They’re failing to control a single mid-sized city, I’m not sure how they would maintain control over half the country. They don’t have the numbers, and are widely hated.
They don't need to maintain control. Elections are close and voters are geographically polarized.
Reduce turnout in cities in four or five swing states and that can be enough to flip an election. If you've got ICE just detaining random non-white people near polling places based on the theory put forward in Noem v Vasquez Perdomo, how many nonwhite citizens who would be solid voters for the democrats just decide to stay at home rather than go to the polls?
It is possible that this approach sparks a reaction and backfires. But I'm not sure that's a guarantee.
If you want to hold on to the house and senate you don’t need to maintain control - you just need to disrupt the elections of 10 to 20 key cities, and they have the numbers for that.
They are disrupting lives, but elections? Imagine if the election was held today in Minneapolis, how do you think the vote would go? Would people be afraid to vote, or would it be the largest turnout the city has ever seen?
That's a blue state being targeted for revenge and for practice and so they can spin stories for their voters in other states. They'd probably target blue cities in swing states if they wanted to impact votes.
They have people who are experts in this. Before the latest wave of open fascism, many of the rising stars in the Republican party where people who were experts at removing people with Democrat sounding names off voter registration databases shortly before elections.
They have the data to target this effectively if they want to do it.
Their plan is failing because their popularity numbers are dropping constantly, and they are convincing people to get out and organize and protest. Like, do you actually see any successes here? They’ve managed to turn “Abolish ICE” from a fringe left wing opinion, to the mainstream centrist position.
Like, I get that they’re doing this big show of force. But they’re losing. They are not accomplishing any of their goals, and the longer this goes on, the more the population is turning against them, and the less and less they will be able to accomplish their goals anywhere. Minnesota is not afraid of them, and they’re teaching the rest of the country not to fear them either.
This all reminds me of the offhand comment from an old XKCD: “You own 3D googles, which you use to view rotating models of better 3D googles.” He’s got this gigantic angentic orchestration system, which he uses to build… an agentic orchestration system. Okay.
Why didn’t you work out a more manageable billing structure with them?! Or to put it another way: if it took you 10 minutes a week with spreadsheets to even figure out what their bill is, how on earth did they verify your invoices were even correct? And if they couldn’t—or if it took more than 10 minutes each week—why wouldn’t they prefer a billing system they could verify they were being paid correctly?
I’m not trying to give advice, I’m just curious about their arrangement. When I did consulting, I hated billing, and would have wanted a system that was as easy as possible.
This is your evidence? This is meaningless. The problem is, you’re applying reasoning backwards. You’re starting with the assumption that Trump’s ramblings are justified, so you search for whatever you can find that supports his side, and thus conclude that this evidence is sufficient to justify his claims, because it’s all the evidence out there. Instead of actual reasoning, which would be to start with the question “are his claims justified?”, searching for evidence for and against, and realizing that these few articles in support are dwarfed by the hundreds of billion dollars in trade between the two countries.
The problem is, the guillotine solution to regulation only becomes feasible after the monied interest have thoroughly fucked society, to a level that would make living as blue-collar working in Detroit downtown today feel like being a banking executive living in Geneva.
Why Truncate quotes to to make it sound like I was responding to something other than what I did? The post are right on top of eachother.
It might be good for Europe/the world, but it is not 'America first' or good for America.
Why would we want to inflict MORE competition on ourselves? We can easily create competition within our own country if that is a desirable outcome. To beat my analogy to death if a class is graded on a curve, I'm not recruiting the smartest people I know into it just because 'that will make me try/work harder'.
> Where things go, how pieces fit, reusable patterns - this is more question of subjective taste and big-picture thinking.
I do that, too, only I call it coding, and it doesn’t require me to rewrite a bunch of badly written slop first.
reply