clarifies anything, but I think you and I are in the same ballpark?

It’s tough out there, I hope you fine a way to get connected with people in your area. It may even be worth changing your area is that’s a possibility for you.

New organizations may be required to serve the function of border protection, immigration and customs enforcement

Or even existing border patrol and CBP (and we should look at reforms to those agencies as well)

Not true, the department ment was moved under the Department of Homeland Security. This reorganization has had a demonstrable effect in how it is led. There is nothing they do that can’t be dealt with by other law enforcement. The DHS itself was a ridiculous ratcheting of the surveillance/police state “in response to 9-11” (that’s the excuse that was dropped in their lap).

You can enforce immigration and border controls without ICE. It was functioning just fine until 2003. In your attempt to find a “middle ground” position I dont think your landing pint is reasonable.

No local DSA or PSL branch for you?

Lol is that where the down votes are coming from?

I wasnt even taking a particular stance on the topic, just suggesting that we carefully consider “starting a civil war” as a potential option. I actually like the energy lol

I would consider a different point of view which is that ICE is a much closer representation of the “American ideal” than where you and your community stand. A study of key events of U.S. history backs this up, in my opinion. The founding ideals had much more to do with the supremacy of white, land owning, christian men than anything else.

As time has passed I think the definition of “white” has been reshaped, and women have been brought in a bit closer, but the United States government has never stood for the equality of all people. This illusion was able to be maintained in much of the late 20th century by exporting the oppression of the underclass to people in other countries.

I’d encourage people to reflect on whether or not their ideals of equality of people were ever “American” in nature, or if it might be necessary to oppose the United States government to achieve this vision.

No I know, just being pedantic about it for fun

plateau
        _____
       /
      /     
_____/

valley

____
     \
      \
       \
        ______

Since it’s on a downswing, wouldn’t it technically be a “valley” instead of a “plateau”?

OK and they don’t have to cater in a misogynistic way, but they do, and I’m criticizing that decision.

We can leave it at the same volume. Its not “all men are bad” even, no need to make things up, its embedded misogyny, even perpetuated by women at times.

The question why is “lesbian” porn, in the “straight” section?

Why would a straight woman on a porn site expect to see lesbian porn when they select to see straight porn? It’s a double standard.

If men (or anyone else) wanted to watch lesbian porn, there’s nothing wrong with that, it just seems out of place in the straight section, cause that’s not what it is.

Oh OK cool, disregard then