31–40 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power. ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant So we’re beyond concern now
>ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if we allow our government This is so tiresome when people who don't have a single tank think they are in a position to allow people with tanks to do this or that. Things happen because their value for people in power exceeds the value of your consent. And you have fewer and fewer ways to make your consent any more valuable to cross the threshold of relevancy. I know it's an attractive illusion to believe that peop…
Tell that to the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Viet Cong, Mao, and George Washington. Just because the government has tanks does not mean "we have tanks and nukes, therefore we'll win" has proven true across military history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power. ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant So we’re beyond concern now
>ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?
Context and discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGr-yWEu0hc
The TL/DR: administrative warrant vs an actual "signed off by a judge" warrant
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power. ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant So we’re beyond concern now
>ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?
They've come up with a memo saying that non-judicial warrants can let them break in. This has historically been very much not allowed.
Edit: As a quick explanation, this is more or less a separation-of-powers thing. The rule has been that for the executive to enter someone's home they need a warrant from a judge, a member of the judicial branch. They now say that an "administrative warrant" is enough, issued by an immigration judge -- but immigration judges are just executive branch employees, so this is saying that the executive can decide on its own when it wants to break into your house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if we allow our government This is so tiresome when people who don't have a single tank think they are in a position to allow people with tanks to do this or that. Things happen because their value for people in power exceeds the value of your consent. And you have fewer and fewer ways to make your consent any more valuable to cross the threshold of relevancy. I know it's an attractive illusion to believe that peop…
Tell that to the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Viet Cong, Mao, and George Washington. Just because the government has tanks does not mean "we have tanks and nukes, therefore we'll win" has proven true across military history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bicycles are also not a viable replacement for almost all the uses of a vehicle. None of this advice is useful.
I dunno, I live in what most people would call peak Suburbia and have all sorts of bike trails I didn’t even know existed until I got the electric assisted bike, I can range 5 miles away from my house in any direction without having to be on any major roads, and have a trailer for doing grocery shopping. I went 15 miles away and back one time but took quite awhile. All the grocery stores I frequent are within this ra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transportation influences urban development. That is why most houses have a garage. There is no such thing as private transport (streets are public). Transportation has been heavily centralized since the New Deal. The bicycle was okay for most people living in cities in the 30s, now it is not because the government has favored the car infrastructure over the last decades. I think we need to start with not letting gov…
> the government has favored the car infrastructure over the last decades It was a combination of federal push for highways and consumer demand for greater distance and easier travel.
Everyone always assumes that individual choices and consumer behavior drives this stuff, and then they wonder why nothing changes even though we all started using reusable tote bags and LED bulbs. Stop blaming the consumer!
(The DoD is the largest institutional polluter in the world, by the way.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell that to the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Viet Cong, Mao, and George Washington. Just because the government has tanks does not mean "we have tanks and nukes, therefore we'll win" has proven true across military history.
Tell your history lesson to a Reaper drone. You can see how modern version of people's insurgency could look like in modern Gaza. This is exactly how would citizens vs. US play out. With Palantir painting the targets on the appropriate backs and declaring anyone in the blast radius as domestic terrorist.
Refineries and factories don't work without people and are exceedingly vulnerable to locals.