Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)

[ClydeR]

President Trump on Friday directed government officials to prioritize the resettlement of South Africans of European descent through the U.S. refugee program, which he suspended during his first day in office.

In an executive order, Mr. Trump accused the South African government of discriminating against Afrikaners, an ethnic group in South Africa made up of descendants of European colonists, mostly from the Netherlands, who first arrived there in the 1600s.

More...

In an executive order he signed on Jan. 20, the president argued refugees were a strain on receiving communities and said he would only restart the refugee program if he concluded that doing so would serve the interests of the U.S.

Mr. Trump's order does, however, allow officials to make case-by-case exemptions to the freeze in refugee arrivals.

Acceptable refugees = White people who allege that their agricultural land was unjustly seized by the government
Unacceptable refugees = Latino people who allege that they have been targeted for execution if they return to their country

[Suppressed Poet]

Acceptable refugees = White people who allege that their agricultural land was unjustly seized by the government
Unacceptable refugees = Latino people who allege that they have been targeted for execution if they return to their country

You should really offer up your home and all your possessions today to the so called “indigenous people” that was so called “stolen” by your ancestors hundreds of years ago..

[ClydeR]

You should really offer up your home and all your possessions today to the so called “indigenous people” that was so called “stolen” by your ancestors hundreds of years ago..

I could do that. Or I could just pay my taxes and expect the government to admit refugees when required by law to do so. The President's purpose should be to see that the law is administered as intended, not skirt the law as much as he can get away with. I don't think he read the job description.

[Methais]

I could do that. Or I could just pay my taxes and expect the government to admit refugees when required by law to do so. The President's purpose should be to see that the law is administered as intended, not skirt the law as much as he can get away with. I don't think he read the job description.

You don't pay taxes because you don't work. You haven't left your room since your traumatizing trip to the deli when your mommy took you to the grocery store in 2020, and you haven't even come out from under your adult sized crib since at least November 6.

[Tgo01]

Acceptable refugees = White people who allege that their agricultural land was unjustly seized by the government

This is why you lost and why your party is extremely unpopular now. No one is "alleging" shit, THE GOVERNMENT LITERALLY MADE IT A LAW. The South African government isn't even trying to hide the fact that they are stealing land from white land owners. They are in fact boasting about it.

[ClydeR]

This is why you lost and why your party is extremely unpopular now. No one is "alleging" shit, THE GOVERNMENT LITERALLY MADE IT A LAW. The South African government isn't even trying to hide the fact that they are stealing land from white land owners. They are in fact boasting about it.

You strike me as being intelligent. But your tendency to trust untrustworthy sources of information holds you back. Set aside the alternative facts and read the real facts below.

What is the law Trump is referring to?

The new Expropriation Act gives the South African government scope to expropriate land from private parties, but only if it’s in the public interest and under certain conditions. Trump referred to it last Sunday when he first announced his intention to stop funding to South Africa.

He said South Africa’s government was doing “terrible things” and claimed land was being confiscated from “certain classes.” That’s not true, and even groups in South Africa who are challenging the law say no land has been confiscated. The South African government says private property rights are protected and Trump’s description of the law includes misinformation and “distortions.”

However, the law has prompted concern in South Africa, especially from groups representing parts of the white minority, who say it will target them and their land even though race is not mentioned in the law.

The law is tied to the legacy of the racist apartheid system, and colonialism before that, and is part of South Africa’s efforts over decades to try and find a way to right historic wrongs.

Under apartheid, Black people had land taken away from them and were forced to live in designated areas for non-whites. Now, whites make up around 7% of South Africa’s population of 62 million but own approximately 70% of the private farming land, and the government says that inequality needs to be addressed.

More...

[Tgo01]

You strike me as being intelligent. But your tendency to trust untrustworthy sources of information holds you back. Set aside the alternative facts and read the real facts below.

Man you people are just the absolute worst.

"Nuh uh! The South African government didn't make it a law that they could forcefully take white people's land! They only made it a law that they could forcefully take white people's land as long as it's in the public interest and under certain conditions!"

Look, Clyder and Back and the rest of you fuckers. It's okay to agree with the South African law, I mean it makes you a totally horrible human being, but you are entitled to your opinions. But why sit here and lie and pretend it's not happening and try to gaslight everyone into believing it's not real?

Could it be because you realize what a horrible person you are for agreeing with the law so you have to pretend the law doesn't really exist?

Hey, look, I think this law existing in ANY country targeting ANY group of people based on race or gender or religion is absolutely abhorrent. I wouldn't agree with a white majority country targeting black people and forcefully taking their land. Why can't you people be decent human beings and agree all of these laws are bad?

[ClydeR]

You said, "The South African government isn't even trying to hide the fact that they are stealing land from white land owners."

Your initial statement quoted above was wrong for two reasons. First, the South African government denies that they are stealing land. So clearly, if the South African government is at fault, they are trying to hide it. Second, no land has been stolen, confiscated, expropriated or otherwise taken under the new law. The new law has not been used.

Man you people are just the absolute worst.

"Nuh uh! The South African government didn't make it a law that they could forcefully take white people's land! They only made it a law that they could forcefully take white people's land as long as it's in the public interest and under certain conditions!"

Look, Clyder and Back and the rest of you fuckers. It's okay to agree with the South African law, I mean it makes you a totally horrible human being, but you are entitled to your opinions. But why sit here and lie and pretend it's not happening and try to gaslight everyone into believing it's not real?

Could it be because you realize what a horrible person you are for agreeing with the law so you have to pretend the law doesn't really exist?

Hey, look, I think this law existing in ANY country targeting ANY group of people based on race or gender or religion is absolutely abhorrent. I wouldn't agree with a white majority country targeting black people and forcefully taking their land. Why can't you people be decent human beings and agree all of these laws are bad?

Your new statement is wrong because the law, which you can read for yourself here, does not condition expropriation on the race of the landowner.

I will not be at all surprised if South Africa implements the new law in a way that discriminates against white landowners. Contrary to your statements, however, they haven't done so yet.

Since whites in South Africa own 70% of the land and make up 7% of the population, it is very likely that the law, when implemented, will disproportionately affect white landowners. During Apartheid, land was legally stolen from blacks by whites. Few, if any, of the people who stole the land are alive today, and few, if any, of the victims are alive today. The question, then, is whether or not the heirs of the thieves should get to keep the land and the heirs of the victims should be denied the land. The new law is broadly worded, leaving great discretion to the government officials who will enforce it. It seems like it will be a difficult balancing act.

[Suppressed Poet]

You said, "The South African government isn't even trying to hide the fact that they are stealing land from white land owners."

Your initial statement quoted above was wrong for two reasons. First, the South African government denies that they are stealing land. So clearly, if the South African government is at fault, they are trying to hide it. Second, no land has been stolen, confiscated, expropriated or otherwise taken under the new law. The new law has not been used.




Your new statement is wrong because the law, which you can read for yourself here, does not condition expropriation on the race of the landowner.

I will not be at all surprised if South Africa implements the new law in a way that discriminates against white landowners. Contrary to your statements, however, they haven't done so yet.

Since whites in South Africa own 70% of the land and make up 7% of the population, it is very likely that the law, when implemented, will disproportionately affect white landowners. During Apartheid, land was legally stolen from blacks by whites. Few, if any, of the people who stole the land are alive today, and few, if any, of the victims are alive today. The question, then, is whether or not the heirs of the thieves should get to keep the land and the heirs of the victims should be denied the land. The new law is broadly worded, leaving great discretion to the government officials who will enforce it. It seems like it will be a difficult balancing act.

Hey ClydeR, what do you call it when you take someone’s property without compensation? They are not trying to hide that they are stealing land as it explicitly states that the government will do so without compensation to the landowners.

Here is a wild idea, how about the government simply respects the rights of property owners and not try to fix all the injustices of the past with making new modern day Nuremberg Laws? Seems like a good way to avoid that whole difficult balancing act.

[Furryrat]

The "laws" are just a means to mask the pure hatred and violence underneath. See for yourself, watch the full stadium dance and chant a death song to the white farmer. The SA courts ruled hey, it's just a song, nothing to see here.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888637668235305149