5 hours ago, M2 said:

At this point, Tulsi was a better pick. Isn't there an absolute boot licker out there that also been an exec at one of the many intel orgs out there? None?

If you have any political ambitions whatsoever, I think the smart move would be to bide your time and stay as far away from this self immolating administration as you can. If you thought Kamala trying to distance herself from Biden was rough just wait till you see how much JD and Rubio are going to have to answer for on a national debate stage if either of them ever run for president.

That’s probably why there aren’t many people stepping up to take these roles other than the absolute most devoted Trump cucks. You’d have to be politically retarded or the most devout loyalist ever to think hitching your career to this wagon at this point would be a good move

On 6/11/2026 at 3:21 PM, StoleIt said:

Didn't everyone think Tulsi was a Russian agent or something? What ever happened to that narrative?

I thought she is still a Dem and had little background in intel. That's my narrative. Check my work.

8 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

I thought she is still a Dem and had little background in intel. That's my narrative. Check my work.

From wikipedia here's her relevant Committee assignments as Congresswoman: Armed Services Committee for 8 years with 2 of those on the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations; Foreign Affairs for 6 years, & Homeland Security for 2 years. Her military career was as a medic, MP and Civil Affairs officer. Score that how you want, but there's at least some experience. She left the Democrats to be an independent in 2022 then joined the Republican Party in 2024.

Wild read. Miller is a fucking ghoul independent of this article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/us/politics/trump-scharf-habeas-corpus-insurrection-act.html?

Edited 18 hours ago18 hr by 17D_guy

Yes, we get it. You’re a progressive who doesn’t like Trump or people who support Trump.

7 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Wild read. Miller is a fucking ghoul independent of this article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/us/politics/trump-scharf-habeas-corpus-insurrection-act.html?

I will never understand the argument that people in a country illegally should have a months- or years-long right to protest their removal.

Are you here legally? If no, then you are deported. Deportation is not imprisonment or punishment, it is merely the cessation of violation.

Where's the logical end to this nonsense? Should visa applicants in Zimbabwe have a right to "due process" if they are denied a green card? If not, why is it any different for the Zimbabwean who snuck in?

If we are trying to give them prison sentences, then yeah, due process includes the right to a fair trial. But if we're just returning intruders to their rightful place, due process should include only food and water for the journey home.

8 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I will never understand the argument that people in a country illegally should have a months- or years-long right to protest their removal.

Are you here legally? If no, then you are deported. Deportation is not imprisonment or punishment, it is merely the cessation of violation.

Where's the logical end to this nonsense? Should visa applicants in Zimbabwe have a right to "due process" if they are denied a green card? If not, why is it any different for the Zimbabwean who snuck in?

If we are trying to give them prison sentences, then yeah, due process includes the right to a fair trial. But if we're just returning intruders to their rightful place, due process should include only food and water for the journey home.

Having spent a little time along the Texas border with Mexico in an official capacity, and having seen the onslaught of illegal immigrants wading across the Rio Grande, I am not without sympathy for their plight but I also clearly realize that the government's main priority must to be protect its citizens above all else. This issue has been politicized far more than it needs to be, it's a sovereignty issue and nothing else.  No modern country allows completely unrestricted entry and settlement by anyone.  Even places often cited as “open” still have rules, they require identification, limit how long you can stay, and/or enforce conditions like employment or housing.  The “sovereign right to control borders” is a core principle of international law and statehood, meaning every country has the legal authority to decide who can enter, stay in and leave its territory.  It’s codified across several core international legal sources.

This is a great example I found years ago…

Imagine a crowded town built inside sturdy walls.

Inside the walls, there are laws, courts, schools, roads, and a shared agreement about how life works. People rely on these structures—they trust that disputes will be settled, that services will function, that rights will be protected. These things don’t exist by accident; they are maintained by the authority of the town itself—its ability to define who belongs inside, how resources are shared, and how order is kept.

Now imagine a group of townspeople who begin to argue that the gates should be opened—wide. They believe movement should be freer, that people outside should not be held back by lines on a map. They point out, correctly, that on a human level, the walls can feel arbitrary. Why should where you’re born determine where you may live? Why should opportunity stop at a border?

Their argument is rooted in a sense of fairness, even moral clarity: people should be able to move, to seek better lives, to not be constrained by geography.

But across the square, others see a tension taking shape.

They look at the same walls—not as arbitrary barriers, but as the very structures that make the town possible. The walls define the system that allows the laws to work, the taxes to be collected, the services to be delivered. Without some control over who comes and goes, they worry the town could lose its ability to function as it does now.

And so, to them, an irony appears.

They see people standing inside a functioning system—protected by it, benefitting from it—while calling for a loosening of the very boundaries that make that system coherent. It feels, to the critics, like wanting both the shelter of the house and the removal of its walls at the same time.

Meanwhile, the reformers don’t see irony at all.

In their eyes, the critics are too rigid—too tied to a model that treats borders as permanent and necessary in their current form. They point out that the town has already changed over time: gates have opened before, alliances have formed between neighboring towns, and entire regions have created shared spaces where movement is freer without chaos ensuing. To them, the walls are not sacred—they are adjustable.

They would say: we’re not asking to destroy the town; we’re asking to rethink how its boundaries work.

So the “irony” lives mostly in the space between these viewpoints.

To one side, it is a contradiction: a desire for the benefits of a bounded system while arguing to weaken the boundaries.

To the other, it is not a contradiction at all, but an evolution: a belief that systems can adapt, and that human mobility and social order do not have to be in conflict.

And the town square conversation continues—
not really about walls, or gates, or even borders,
but about how much structure a society needs,
and how much freedom it can sustain at the same time.

8 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I will never understand the argument that people in a country illegally should have a months- or years-long right to protest their removal.

You're making a strawman argument and you know it. Bad Ratner.

Prove this person is an illegal alien, before imprisoning them and deporting them. Cause the government never makes mistakes, this should be easy.

33 minutes ago, busdriver said:

You're making a strawman argument and you know it. Bad Ratner.

Prove this person is an illegal alien, before imprisoning them and deporting them. Cause the government never makes mistakes, this should be easy.

The left doesn’t want to deport people who have been determined to be here illegally, so let’s not pretend this is a legitimate debate going on today.

33 minutes ago, busdriver said:

You're making a strawman argument and you know it. Bad Ratner.

Prove this person is an illegal alien, before imprisoning them and deporting them. Cause the government never makes mistakes, this should be easy.

Do you really think that this is just about figuring out whether or not the people are illegals or not? You think that's what the deportation judges are doing, looking for clues to figure out if they accidentally scooped up a citizen? Come on, you can't really think that, right?

You think that in 2026, with the most unfathomably complex surveillance tools ever imagined by man, the real problem we are having is figuring out who is a citizen and who isn't?

Exactly how many citizens are being accidentally deported?

You ever met someone who had a hard time proving that they were a citizen? Lol, talk about bad faith.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Lord Ratner

15 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Exactly how many citizens are being accidentally deported?

A 4 second Google search produces multiple claims of detained/deported citizens and legal immigrants. Some of this is obviously dubious, but due process is how that is sorted out. Trusting "the most unfathomably complex surveillance tools ever imagined by man" without any oversight is an insane violation of basic civil liberties.