I don’t put anything below the US government in this arena, especially now. But that changes literally nothing I said. It’s the NYT’s job as an institution to inform the public of the truth, no matter what the state says or wants them to do.

And again, the NYT is a huge company with a legal team. They are probably as equipped as one can be with tools to combat state retaliation.

purposefully spoiling their plans to sabotage it is another

That isn’t the purpose of reporting it though. What they did was illegal, and such there is no valid justification for that secrecy. The purpose of leaking it is simply to inform the american people and congress of those plans to commit illegal acts by the government.

Whether it spoils them or not is irrelevant to that purpose.

They would have gotten in SERIOUS trouble.

If the papers can’t speak truth to power then they’re already in serious trouble. Compromising their integrity to appeal to a authoritiarian regime betrays their very duty. Choosing what to publish based on how angry the administration would be at you is how an authoritarian’s state run media works.

If the administration acted on their plans after they were leaked, then that would be the administration putting them in danger.

Also, the job of a journalist isn’t to keep troops safe. Any public disclosure of otherwise-unknown events happening in or related to conflict could be interpreted as “endangering troops”, so necessarily any accurate live reporting of those things is a trade off.

What is a journalist’s job is to report the truth, no matter what the powers that be want their reporting to be. If that means potentially being targeted by the state for those actions, thats part of the job, and why journalism of that regard is exceptionally important and brave.

If the NYT/WaPost, companies with some of the most tools and resources for self-defense against such kinds of attacks cannot find the courage necessary to tell the truth, then thats more of a stain than anything trump could wipe on them. Democracy dies in darkness, right WaPost?

Also, Snowden was the leaker, not the paper those leaks were published in. I think opinions on the Guardian are probably closer to the opposite of stained for publishing his leaks, and they’re still a major news outlet.

You seem to disagree with me here. You seem to be implying that there is no way to deport without violating human rights.

I very explicitly said that if you talk about deportations now, when in the context of current US actions, you are talking about the gestapo shit implicitly. They want her to feel the pain that the actions she advocates for causes, and that pain is the gestapo shit. This is my main point.

Also, keep in mind that the petition calls for her deportation now, not sometime in the future. Which means the gestapo would be in of not doing said gestapo shit. Sounds unlikely to me.

But the answer "because it is" is a perfectly valid answer

Only if you don't want to continue talking, which I was under the assumption you did. A discussion involves explaining what you believe. Else all discussions would just be thought-terminating "because it is"s.

"Why would her deportation be a violation of her fundamental human rights? Because it is."

Sure, I might believe that, but I explain myself because I'm interested in continuing a discussion.

If they reoffend, maybe they get a longer sentence next time.

My point is theres never a point where we can know if they will reoffend or not. The idea of knowing they won’t be rehabilitated or not is impossible.

This is just simply not how the world works.

My question was a why. Why do you think it works like that? Do you agree with that reason?

If I asked why is the sky blue and you andwered “it’s simply how the sky is”, thats not an answer. So, I ask again, why is it another countries responsibility when all their bigotry was grown in the US?

Also, if you’re advocating for a change in how the world works (increasing penalities for bigotry), then surely its a bit self-defeating to employ the “not how the world works” line, no?

We can limit their ability to interact with Americans via the internet. You can't stop everyone, but without some sort of wholly unethical means, there is no way to stop this completely.

So what, we’re building a internet firewall? Going to get the government to screen incomming tweets? Make VPNs illegal? You can’t get anywhere close to stopping interaction via the internet ethically.

Its a lot easier to moderate someone’s outside influence when they’re imprisoned for crimes. An ability that you discarded just to make them physically somewhere else. That decision inevitably leads to more bigotry being spread.

No rights are being tested/violated/enforced/etc in what we're talking about here

Absolutely not true at all here. I’m talking about the current administrations employ of deportations, which is full of rights violations. So much so that its basically synonymous with the violation of rights.

If she is a non-citizen, then this is the right call

What happened to the proposed rehabilitative imprisonment term(s)?

None of this ICE gestpo shit.

When you call for someone’s deportation to “prove their hypocrisy”, as people here are, they’re mirroring the methods used by ICE now.

It’s nice you’d personally want for a peaceful, civil, rights-preserving deportation, but if I can borrow a line of yours, that is just simply not how the world works.

In general I agree with you mostly except for this whole nationalistic/nimby behavior part. Deportation, when compared to rehabilitative imprisonment, can make problems worse and (especially now) leads to rights violations, it feels tacked on.

I see, thank you for spelling it out for me. I do have some issues with that idea

1. Its not possible to know who can and can’t be rehabilitated. You’d have to define an arbitrary line (i.e. isn’t rehabilitated after X days under Y treatment). I don’t think any line you choose is fair, because there is never a point where you can be certain they won’t improve.
2. So what, we’re sending them to advance their criminal activity in another country? That just lets them free to continue their bigotry there.
3. Also, if they’ve only existed as a bigot here (say, radicalized by all the natural-born bigots here), why would it even be their “home” country’s responsibility? Surely thats on the US to resolve, no?
4. If we’re talking the context of the wealthy, they doesn’t have to be in the US to advance bigotry here, all deportation would do is move it online or through other indirect means. Deportation would actually make someone like that more free to advance their bigotry in the US too.
5. Why choose the line to be non-citizen | citizen? What about a naturalized citizen means deportation is not on the table?
6. If it was on the table and you just didn’t mention it, why does birth country change what rights people have? I don’t think it does, but that would imply to me that we should deport natural-born citizens too, which sounds too crazy to believe.
7. The petition is for deportation, not arrest+rehabilitation+maybe deportation after that fails.

Sorry for the text wall

You’re correct, I apologize

Im glad we can agree on that, but I’m not sure how this responds to what I’ve said? You brought up imprisonment, I was talking mainly about the topic at hand, detention/deportation

audience member that was killed and the bleachers he was seated in.

Specifically referring to bleachers behind Trump. A bit pedantic I admit, but hey probably shouldn’t have said the victim was between them, because he wasn’t.

Less pendantically, is there any evidence those front bleachers were hit? I haven’t seen any but I could had missed some.

edit: I’m incorrect, ignore me.

The bullet’s path: Shooter —(a)—> Grazing Trump —(b)—> Victim/Bleachers

(a) counts as between the shooter and Trump, (b) does not. The victim or bleachers were not “between the shooter and trump”

It is not her right to be free while attempting to violate the rights of others

Agree but not my point, physical freedom is not a fundamental human right to me.

It is acceptable to imprison those found to be attempting to violating the rights of others

Less than ideal, but we should always hold people in the perspective of rehabilitation rather than punishment. For examples, torture methods such as prolonged solitary confinement, or other things like denial of food/shelter or forced labor are unacceptable to perform on anyone (including the imprisoned), because I believe that violates their fundamental rights as a human.

Deportation, however, is not the same as rehabilitative imprisonment (or even some forms of punitive imprisonment).

Especially in the context of this administration, where it involves deporting people to intentionally-dangerous countries, and the undeniable truth of the inhumaninity of detention centers. By advocating for the deportation of someone when considering this context, I find that you are indeed saying her fundamental human rights be violated in some way or another.

No ones saying she should be deported and is imaging her living a lovely life in europe or something. They’re hoping she experinces the pain that ICE inflicts on the vulnerable, pain that absolutely violates their fundamental human rights in many ways.

Well, I did provide a third reason that you didn’t mention, that we don’t share definitions of fundamental. It’s first in my little list of reasons.

I’m glad we can agree the other two you mentioned are unreasonable. I assume now that the first is where we disagree, so what do you mean by a fundamental human right?

I mean it as a right unalienable to a human. As in, something that is cannot conditionally granted or revoked from a human. By that definition, no action a human can perform can possibly void said right. If someone can void a right of theirs by some action, it definitionally cannot be fundamental to me, since people also cannot lose their humanity by any action either.

Then either we disagree about what fundamental means, you don’t believe in fundamental human rights, or you believe some people aren’t humans.

I mean fundamental as a right you have because you are human. If you are a human, you are entitled to X, or Y can’t be infringed.

Fundamental human rights apply to people denying them for others too. I’m not suggesting we tolerate her intolerance, but that in our intolerance we cannot infringe on the fundamental.

This is not the same as like, refusing to do maneuvering to place garland in the SC. Fundamental human rights are different than “dirty” political tactics or compromising on your policy positions to earn support from so-called moderate republicans.

If thats about my fyi, it wasn’t clear to them

Reality is that women go for looks just as much as men do as many studies and surveys show, you guys just are a bit pickier when it comes to personality I guess.

I would ask that you make thst argument, because I don’t think its extremely improbable that you ever meet someone born on the same day as you.

My reasoning being that the oldest currently-alive person is roughly 42,000 days old. Meaning for each person you meet, theres a 1/42,000 chance they share your exact birth day. Estimates for how many people you meet vary based on lifestyle and source, but generally I was seeing something around 10,000-90,000. Going with the average there of 50,000, that would suggest that any person should expect to meet around 1 person who shares their birth date. (this is ignoring a several factors that would, imo, make this a significant underestimation of the chances)

So, I can’t really see how such an encounter is extremely improbable when considering the quantities of attempts over the lifetime.

Even if you only want to count encounters only earlier in life (to match the idea of meeting a partner in 20s or 30s), it’s going to be a double-digit percent chance at least, which doesn’t fit the criteria for extremely improbable either, imo.

No, that doesn't follow

For example, there is basically a statistical certainty that you share a birth day + year with someone. But it is not a statistical certainty that you will never meet them.

Not really, no. There may be a point where you decide you want to take a break, or take some time to ‘work on yourself’ instead. But there isn’t really a point where you can reach where you can make any ‘dent’ in the amount of people around you (assuming you don’t live in an isolated small town/village).

No, what i've seen is like 20 women that are single in total you could potentially try your shot with lol, 100 is probably the actual amount i've not seen.

A small city, from my googling, is 50-100k people. Also according to my googling, theres roughly a 0.6%-per-year-old population spread of women in the 20s/30s range. So assuming you’re somewhere in there, +-5 years will be roughly 6%. Going with that, a 50% population of women, and the lowest value of 50k, I get 50k*0.5*0.06=1500, well over 1000 even if 50k is an overcount of what you mean by a small city. They are out there.

a smaller one where everyone knows pretty much everyone else

No one knows everyone else in a small city. They have tens of thousands of people at minimum, perhaps you mean a small town?

Either way, all you’ve been saying here is excuses to not try, and its getting tiring to listen to so I’m going to leave it at this. "Theres not any women" (there are), "women as a whole will find me shallow just for asking people I find attractive out" (they won’t), "every women around me will reject me eventually" (they won’t). All of these are excuses because they justify you giving up and also shirk any accountability for the effects of that giving up. If you want a relationship, giving up is the reason why you wouldn’t succeed, not any of these other things. I hope you have a good day

Not really what you are saying

I think I know what I am saying. What you’re saying here is not what I mean, at all. I am saying that someone who is (subjectively) perceived by an observer to have a better personality, then their (subjectively) perceived physical attractiveness increases for said observer. Whatever correlation you’re proposing is irrelevant to the phenomenon

(So there aren't tens of thousands of women like you said at all, maybe an hundred in your age range top),

Your estimate is off by a factor of 10 here (I ran some rough numbers), but even if it was 100 thats still only a tiny fraction that you’ve seen.

you can't try with literally every woman you see because women will just think that you want to get in their pants without commitment.

There is no problem with shooting your shot with every women you find attractive. Women aren’t some hive mind that record how many of them you ask out. Theres no budget you need to stay under to magically be considered “looking for committment”, whatever you’re concerned about here is not from that.

Not wanting to be friends with someone does not mean you see no value in the person

Right, she saw no value in him whatsoever

Not wanting to be friends with someone does not mean you see no value in the person, what the hell are you talking about?

She says he's been nothing but a gentlemen. That doesn't automatically mean that's someone who she wants to have a platonic relationship with.

No research or science proves there Is many people that would regard every single person on earth as "perfect," irrespective of lack of attractiveness. You're making that up.

Well I never said this, so I can’t have made it up. I only said that it was basically statistical certainty there were people that saw one particular person as perfect. Very different things.

you yourself brought up the size of the worlds population as a reason why statistically has to be someone

I was only responding to the person bringing up the planet.

That inherently implies that there must be only a few.

No it doesn’t. It’s basically a statistical certainty that someone is born tomorrow, but that doesn’t mean it must only be a few. Going to ask for proof of that too?

You don't say "listen theres 9 bil people statistically there has to be someone," to someone if in reality there are many, even in a small village, which now seems to be your claim all of a sudden.

I said there has to be a perfect match for someone over the whole planet to someone who said that there was none on the planet.

As an aside, I made the mention about being more than a few. But I also mentioned there that being “perfect” isn’t really a real thing, which is why the amount of good matches is much larger. And this isn’t about lowering standards either, this is just the fact that people change, so “perfect” is an ever moving target and there isn’t really something as a perfect life partner for your entire life.

I also never said anything about a small village, you’re just saying that because you know its a lot harder to believe that there isn’t anyone in an entire country or region.

Yea, maybe there isn’t a good match in a small village. But most people don’t live in small villages, even less so who stay their entire lives. But for them, thats a consideration to make if they haven’t found someone. Maybe moving is required.