[pstuart]

I think they expect a repeat of Venezuela, which was a tidy operation for what it was (and something I highly disapprove of). But even though these operations are done in the name of "regime change", it's just about giving Trump the opportunity to cosplay as a warrior and to further distract from the dumpster fire of his administration.

[ajross]

It was a coup, not an "operation". We provided assistance to a domestic takeover. The only Venezuelan forces acting in opposition were the ones who didn't get the orders to stand down in time.

[pstuart]

Potato, potato. The administration said words about stuff it did and the reasons for it, and then there's the stuff that happenend for the reasons they happened.

It was about scratching an itch, not "spreading democracy".

Considering the US history of meddling south of the border, it was pretty low key. Fucked up, but low key.

[ajross]

The administration 100% did not say what happened, not correctly. The position of the Trump administration is that the US invaded and conquered the country and now runs it and is extracting its resources for our profit. None of that is remotely true. It's run by the same bureaucracy with a junta at the head of it that happens to be aligned with Trump geopolitically.

[pstuart]

My only point was that the admin did whatever they did and, at least from the outside, appears to have been an "in and out" one-shot that worked in their favor.

And the only reason I mentioned that, is because invading a sovereign nation is a significant event and it would be safe to assume that they are emboldened by the success of their prior effort and think that Cuba may be a cookie-cutter repeat of that.

tl;dr -- Venezuela was easy peasy, so how hard can Cuba be?

The legality, morality, and value of this are separate matters (but I bet you can guess where I sand on them).

[mindslight]

Venezuela was literally the only thing Trump has done that made me sick with a feeling of "this is going to be well received by most people". (Distinct from the feeling that something should be poorly received, but then seeing the useful idiots lap it up anyway. The instances of this have been unenumerable)

Hopefully if they do attack Cuba, it will play a little differently with one huge quagmire (or loss, depending on perspective) already on the table.

[rayiner]

> Venezuela was literally the only thing Trump has done that made me sick with a feeling of "this is going to be well received by most people".

You didn't think Trump's border policy was going to be well received? That seems... out of touch give how prominent an issue it was in the election.

People remain quite positive on Trump's immigration policy; with Iran and inflation being his big weak spots: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/HHP... (pp. 25, 26).

I don’t know how invading Cuba would be received. I feel like the biggest source of consternation about Iran is the effect on gas prices. That’s not at issue in Cuba.

[mindslight]

It might not run afoul of yours, but I assume that deploying domestic terrorists to attack American cities impinges upon most people's sense of morality in a way that attacking foreign countries (unfortunately) does not. This puts it in the second category I mentioned.

[rayiner]

I was actually surprised about that in the other direction. Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country. I would have thought ICE would get the benefit of that sentiment. But in the Harvard-Harris polling above, police are +39 net favorability, while ICE is -6.

The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have committed crimes) is polling at 55-45. What other way do people think there is to deport 20+ million people?

[pstuart]

Immigrants pulling up the ladder after themselves is a time-honored American tradition.

It's a complicated subject and has been weaponized by the Right, artfully so.

If you actually cared about the law being followed you would be consistent in that -- meaning that the immigrants who were/are here who have been completely legal in that should have been protected by the law, but weren't.

Likewise, you'd care that officers of the law themselves followed the law, and the courts have found egregious cases of that not happening.

And if it was about being fair in allowing immigrants in (specifically from south of the border, versus, say, whites from South Africa), the subject of fairness would have to examine the actions of the United States amongst it's southern neighbors and what impact it's had to cause those people to flee. AKA, "you break it, you bought it".

Now I'm not arguing for wide open gates either, but we had a system in place and the biggest problems with it were that it was poorly funded and staffed. After all, if you want them to be legal about it, there needs to be legal people to make that happen.

> Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country

And what about the demographics of such a poll? I recognize the need for some sort of law enforcement but if you had a family member having a mental health crisis would you call the cops? Do you think that the police are properly held accountable for their actions?

Man, the Federalist Society sure is good at their job.

[rayiner]

> Immigrants pulling up the ladder after themselves is a time-honored American tradition.

Because it's rational. If you're from a dysfunctional country--sorry, I mean a "vibrant" and "rich" country--you don't want that following behind you.

> what impact it's had to cause those people to flee. AKA, "you break it, you bought it".

You assume those countries are worth fleeing because of exogenous factors that cannot follow immigration flows rather than endogenous factors that can.

> If you actually cared about the law being followed you would be consistent in that

Like with any law, immigration law is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, i.e. limiting the flow of immigrants and the effects thereof. It's like fishing licenses. You could stop illegal fishing just by mailing everyone a license, but the piece of paper is not the point.

[1659447091]

> The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have committed crimes) is polling at 55-45

Deporting illegal immigrants is not the issue with ICE. The issue with ICE is their killing of US Citizens, trying to cover it up until video evidence show they are absolutely lying trigger happy murders only to have the admin shrug and/or defend the agents actions and blaming the victims; also detaining and deporting US Citizens[0] doesn't sit well with other US Citizens.

[0] https://www.texastribune.org/2026/04/23/texas-united-states-...

[mindslight]

For starters they mainly don't. The whole reason TV personality leadership is en vogue is because most people don't actually think through the implications of what they're buying into. I sure wish they did!

But also, it's quite straightforward to envision a different ICE carrying out its goal slower, more deliberately, with transparency and legal accountability. There's zero need for them to operate as a masked terror squad that is above the law. For example Renee Good's executioner could be behind bars where criminals belong, while his former coworkers who didn't set up a pretext to execute a woman continue on with their job of deporting illegal immigrants. These things are not inherently in conflict.

(Yes, I am aware the rot in the organization has been brewing well before Trump. But terrible needlessly divisive leadership that aims to maximize cruelty (ie spectacle) has accelerated it, and has made it seem like these things are in conflict)

[pstuart]

ICE existed before before Trump and under Obama and Biden was doing the work ICE is intended to do.

But under Trump it's been different in several different ways:

  1. Encouraged aggressive and lawless behavior by its agents with a promise of zero accountability for their behavior (or lawlessness)
  2. A quota system designed to incentive detaining anybody at any cost for any reason
  3. Disregard for due process and the legal system -- arresting and detaining people when they show up for immigration hearings *following the legal process fully*
  4. Killing innocent US citizens.
  5. Detaining US citizens.
  6. Enhanced "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" where they take detainees to another state and then release them there

And all of this follows from the president's rallys where the crowds are whipped up to demand the removal of all non whites who are "taking over this country".

Pro tip: any policies that are designed to welcome or even encourage harm to those that it applies to are inherently evil. The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats it's most vulnerable members, and ICE as it exists today is a shameful stain on our country.

[pstuart]

After the killings in Minnesota I tried reaching out to a MAGA acquaintance I've tried to engage with to find any sort of common ground (so far without any success). I was ignored, and I'm assuming that he's been taught that those were domestic terrorists and got what they deserved.