Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
"Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. This audit shall begin no later than the summer of 2025 and shall proceed on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching-unit-by-teaching-unit basis as appropriate. The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and the federal government no later than the end of 2025. Harvard must abolish all criteria, preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests. Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to establish viewpoint diversity every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suppose the key question is how and why these institutions have been totally infected by leftist group think." It started when women got the vote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Then new staff and student candiadates would be assessed for their ideological position by the government approved body using the same criteria and methodology and instead of being recruited or admittted on grounds of merit only those who had ideas that the government liked would be recruited or allowed to study." But the new auditing body has a mandate to ensure diversity of viewpoint. It would have to ensure that universities enrolled a sufficient number of people that had ideas that the government didn't like, otherwise there would be no diversity. "The end result will I think be a brain drain from the US as researchers conclude that the USA is a hostile environment for them. Talented people who would have gone to Harvard and other leading US universities will opt for Europe instead." So this would be a good thing. Europe would benefit from getting the money attached to the richest of Americans, and America would benefit from having their best people experience a much wider range of views than they would ever get in the US. Win-win. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the new auditing body has a mandate to ensure diversity of viewpoint. It would have to ensure that universities enrolled a sufficient number of people that had ideas that the government didn't like, otherwise there would be no diversity." But the Trump adminstration's starting position is that there isn't viewpoint diversity because ideas they like are under-represented. Therefore the only logical way to achieve their goal would be to enroll a "critical mass" of people who do share their ideology. "Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity." --------- "So this would be a good thing. Europe would benefit from getting the money attached to the richest of Americans, and America would benefit from having their best people experience a much wider range of views than they would ever get in the US. Win-win." My point was that it would be bad for the US (and for the UK if we were to follow the US in enforcing such a policy). Individual researchers leaving a hostile environment would benefit but other people in the US (or UK) would not benefit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Generally the bias is far worse in the humanities, arts and social sciences than in STEM subjects so I don't think brain drain will be an issue. I doubt Japan or Sweden are crying out for far left Lecturers in Gender Studies or Sociology." The freezing of grants and other threats of action will affect Harvard as a whole. Research in the humanities, arts and social sciences is far less expensive than in fields like oncology, immunology, neuroscience, molecular biology, genomics and quantum science. Therefore the impact of removing billions of dollars of grants will be felt most in these latter areas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the Trump adminstration's starting position is that there isn't viewpoint diversity because ideas they like are under-represented. Therefore the only logical way to achieve their goal would be to enroll a "critical mass" of people who do share their ideology." Yes, and that would improve diversity, if the new people joined alongside the old views. The problem we two have here is that I'm reading the words as they are written, while you are believing that this is just a pretence for Trump to take over. The words as they are written say that diversity must be introduced. You think that means that all must be approved thinkers, and diversity will therefore reduce. "Individual researchers leaving a hostile environment would benefit but other people in the US (or UK) would not benefit." I was making the unvoiced assumption that many of the Americans that come to Europe to study would then return to the US, taking their newly expanded minds with them. Europe would benefit from the cash, and America would benefit when those people went back home as better people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, and that would improve diversity, if the new people joined alongside the old views. The problem we two have here is that I'm reading the words as they are written, while you are believing that this is just a pretence for Trump to take over. The words as they are written say that diversity must be introduced. You think that means that all must be approved thinkers, and diversity will therefore reduce." Undoubtedly diversity would increase but it would be achieved by people being hired or admitted based on their ideological position rather than by merit. Isn't the rejection of meritocracy what everyboby arguing against DEI has been complaining about? Also are all views equally valid in an academic setting? Should evolutionary biologists be equally balanced by young earth creationists for instance? --- "I was making the unvoiced assumption that many of the Americans that come to Europe to study would then return to the US, taking their newly expanded minds with them. Europe would benefit from the cash, and America would benefit when those people went back home as better people." There are some assumptions in there that not everyone would agree with, but I get your drift. I'm not really talking about undergraduates here. I'm thinking about high-level research, some of which won't be immediately published in the public domain, also some of those researchers will move from academia into private companies. Many US citizens who do relocate to Europe might do so permanently. They'd probably have lower incomes as a result but their quality of life would probably go up more than enough to compensate for the monetary loss. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was making the unvoiced assumption that many of the Americans that come to Europe to study would then return to the US, taking their newly expanded minds with them. Europe would benefit from the cash, and America would benefit when those people went back home as better people." Also Europe wouldn't be benefiting from rich US students, it would be Europe funding research in Europe. A news story on this from AFP last week said that Aix Marseille University has had 135 applications from researchers in the US for 20 available posts. The university has set aside a budget so that each researcher taken in receives between 600,000 and 800,000 euros ($680,00-$910,000) over three years to continue their work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was making the unvoiced assumption that many of the Americans that come to Europe to study would then return to the US, taking their newly expanded minds with them. Europe would benefit from the cash, and America would benefit when those people went back home as better people." "Also Europe wouldn't be benefiting from rich US students, it would be Europe funding research in Europe." I made it very clear that I was talking about students, who will pay money to attend a European university. Europe would benefit from that money "A news story on this from AFP last week said that Aix Marseille University has had 135 applications from researchers in the US for 20 available posts. The university has set aside a budget so that each researcher taken in receives between 600,000 and 800,000 euros ($680,00-$910,000) over three years to continue their work." That's paid researchers, not students. It's almost like you don't actually want to hear other people's opinions, but instead just want the opportunity to air your own views. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's almost like you don't actually want to hear other people's opinions, but instead just want the opportunity to air your own views." I'm reading your opinions and responding with mine, what do you want me to do, just be silent? Tuition fees at Harvard are about $60,000 per year so the money that the Trump administration is stopping isn't going to undergraduate students. It's mostly going to higher-level students and staff working in critical areas of research that will affect all our futures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's almost like you don't actually want to hear other people's opinions, but instead just want the opportunity to air your own views. I'm reading your opinions and responding with mine, what do you want me to do, just be silent? Tuition fees at Harvard are about $60,000 per year so the money that the Trump administration is stopping isn't going to undergraduate students. It's mostly going to higher-level students and staff working in critical areas of research that will affect all our futures. " If Harvard has its own endowment of $53 billion, why was the US taxpayer even funding it in the first place? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If Harvard has its own endowment of $53 billion, why was the US taxpayer even funding it in the first place" Because Harvard is perhaps the most important university in the world and the endowments represent only a part of its financing. They give it security to weather storms like this and to maintain some degree of independence from political interference. US taxpayer funded research grants are also only a part of Havard's income but they generate returns for the US that previous governments have considered well worth the investment. It's the same in the UK. We have things like the Research Council (UKRI) studentships which can provide PhD students with about £20,000 per year for living costs plus tuition fees and additional support for research. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's almost like you don't actually want to hear other people's opinions, but instead just want the opportunity to air your own views. I'm reading your opinions and responding with mine, what do you want me to do, just be silent? Tuition fees at Harvard are about $60,000 per year so the money that the Trump administration is stopping isn't going to undergraduate students. It's mostly going to higher-level students and staff working in critical areas of research that will affect all our futures. If Harvard has its own endowment of $53 billion, why was the US taxpayer even funding it in the first place?" For the same reason that Elon Musk is the richest man in the world but NASA keeps on pumping millions into Space X - they have capabilities no one else does and the government wants access. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's paid researchers, not students." Here's my understanding of what the terms student and researcher mean. Undergraduates are basically learning how to do research. Their work can be very scholarly and useful but it's generally considered to be very low-level research. They pay to do it, they don't get paid to do it. Graduates, for instance people doing PhDs, are still learning but they are more focused on research than undergraduates. They may get paid to do this. Even though they are paid to do research they are still students. Some post-docs effectively become professional students, they may be on their second or third PhD and have been making a living out of it for a while. Some of these are very highly skilled people who can also money from side activities. Then we have professional researchers who are hired specifically to do research. Some may help out doing a bit of lecturing but it's never their primary task. Then we have people like lecturers and professors who might do a combination of teaching, research and research management. Some professors might focus on departmental managment so do almost no research. Somewhat outside the system there are self-employed researchers. This is what I used to do for a while, I was probably on the books as a research associate or something like that. A couple of large corporations paid the universities for my research so it didn't cost the taxpayer anything. So there isn't a rigid dichotomy between researcher and student. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's almost like you don't actually want to hear other people's opinions, but instead just want the opportunity to air your own views. I'm reading your opinions and responding with mine, what do you want me to do, just be silent? Tuition fees at Harvard are about $60,000 per year so the money that the Trump administration is stopping isn't going to undergraduate students. It's mostly going to higher-level students and staff working in critical areas of research that will affect all our futures. If Harvard has its own endowment of $53 billion, why was the US taxpayer even funding it in the first place? For the same reason that Elon Musk is the richest man in the world but NASA keeps on pumping millions into Space X - they have capabilities no one else does and the government wants access." I guess the US government no longer wants access to Harvard’s “capabilities”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess the US government no longer wants access to Harvard’s “capabilities”." Trump's vision of the future is based around oil, coal and steel. He also has a disdain for intellectualism and the arts. So he thinks that Harvard is irrelevant and/or a threat. In his first administration there were people around him who tempered his views but this is no longer the case. As an example he has appointed someone who was a wrestling promoter as US Secretary of Education. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's almost like you don't actually want to hear other people's opinions, but instead just want the opportunity to air your own views. I'm reading your opinions and responding with mine, what do you want me to do, just be silent? Tuition fees at Harvard are about $60,000 per year so the money that the Trump administration is stopping isn't going to undergraduate students. It's mostly going to higher-level students and staff working in critical areas of research that will affect all our futures. If Harvard has its own endowment of $53 billion, why was the US taxpayer even funding it in the first place? For the same reason that Elon Musk is the richest man in the world but NASA keeps on pumping millions into Space X - they have capabilities no one else does and the government wants access. I guess the US government no longer wants access to Harvard’s “capabilities”." There are plenty more educational companies in the USA who would take up the slack, MIT is just down the road. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are plenty more educational companies in the USA who would take up the slack, MIT is just down the road." So far the Trump administration has attacked Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, John Hopkins, Northwestern, Brown, Princeton and Pennsylvania. I'm pretty sure that MIT will be in their sights, but they'll be further down the list. It's just the latest expression of an anti-intellectualism in the US that goes all the way back to the Puritan John Cotton who in 1642 wrote "The more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan will you bee". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's just the latest expression of an anti-intellectualism in the US that goes all the way back to the Puritan John Cotton who in 1642 wrote "The more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan will you bee"." Blimey! Someone so anti-intellectual that he denied himself the ability to spell. That's dedication for you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are plenty more educational companies in the USA who would take up the slack, MIT is just down the road. So far the Trump administration has attacked Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, John Hopkins, Northwestern, Brown, Princeton and Pennsylvania. I'm pretty sure that MIT will be in their sights, but they'll be further down the list. It's just the latest expression of an anti-intellectualism in the US that goes all the way back to the Puritan John Cotton who in 1642 wrote "The more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan will you bee". " It sounds like you see no issue with huge political bias in major institutions? Presumably you'd feel the same if Universities were dominated by far right thinking? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It sounds like you see no issue with huge political bias in major institutions? Presumably you'd feel the same if Universities were dominated by far right thinking?" Political bias is a fact of life. People have different opinions for all kinds of reasons and these vary over time and space. But let's consider your implied notion that a mirror image of the current bias in universities would be far-right thinking. To me the most straightforward representation of far-right would be fascism. Many people have tried to define fascism with the latest most popular definition probably being Laurence W. Britt's but I think Umberto Eco's definition is more insightful... oooOOOooo "The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement. "The rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system. "The cult of action for action's sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science. "Disagreement is treason" – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith. "Fear of difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants. "Appeal to a frustrated middle class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups. "Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession. Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will. "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war. "Contempt for the weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force. "Everybody is educated to become a hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death." "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality". "Selective populism" – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people". "Newspeak" – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning. oooOOOooo If there is a bias in university culture against the notions described above then I don't see this as a major problem. However, free speech should not be stifeld even if it does promote far-right ideas. If we oppose a view we should answer it with reasoned arguments, not attempt to silence the speaker. Universities should be a place where critical thinking and open discussion is encouraged. The only exception should be where people are openly promoting hatred that could lead to violence. It is also very important that hiring and admissions should be on grounds of merit rather that ideological position. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey! Someone so anti-intellectual that he denied himself the ability to spell. That's dedication for you." That made me chuckle. Language is very fluid. In those days be was spelt bee, shall be was spelt shallbee, school was spelt schoale and college was spelt colledge. John Harvard was actually a contemporary of John Cotton. They were in effect on opposite sides of the 17th century version of our culture wars. John Harvard bequeathed £780 (an absolute fortune in those days) and his substantial library to what was later to become known as Harvard University. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Then new staff and student candiadates would be assessed for their ideological position by the government approved body using the same criteria and methodology and instead of being recruited or admittted on grounds of merit only those who had ideas that the government liked would be recruited or allowed to study. But the new auditing body has a mandate to ensure diversity of viewpoint. It would have to ensure that universities enrolled a sufficient number of people that had ideas that the government didn't like, otherwise there would be no diversity." Except that we all know that Trump has an actual aversion to diversity. When Trump demands "diversity" of thought, his actual intention is to impose uniformity of thought. HIS uniformity of thought. All the measures in this demand from him are absolutely chilling, because sooner or later they will be imposed upon every institution and workplace in the US. Public or private. This month it is "move my people in, or else". By next year it will be "move out everyone my people don't like, or else". The "or else" already covers imprisonment without legal cause and no possibility of release (in south american dictator run countries). Very soon the "or else" will have turned into domestic "relocation" camps with cremation facilities to dispose of the bodies... It is blatent, it is open, it is a democracy that has already become a dictatorship. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Then new staff and student candiadates would be assessed for their ideological position by the government approved body using the same criteria and methodology and instead of being recruited or admittted on grounds of merit only those who had ideas that the government liked would be recruited or allowed to study. But the new auditing body has a mandate to ensure diversity of viewpoint. It would have to ensure that universities enrolled a sufficient number of people that had ideas that the government didn't like, otherwise there would be no diversity. Except that we all know that Trump has an actual aversion to diversity. When Trump demands "diversity" of thought, his actual intention is to impose uniformity of thought. HIS uniformity of thought. All the measures in this demand from him are absolutely chilling, because sooner or later they will be imposed upon every institution and workplace in the US. Public or private. This month it is "move my people in, or else". By next year it will be "move out everyone my people don't like, or else". The "or else" already covers imprisonment without legal cause and no possibility of release (in south american dictator run countries). Very soon the "or else" will have turned into domestic "relocation" camps with cremation facilities to dispose of the bodies... It is blatent, it is open, it is a democracy that has already become a dictatorship." It’s good to see that you are keeping a sense of proportion. It really is amazing how TDS contorts people’s thinking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s good to see that you are keeping a sense of proportion. It really is amazing how TDS contorts people’s thinking." TDS seems to be a term designed to surpress warnings about Trump without having to present any actual arguments. However, I think that death camps are extremely unlikely in the US. Internment does seem a real possibility though. The ultimate limit on dicatorial power in the US would depend on how the military responded if the Trump admnistration ordered them to enforce its polcies. I imagine lawyers are looking closely at things like the Posse Comitatus Act. One possible outcome if Trump gets enough power to suspend the constitution would be something kind of halfway between the Portuguese Estado Novo and Francoist Estado Espanol, although with US Christian nationalism rather than Catholicism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s good to see that you are keeping a sense of proportion. It really is amazing how TDS contorts people’s thinking. TDS seems to be a term designed to surpress warnings about Trump without having to present any actual arguments. However, I think that death camps are extremely unlikely in the US. Internment does seem a real possibility though. The ultimate limit on dicatorial power in the US would depend on how the military responded if the Trump admnistration ordered them to enforce its polcies. I imagine lawyers are looking closely at things like the Posse Comitatus Act. One possible outcome if Trump gets enough power to suspend the constitution would be something kind of halfway between the Portuguese Estado Novo and Francoist Estado Espanol, although with US Christian nationalism rather than Catholicism. " It really is hysterical how little people know about the US and indeed South America. Underlying many of the comments is an unbelievable degree of ignorance and imperialist arrogance, and some sort of deluded belief that countries outside of Europe (even countries like the US, where people are on average better off in every single State than they are in the UK) are all third world shitholes. One wonders whether it is just some sort of innate European snobbery that people have fallen back on as the European decline continues by the month, or whether it is the result of decades of isolationist brainwashing by European politicians and media. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s good to see that you are keeping a sense of proportion. It really is amazing how TDS contorts people’s thinking. TDS seems to be a term designed to surpress warnings about Trump without having to present any actual arguments. However, I think that death camps are extremely unlikely in the US. Internment does seem a real possibility though. The ultimate limit on dicatorial power in the US would depend on how the military responded if the Trump admnistration ordered them to enforce its polcies. I imagine lawyers are looking closely at things like the Posse Comitatus Act. One possible outcome if Trump gets enough power to suspend the constitution would be something kind of halfway between the Portuguese Estado Novo and Francoist Estado Espanol, although with US Christian nationalism rather than Catholicism. " Death camps never start out as death camps. Trump has already had ICE pick up people who he declares as undesirable types and dump them in south american prisons without any due process. This has included several people who have full rights of residency within the United States, who have not committed any crimes. When told by the courts that these are illegal internments and that the affected people must be freed, Trump has just flatly refused to do anything about it. Death camps always start out as places of internment where people happen to die because there is no legal duty to look after their health. Once the number of deaths become more than a trickle, facilities are added to dispose of the bodies without having the bother of sending them home to their families. Then those in charge of the camps find that they can dispose of troublemakers (ie. anybody they choose) without any comeback. Eventually it just becomes policy to kill large numbers because it is seen as good for the country to remove these from the general population, and a waste of resources to feed them. Lawyers will quickly cease to fight against the process, as anybody who speaks out just become labelled as undesirable themselves and they, and their families, are added to the lists. This has already started happening https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/us/politics/fbi-arrest-judge.html | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s good to see that you are keeping a sense of proportion. It really is amazing how TDS contorts people’s thinking. TDS seems to be a term designed to surpress warnings about Trump without having to present any actual arguments. However, I think that death camps are extremely unlikely in the US. Internment does seem a real possibility though. The ultimate limit on dicatorial power in the US would depend on how the military responded if the Trump admnistration ordered them to enforce its polcies. I imagine lawyers are looking closely at things like the Posse Comitatus Act. One possible outcome if Trump gets enough power to suspend the constitution would be something kind of halfway between the Portuguese Estado Novo and Francoist Estado Espanol, although with US Christian nationalism rather than Catholicism. Death camps never start out as death camps. Trump has already had ICE pick up people who he declares as undesirable types and dump them in south american prisons without any due process. This has included several people who have full rights of residency within the United States, who have not committed any crimes. When told by the courts that these are illegal internments and that the affected people must be freed, Trump has just flatly refused to do anything about it. Death camps always start out as places of internment where people happen to die because there is no legal duty to look after their health. Once the number of deaths become more than a trickle, facilities are added to dispose of the bodies without having the bother of sending them home to their families. Then those in charge of the camps find that they can dispose of troublemakers (ie. anybody they choose) without any comeback. Eventually it just becomes policy to kill large numbers because it is seen as good for the country to remove these from the general population, and a waste of resources to feed them. Lawyers will quickly cease to fight against the process, as anybody who speaks out just become labelled as undesirable themselves and they, and their families, are added to the lists. This has already started happening https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/us/politics/fbi-arrest-judge.html" i see your still pushing fear and nonsense polly, if its not about covid then its about trump, your consistent i will give you that  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
