Many of Trump’s proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here’s a running list of his most unhinged plans.

  • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    112
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    he only managed to expel several hundred thousand people per year, which is similar to the number of deportations during other recent administrations

    Sadly, the Democrats have proven themselves to be just as fascistic when it comes to immigration. I got talked into voting Biden, but I'd be lying if I said that I don't question that decision every day.

    One of the first things Biden did was to build more concentration camps, and one of the first things his supporters did was make excuses for that.

    Edit: Oh yikes, the fascism defenders and concentration camp explainers have appeared in droves in my inbox 😬

    Scroll down for exhibit A…

    • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      94
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It's fair to criticize Biden for not being better than he is but it's fucking braindead, bordering on parody to suggest that Biden isn't better than Trump. Only complete morons or people that aren't paying attention would suggest such a thing, so I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't aware of what Biden has gotten done in his first two years.

      I can't stand that he's old, he fucked over rail workers, he's still supporting Israel in their genocidal quest, and he has increased funding for police, but it's hyperbolic af to say he's just as fascist as trump, the poster child of American fascism. Dude literally attempted to overthrow democracy to stay in power. "The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. We are just going to stay in power."

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Biden administration ended up getting the rail workers the sick days they were fighting for. Maybe it would have happened sooner had a strike taken place, but to say so would be pure speculation. While seemingly heavy handed, his actions prevented a huge logistical nightmare and I'm the end got three results being asked for. I agree with pretty the rest of what you said, but saying he fucked over rail workers is a bit disingenuous.

        • goldenlocks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That's a lie. They only got a small fraction of the sick time they demanded, and that's only for some workers not all. Now you use those exploited workers as a political tool.

      • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I'm referring solely to immigration, which is the topic at hand. No one has claimed he is as bad as Trump overall, and I'm not sure how these links are supposed to make me feel better about how he's actively persecuted immigrants and refugees. I mean, let's be honest…

        Edit: "he's old" is literally age discrimination. Of all the criticisms of Biden, "he's old" is not relevant in the least.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          "he's old" is literally age discrimination.

          I mean, it literally isn't. Voters can choose any criteria to choose their political candidate.

          Of all the criticisms of Biden, "he's old" is not relevant in the least.

          How is age not relevant? The risk of dementia quintuples from 70s to 80s. The elderly are more susceptible to almost every disease. Not to mention that the presidency is one of the most stressful jobs, just look at the before and after photographs of presidents.

          As in other studies, the ADAMS analysis showed that the prevalence of dementia increases significantly with age. Five percent of people ages 71 to 79, 24.2 percent of people 80 to 89, and 37.4 percent of those 90 years or older were estimated to have some type of dementia. The estimated rate of Alzheimer's also rose greatly with older age — from 2.3 percent of people ages 71 to 79 to 18.1 percent of people 80 to 89 to 29.7 percent of those age 90 and older.

          • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I mean, it literally isn’t. Voters can choose any criteria to choose their political candidate.

            I don't want to pass any sort of judgement on whether it is or isn't age discrimination, but your way of arriving at this conclusion is flawed. It's like saying voters can choose all sorts of criteria to select their favourite, so going by the criterion of race can't be racism. Those possible criteria can have different names and descriptors, independent of whether they are possible or not.

            How is age not relevant?

            His age does indeed put him into a risk group for possible dementia, true, but the criterion disqualifying him would be if he specifically does have dementia or not - not his age. Young people can develop dementia with a certain probability too, that does not exclude young people, it only excludes young people who actually do develop dementia.

            • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Possibly one of the most needlessly pedantic comments I've ever received.

              Age discrimination is typically, almost entirely, discussed as a legal issue, most often within the arena of employment. The reason being that most people realize and accept that age affects abilities. So taking into account the age of a candidate wouldn't be age discrimination in the typical sense.

              His age does indeed put him into a risk group for possible dementia, true, but the criterion disqualifying him would be if he specifically does have dementia or not - not his age.

              And he's going to take a cognitive test at my request and share the results? And those results will guarantee that he won't develop dementia for the next five years? If the answer to either is no, then I need to make a decision based on probability. He's far more likely to develop dementia than someone in their 70s, and I would guess hundreds to thousands of times more likely than someone in their 40s.

              Not to mention that life expectancy would hold that he'd be dead by now. He's fairly likely to die in office, especially when considering the stress of the job.

              • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Possibly one of the most needlessly pedantic comments I’ve ever received.

                Why, thank you, but be aware that flattery will get you nowhere.

                Age discrimination is typically, almost entirely, discussed as a legal issue, most often within the arena of employment.

                Alrighty, then let's look at your comment from the perspective of legality. Age discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee less favorably because of his or her age. That's the definition. Now if we were to continue here and expand our scope, we could state that this is illegal in working environments because - short version - there are laws making it so in the workplace, but that does not touch what is or isn't age discrimination. Since there are no laws declaring it illegal in an electoral context, age discrimination happening while voting is not illegal there, but it still very much is age discrimination. Just like in our previous example, not voting for a candidate because one doesn't like their race is still racism, but like above, it is not illegal because no law says it is.

                True enough, not much difference in your conclusion because it is not a case of illegal age discrimination, but

                I mean, it literally isn’t.

                it literally is.

                • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  By that definition, every choice is discrimination because any criteria you set necessarily excludes so other group.

                  You keep pivoting to race as your analogy, but it doesn't fit. Look at the scrutiny courts give to race versus sex or age. Laws based on race receive strict scrutiny, gender gets intermediate scrutiny, and age is judged with a rational basis scrutiny.

                  So, yes, while discrimination can mean that, it certainly has a connotation that makes it a poor word choice. It is misleading as to what's happening. Using age as a selection criteria is based on rational facts, selection based on race is based on hate. Poor analogy.

                  • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    By that definition, every choice is discrimination because any criteria you set necessarily excludes so other group.

                    Not quite. We got two factors here, one, the different treatment from other groups, yes. but the second factor - different treatment because of someone's age - limits it to cases of different treatment due to age. It's not age discrimination because someone else gets different treatment, it is age discrimination because age is the reason for that.

                    And that's why racism is an apt analogy, because that is one possible motivation for different treatment in someone's mind, just like age can be another reason. The different levels of scrutiny do not touch that. These come into play because proving such motivations in court is difficult and needs quasi-tangible standards, but what's being proved is that a factor (such as age, race, gender, etc) IS the main motivation in a case.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      just as fascistic when it comes to immigration

      Lmao no. Did Obama or Biden put immigrants in cages, separating children from parents? Did the dems implement literal death traps in an attempt to kill more would be immigrants? I could go on and on.

      They are nowhere near the same level. Take your reductive bullshit somewhere else

      • troglodytis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        To your first question, yes. Obama did and there were protests and court rulings against it. A court order in 2015 limited child detention to 20 days and lead the Obama administration to change its ways. The Trump administration worked to undo that court order.

        And, yes, cages and camps still operate today, within that 20 day limitation.

        The Obama administration deported more people in its first term than the Trump administration did.

        When it comes to deportations the Trump administration, as with so many things, talked big, but was unable to effectively enact its stated goals.

    • user91@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yea buddy…That vote for Trump will certainly make things better compared to Biden.

          • BassTurd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Mathematically, if Trump is the Republican nominee, and this person doesn't vote for Biden, their vote only benefits Trump, so it's basically the same thing.

        • Uranium3006@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          right wing democrats have to resort to lies, like that not voting for trump is voting for trump (?) and then blame us when they lose

          • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, I get that a lot. And here's the most hilarious part: Even if you admit that you voted for Biden, they will still somehow make that a "vote for Trump" if you're not sucking sufficient cock. It's weird as hell.

            • Uranium3006@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              also they act like it's your fault that people who are way less into politics than you or me might not feel like going all the way to the polls and wait 4 hours for a shitty cannidate they don't even like. those are the voters hillary clinton lost that lost her the election, and what biden's really risking losing next year

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yea buddy… That vote for one of two clowns who both support (and have been allowed to rise to the top by) the system that oppresses the rest of society will certainly make things better compared to realising the system is and always has been rigged and that your choice within it is nothing more than an illusion keeping you distracted while they continue to exploit you… 🙄🙄

    • BmeBenji@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m in no way here to defend Biden, but I literally have heard nothing about concentration camps related to Biden. To what are you referring?

      • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        I half expected them to arrive, but part of me was hoping there wouldn't be so many here on Lemmy. At least they're showing their ass, and anyone should be able to see right through their excuses and lies.