Don't know why you said "but".

These articles confirm what I was saying from the start.

But,

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/may/25/trump-american-democracy

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/26/opinion/memorial-day-democracy-crisis.html

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 9:56 pm

Still, about 1-in-5 polled Republicans believe the government should have the right to detain US citizens indefinitely in prisons in foreign countries.

*facepalm*

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 9:44 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 9:36 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 9:18 pm

Personally I find that the domestic policy of foreign nations is quite low down on the list of things that concern me.

The problem is, without due process, the Trump admin can't even be sure that these policies only target foreign nationals. Moreover, Trump has said his intention is to expand the suspension of habeas corpus to US citizens, and Steven Miller is actively trying to achieve this rather horrifying goal.

In regards to that second bit, I really would like to know what particularly he plans to do about what he calls "homegrowns." I do not like the idea of American prisoners in foreign prisons.

The plan is, thankfully, rather unpopular: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52094-what-do-americans-believe-about-kilmar-abrego-garcia

Still, about 1-in-5 polled Republicans believe the government should have the right to detain US citizens indefinitely in prisons in foreign countries.

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 9:36 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 9:18 pm

Personally I find that the domestic policy of foreign nations is quite low down on the list of things that concern me.

The problem is, without due process, the Trump admin can't even be sure that these policies only target foreign nationals. Moreover, Trump has said his intention is to expand the suspension of habeas corpus to US citizens, and Steven Miller is actively trying to achieve this rather horrifying goal.

In regards to that second bit, I really would like to know what particularly he plans to do about what he calls "homegrowns." I do not like the idea of American prisoners in foreign prisons.

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 9:36 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 9:18 pm

Personally I find that the domestic policy of foreign nations is quite low down on the list of things that concern me.

The problem is, without due process, the Trump admin can't even be sure that these policies only target foreign nationals. Moreover, Trump has said his intention is to expand the suspension of habeas corpus to US citizens, and Steven Miller is actively trying to achieve this rather horrifying goal.

I realize I misread "nations" as "nationals" and misinterpreted Oct's point. Sorry for that.

Totally random note, entirely distinct of the subject, but of interest nonetheless (in my opinion): If you've never listened to it, I suggest taking a look at Bruckner's 9th Symphony, particularly the first movement. Starts off a bit slow, but it gets rather interesting especially about 17 minutes in.

Sorry, I've just been listening to that piece and I couldn't help but share. I've no idea if any of y'all even care for that era of music, but I think it's cool.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 9:18 pm

Personally I find that the domestic policy of foreign nations is quite low down on the list of things that concern me.

The problem is, without due process, the Trump admin can't even be sure that these policies only target foreign nationals. Moreover, Trump has said his intention is to expand the suspension of habeas corpus to US citizens, and Steven Miller is actively trying to achieve this rather horrifying goal.

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 5:06 pm

^ Also it's not certain that everyone agrees with the point that Trump's approach to suspending habeus corpus is a bad idea. The only confirmed Webdip Trump voter hasn't weighed in. I do wonder what the rhetoric is among conservatives in Texas, but I can't beg a busy university student to waste their time indulging my curiosity (and exposing themselves to being berated by Jamie )

Meh, finals was last week; I've got a bit of time to waste.

First, I should note that the first that I have heard of this was this thread. So as far as the rhetoric among Texans goes I'm afraid I can't help you. My interest in politics recently has been seeing the occasional headline and reading the story behind it. Tariffs became a big deal in the news, but the price of groceries and gas hasn't changed up or down here so for me it personally has had no effect yet. This semester my studies have been busier than last, so I've had to lower my priority of being knowledgeable on world events and political news, for better or worse. Hence, I've been on here less lately. I should probably get back into being a little more informed now that I've got a bit more time.

As far as this story goes, my opinion doesn't differ from common sense. It's not a good idea to suspend habeus corpus. That's one of the things I take issue with having briefly studied Lincoln's presidency, so why should I not take issue with Trump's presidency if they do the same thing? Illegal immigrants should get due process just like everyone else. Will it happen? can it happen? I don't know, but there's not a darned thing I can do about it that's worth my time, so I won't worry about it any more than knowing what has been said by whom and what it would mean.

I know, I know. No contentious counter-opinion from me, sorry.

Fair enough. Personally I find that the domestic policy of foreign nations is quite low down on the list of things that concern me. Whether Trump makes any changes or not (and I'm still very much leaning towards not) won't have any impact on me nor anyone I care about. A low likelihood of a minimal impact event isn't going to keep me up at night. And in the wider context of bad things that happen to foreigners it doesn't even make the top 100 list. That's not to say it isn't interesting, but it's not something I'd be motivated to try and do anything about.

Of course issuing a condemnation on webDip is as close to doing nothing as makes no difference, so maybe our positions aren't so far apart

I asked GPT to succinctly summarize your earlier argument, which I think it mostly got right: "The speaker is wary of suspending habeas corpus without dire need but not strongly opposed. They see it as useful but not essential, and doubt Trump’s plans will lead to anything serious."

Maybe it would have been more polite and engaging of me to ask questions about the details of your thinking here, but I'm also not particularly interested in what looks like your attempt to downplay the seriousness of this issue even if you ultimately agree it's problematic. When I read serious outlets reporting "President Donald Trump reiterated that he'd like to send US citizens who commit violent crimes to prison in El Salvador" I don't feel a strong need to both-sides the issue. To me, the already-perpetrated kidnappings constitute a very serious issue. Anything less than condemnation does indeed feel like apologia or sane-washing.

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 5:00 pm

No one is making you participate in these conversations Oct lol. I used to appreciate hearing an interesting dissenting opinion from you - lately it seems you're just circling the wagons on ideas you agree are bad just to be a contrarian,

In what way am I circling wagons? It used to be commonplace, when discussing relatively weighty matters, to make an attempt to place them in context and examine the arguments in favour and against. Being something of a traditionalist that is what I endeavour to do. And yet ever time I do so with anything Trump related, even in the case of the opening topic of this thread when I came down decisively on the side of Trump being in the wrong, you pick out everything that isn't painting Trump as the great Satan and accuse me of supporting him. It is utterly ludicrous and increasingly tedious. You seem to have taken the view that unless your argument consists entirely of anti Trump rhetoric then you are in favour of him, and I reject that utterly

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 5:00 pm

in service of your "everyone else is hysterical" worldview

Everyone else in the context of webDip is 80% Jamie. And he is hysterical, yes.

^ Also it's not certain that everyone agrees with the point that Trump's approach to suspending habeus corpus is a bad idea. The only confirmed Webdip Trump voter hasn't weighed in. I do wonder what the rhetoric is among conservatives in Texas, but I can't beg a busy university student to waste their time indulging my curiosity (and exposing themselves to being berated by Jamie )

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 4:54 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 1:09 pm

All this is so much less interesting and important than the original topic of this thread — the admin is trying to find a nonsense legal justification to detain Americans without due process, partly to justify the detentions they've already done without even bothering to establish a pretense ...

I couldn't disagree more. There is no mileage in the original topic. It's a bad idea, everyone agrees, the end. The only disagreement of any note is how likely we think it will actually happen, but time will answer that question for us. If the thread hadn't branched out it would have ceased to be active some time ago, possibly to be revived briefly by the musings of the good Major or some Brainbomb satire

No one is making you participate in these conversations Oct lol. I used to appreciate hearing an interesting dissenting opinion from you - lately it seems you're just circling the wagons on ideas you agree are bad just to be a contrarian, or in service of your "everyone else is hysterical" worldview.

March 2025 – NBC News Interview: In a telephone interview, Trump stated he was "not joking" about seeking a third term and mentioned, "There are methods which you could do it." He added that many people were encouraging him to run again, though he emphasized he was focused on his current administration.

January 2025 – Remarks to House Republicans: During a speech to Republican lawmakers, Trump mused about the possibility of running again, saying, "I think I'm not allowed to run again. I'm not sure. Am I allowed to run again?"

April 2025 – "Trump 2028" Merchandise: Trump's organization began selling "Trump 2028" hats with the tagline "Rewrite the rules," signaling a potential interest in a third term and encouraging supporters to consider the idea.

Trump's allies have also actively explored avenues to enable a third term.

Representative Andy Ogles introduced a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to allow presidents who have served two non-consecutive terms to seek a third term.

Steve Bannon, a former White House chief strategist and influential figure in the MAGA movement, has been actively promoting the concept of a third term for Trump. Operating from his Arizona villa and Washington townhouse, Bannon continues to shape the MAGA movement, largely through his influential podcast “War Room,”

It's possible we disagree about what the bulk of this evidence suggests. I accept the critique that Trump has not been the loudest-possible champion of a third term. I reject the idea that it he and his team haven't tested the water on this issue.

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 1:09 pm

It's six articles that talk about a history of statements, including direct quotes that he's not joking about a third term and that he and his team have thought through how that might be accomplished. The various links are for your benefit, since you have silly habit of denigrating the source rather than engaging with the material whenever an idea doesn't suit your preconceptions.

Why is it that whenever Trump says anything that fits your negative narrative you treat it as absolute gospel but when he says something positive you treat it with extreme skepticism? There is broad justification for a skeptical approach, but that has to applied universally rather than to turn it off whenever you hear something that appeals to you.

All this talk, of course, and you have provided literally zero evidence of Trump saying that he intends to run for a third term. Zilch. Nothing. Because, presumably, he has never done so. Because he doesn't want to and because it is politically impossible to make happen even if he did. I am beyond evidence only in the sense that you don't have any.

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Tue May 13, 2025 1:09 pm

All this is so much less interesting and important than the original topic of this thread — the admin is trying to find a nonsense legal justification to detain Americans without due process, partly to justify the detentions they've already done without even bothering to establish a pretense ...

I couldn't disagree more. There is no mileage in the original topic. It's a bad idea, everyone agrees, the end. The only disagreement of any note is how likely we think it will actually happen, but time will answer that question for us. If the thread hadn't branched out it would have ceased to be active some time ago, possibly to be revived briefly by the musings of the good Major or some Brainbomb satire

I don't feel any great need to Bert or Jamie agree with me on everything. But you're right, I am getting somewhat impatient with this nonsense. It is frustrating when someone like Bert, who generally plays with a straight bat, allows himself to post blatant untruths. And it is disappointing, when instead of acknowledging this, he decides to double down on the falsehood.

It is not unreasonable, I would have thought, that if you're making such an outlandish statement such as "Trump says earnestly and repeatedly that he wants a third term" you should be able to back it up with a handful of examples.

But no, instead we have a single interview (referenced multiple times... We can with confidence say that this interview did indeed happen) in which he never says anything of the sort. Sure, he toys with the journalist. He says many people want him to stand again (this is undoubtedly true). He says that there are ways it could happen (this is technically true, but those ways are damned near impossible). He also says he's focused on the here and now and that it's far too early to think about.

None of that falls anywhere near the category of someone earnestly saying that they intend on getting a third term, certainly not repeatedly saying anything. And yet Bert parades half a dozen reports about the interview to inflate their numbers like Benito Mussolini ordering his tanks to complete several laps of the town centre to make his parade look bigger.

And yet again I'm portrayed as a massive Trump fan purely because I'm sick and tired by the constant stream of misleading information by the same people who berate Trump for his constant stream of misleading information.

And it never ends. Berti sees the red mist descend out of a sense of patriotic pride whenever Trump is mentioned, and that's sadly every other day, and Jamie has been indulging in his Nazi hunting fantasies in one shape or another for as long as he's been here. When they are 8n tandem it wears you down somewhat

Oct you've put yourself beyond evidence.

It's six articles that talk about a history of statements, including direct quotes that he's not joking about a third term and that he and his team have thought through how that might be accomplished. The various links are for your benefit, since you have silly habit of denigrating the source rather than engaging with the material whenever an idea doesn't suit your preconceptions.

I don't think he'll get a third term but it's just weird to act like he's never talked about it ...

All this is so much less interesting and important than the original topic of this thread — the admin is trying to find a nonsense legal justification to detain Americans without due process, partly to justify the detentions they've already done without even bothering to establish a pretense ...

Those are bold words, Oct. I usually find the others guilty of groundshifting and hyperbole more than yourself, but I'll admit, while the (majority of the) substance of your points are true, you're certainly not making it easy for Bert or Jamie to agree with you.

You do realise that 6 reports about a single interview does not equal multiple occasions of Trump doing anything? It is a single event. An event in which Trump doesn't say that he's running for a third term, earnestly or otherwise.

Your evidence is bunk. You have built a steadfast belief on a foundation of pure make believe. I am astounded and somewhat disappointed that you are persevering with this fantasy