Join the political memorists on the political front opposing the political oblivescence! Let’s get political!
I don’t understand. The idea that inadequate border control policies & immigration policies can lead to mass migration into a country seems quite objective to me. I’d say I’d be making an empirical claim thingo there, no? Did I mess up some phrasing or something earlier?
deleted by creator
I guess, literally, he probably means that if Democrats do not allow ICE to deport criminals, potential murderers, & rapists, then there would be bloodshed by those criminals who could have been deported if ICE had not been thwarted. In other words, the people who might harm others & could have been removed from the country would still remain here committing crimes.
However, in light of recent events involving ICE shooting at what appears to me to have been an anxious, bad female driver, the statement sounds much worse/more-ominous/baleful.
P.S. I do not like masked government officials, even if there are people associated with groups like ANTIFA who are willing to murder over this issue. However, I would rather be able to hold government officials accountable. If an ANTIFA member murders someone, they should go to jail, just like an ICE agent should go to jail if they murder someone.
Honestly, this comment of yours is probably more a reflection of your own values than of reality.
It is possible that right-wing sources, or particular types of right-wing sources, have a greater tendency to create disinformation or fabricate facts than left-wing sources. However, the opposite could also be true in some cases; left-wing sources may sometimes be more likely to label their opposition’s claims as misinformation rather than recognizing them as competing interpretations or arguments.
For example, some sources labeled certain claims about natural immunity after exposure to the virus, including claims that it could provide stronger protection than boosters in some circumstances, as misinformation. However, certainty in any broad generalization, such as the idea that natural immunity is always better, hybrid immunity is always better, or mRNA vaccines are always better, would be inaccurate. The reality is that the effectiveness of different forms of immunity depends on many factors, & people continue to study how these factors interact. Outcomes can vary depending on individual circumstances, such as age, comorbidities, immune status, prior exposure, and other whatnot.
It’s one of those terms that means different things to different people, which can cause problems when discussing policy, similar to how people use the term “democratic socialism.” The literal definition of “open borders” would be an anarchic policy. The context in which I used the term, which you probably didn’t understand, perhaps due to a poor explanation on my part, was referring to open borders as a lack of adequate enforcement or supervision of the border (which, in effect, is an open border), with enough immigration to shift electoral outcomes or to supplant a native population’s norms, culture, etc.
Honestly, I’m under the impression that building a building requires scarce resources and labor, which have opportunity costs reflected in market prices, and maintaining a building likewise requires ongoing expenditures. I would agree that, when someone becomes a landlord, the goal is generally to earn a return on the capital they risk, while facing uncertainties such as tenants not paying rent, changes in government policy, and other market risks. Whether any particular landlord is a good or bad person is something I can’t really speak to.
It’s probably the wrong example to bring up, even if it is true, since it’s likely to elicit an emotional response that undermines the delivery of the original intent of my point: that data collection is a point where the statistics people rely on are often skewed.
Honestly, white populations are being replaced through open-border policies. I’m not really a tribal person, so I don’t particularly care about maintaining a population with any specific demographic makeup. I also wouldn’t say that ideas about population replacement are necessarily fake or something like that. I do currently support controlled borders for a nation-state, but not because I want to control the ethnic composition of the population. In my opinion, that kind of thinking is strange and overly tribal.
If Trump goes to war with Iran, the price of oil goes up. Since you’re restricting supply, things like airfare also go up because they rely on jet fuel to provide their service. It’s the same with housing. It’s all supply & demand.
I wouldn’t say that; sometimes statistics, like crime statistics, are distorted at the point of collection. The misclassification of non-white offenders as “white” in crime statistics leads to an overrepresentation of white crime in the USA, which racist people could probably use as fuel for their perceived persecution.
In the UK, you’ll see Pakistanis being labeled as Asian, which would lead people to joke that Japanese people are doing X or Y crimes. In the USA, you’ll see Arabic or other non-stereotypical white names, and pictures of people obviously not white, being labeled as white.
P.S. I don’t support any racist whatnot; it’s just a notable example of data collection skewing a statistic and causing an overrepresentation of crimes committed by so-called white people.
The FBI’s White Crime Numbers Count More Than White Americans
I wouldn’t say everything Mamdani does is bad. I would support his opposition to Israel, & I would be happy if he could somehow arrest Netanyahu.
That said, I think his rent freeze policy is a bad idea. A rent freeze is just the government forcing landlords not to be able to raise rents when a tenant leaves, even if the cost of providing the good has gone up.
I don’t think the government should make it harder for private businesses to provide goods & services. Rent freezes hurt smaller landlords, leaving only the biggest companies able to afford staying in the market. They also lead to rundown buildings, which the government could then use as an excuse to step in and take over those properties. That is probably Mamdani’s intent & goal, since undermining the effectiveness of capitalism could popularize socialism.
What do you believe the reality is, & what do you consider to be the facts? What do you assume my ideological beliefs are, that would lead you to claim my ideology is based on my imagination?
To fairly debate this, one would need to address your sweeping generalizations point by point. More importantly, right-wing sources aren’t a monolith. For example, Fox News largely supports Israel, while the Mises Institute opposes foreign intervention & Israel. Reducing such a broad spectrum of thought into a single monolith is inaccurate. It might evince how left-wing people, when tendentious (like right-wing people can be too, since we’re all flawed humans, including myself), can distort their political opposition’s perspective out of convenience or rational ignorance, i.e., they don’t have time to investigate what their opposition thinks.
Here’s a direct source for Wikipedia’s own position on source reliability. I could send you someone’s interpretation of it, but those interpretations would introduce another layer of bias, so it’s better to look at the source itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger have both criticized Wikipedia in ways similar to my own criticisms, but they share some of my biases, which might cause you to dismiss their views as well if you already have a strong opinion on the matter.
Larry Sanger bias drama discussed from a perspective likely closer to your own bias. - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/business/media/wikipedia-larry-sanger-barred.html
https://wiki.encyclosphere.org/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity
Larry Sanger - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger Jimmy Wales - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
P.S. It’s possible to dislike right-wingers and still acknowledge that Wikipedia has a bias problem.
Wikipedia has its bias shaped by the sources it allows users to cite. It could be correlated with reality, but I do not believe that to be the case.
Arguing against a specific idea, such as favoring voluntary associations, by bringing up slavery, which occurred during the same period when those associations were more prominent, is a goofy way to make a point. It would be analogous to arguing that the birth of the internet on January 1, 1983, was a bad thing because gay marriage was not legal at the time or because of some other unrelated thing during that time period.
You appear to be arguing against the time period as a whole rather than addressing the specific policy I support. In other words, you have constructed a straw man argument.
What do you think neoliberalism is?
My government job does the same humbug (it sucks).
What’s top of mind is Alexis de Tocqueville’s comparisons between the USA and France mentioned in Democracy in America. So I suppose a decent example, with caveats I’d probably have to mention if you were in a super debate-ty mood, would be an older version of the USA, prior to the Federal Reserve. The book is in the public domain btw - https://librivox.org/democracy-in-america-vol-i-by-alexis-de-tocqueville/
Hierarchy is simply a reality. Believing in hierarchy is like believing in reality itself (i.e. someone is going to be better than me at weaving baskets voilà you have a hierarchy: simple as). But “conservative” is too broad a label, because neoconservatives & paleoconservatives disagree dramatically. More right-liberal or libertarian-leaning conservatives generally do not oppose voluntary associations. That is their thing. They love open-source, volunteering, agorism, & so on. I do not know enough about neoconservatives to comment extensively, but they seem probably so obsessively pro-Israel & would likely change their views to anything if it helped Israel.
There is no obvious limit to what can be considered “charity.” So, if the government takes responsibility for providing charity instead of leaving it to individuals and communities, it can use that as a reason to keep expanding its power and responsibilities.
Thomas Jefferson in 1817. He penned, “Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.
In 1794, James Madison stood on the House floor and objected, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
Why Private funding?