Page 288 of 288

Re: Understanding the US - Again

Posted: 01 Nov 2025 23:20
by Vayutuvan
uddu wrote: 01 Nov 2025 10:17 https://x.com/NewsAlgebraIND/status/1984159270577778796
@NewsAlgebraIND
HUGE A lady with a bindi confronts JD Vance at an event.
I saw the clip and her question. She came across as overly emotional, immature, and illogical. Sorry, not a fan of this kind of bombast.

Firstly, nobody sold any dreams to those who came here on a student visa, an H-1 B visa, or any other limited-time visa.

Moreover, the policy right now is to stop illegals from coming in and deport those who came in illegally and then committed a crime or two. For example, non-English speaking/reading illegals who were given CDLs to drive tractor-trailers, which led to deaths of innocents.

Yes, every Xtian wants others to convert to the Xtian faith. What matters is how they are trying to convert people of different faiths or dharmas. Vance wouldn't be a Christian if he did not hope that his wife would eventually convert to Christianity.

The obverse is that as an atheist Hindu, I would definitely hope that Vance will be moved to start practicing Sanaatana Dharma.

Re: Understanding the US - Again

Posted: 02 Nov 2025 04:29
by A_Gupta
I don't know if this is legit or not.
Center for the Study of Organized Hate
Anti-Indian Racism on X (July–September 2025)
https://www.csohate.org/2025/09/16/anti ... mber-2025/
Key Findings

- 680 high engagement anti-Indian racist posts on X garnered 281.2M views between July 1 and September 7, 2025.
- Narratives framing Indians as “invaders” and “job thieves,” alongside calls to deport Indians, accounted for 474 posts (69.7%) and 111.8M views, making immigration and expulsion themed rhetoric the primary driver of engagement.
- H-1B resentment and job theft frames were prominent within the leading cluster, blending xenophobia with economic insecurity and amplifying calls for visa bans, denials, deportation and denaturalization of Indians.
- 121 posts (17.8%) used anti-Indian slurs and drew 74.3M views.
- 74 posts (10.9%) tied to the August 12 Florida truck crash involving a Sikh driver amassed 94.9M views, illustrating how single events are weaponized to stigmatize entire communities through occupational scapegoating.
- Activity peaked in August 2025 with 381 posts and 189.9M views. The US-India tariff dispute and incident-based outrage coincided with narrative spikes, indicating that policy tensions and breaking news act as predictable accelerants of racist content.
- Around 65% of posts were US-centered, confirming the US as the epicenter of anti-Indian digital racism during the study period.

Re: Understanding the US - Again

Posted: 02 Nov 2025 16:38
by A_Gupta

Re: Understanding the US - Again

Posted: 02 Nov 2025 17:47
by vera_k
Vayutuvan wrote: 01 Nov 2025 23:20 I saw the clip and her question. She came across as overly emotional, immature, and illogical.
I interpret it as the sisterhood coming out of the woodwork given the rumors of the JD/Usha divorce circulating now that the JD/Erika pairing is being talked about ahead of the 2028 election cycle.

Re: Understanding the US - Again

Posted: 02 Nov 2025 18:03
by Mort Walker
vera_k wrote: 02 Nov 2025 17:47
Vayutuvan wrote: 01 Nov 2025 23:20 I saw the clip and her question. She came across as overly emotional, immature, and illogical.
I interpret it as the sisterhood coming out of the woodwork given the rumors of the JD/Usha divorce circulating now that the JD/Erika pairing is being talked about ahead of the 2028 election cycle.
IMHO, this was a setup by TPUSA & groypers to increase hate on Indians. No one should show up to a TPUSA event looking for meaningful replies. Someone brought this lady there and then pushed her into the front of the audience.

Re: Understanding the US - Again

Posted: 02 Nov 2025 20:04
by A_Gupta
Here is a transcript of
Remarks: JD Vance Addresses a Turning Point USA Tour Event in Oxford, Mississippi - October 30, 2025
https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/tra ... r-30-2025/

A better understanding of MAGA requires going through this. For those with less interest in doing that, I am posting two excerpts, in this and the next post.
D Vance 00:26:00-00:26:32 (32 sec)

There's a real -- there's a liberal idea out there that I think is wrong and that's that Liberalism is the source of freedom of religion. And actually, if you go back to the original founding documents of the United States of America, if you go back to the Anglo legal tradition, well before there was ever a United States of America, what you find is that freedom of religion is actually a Christian concept.

And the reason and the reason it's a Christian concept is very simple, because Christianity, Imago Dei, the idea that we are all made in the image of our creator means that we must respect the free will of every single person.
Historically, this is garbage. The first 14 centuries of the Christian Church in Europe did not respect freedom of religion. When the Protestant reformation came, the Protestants were just as fanatic about who is in their faith and who is out of it. Many of the early European settlements in America were of essentially religious refugees, seeking religious freedom for their Christian sect, fleeing persecution in Europe. Notably, they generally did not extend this toleration to other sects in their settlements. This stuff from JD Vance is like saying Aurangzeb promoted inter-faith harmony. Freedom of religion is an Enlightenment concept. Maybe you can argue that the Enlightenment is a Christian concept in that it arose as a solution to the perpetual conflict among Christian sects.

It is like the anecdote I heard, some desi happened to be sent to Germany on some business - these was some decades ago - and thought that he would buy a German voltage stabilizer, surely they would be of higher quality than anything available in India. He was surprised that no such device was available there. Then he realized the Germans did not need voltage stabilizers.

Freedom of religion is a Christian concept if only because Christians needed it. It arose from pragmatism and realism, not from the idea that the Christian doctrine demanded it. If Christian doctrine demanded it, it would not have taken a millennium and a half to invent it.

Re: Understanding the US - Again

Posted: 02 Nov 2025 20:12
by A_Gupta
Here is the second excerpt. It speaks for itself. I will simply say if we go by what we were told say, one year ago, all this is JD Vance nonsense. One must also remember how JD Vance lied about immigrants stealing and eating family pets, and how he justified lying about it - lying was justified because it was for a higher purpose.

Americans of India descent who want to fall for this do so at their own peril.
Question 00:30:34-00:31:02 (28 sec)

Hello, Mr. Vice President, thank you so much for giving this opportunity to talk here today. I did not agree with many of the things that you said right ahead of this, but I don't think that's my point to discuss here. What I want to ask is you are married to a woman who is not Christian. In her Wikipedia -- I mean I just looked that up, I wanted to know what her faith was.

I didn't know this before. But she still calls herself Hindu. You are raising two kids -- three kids in inter-cultural, racial, religious household. How are you maintaining -- or how are you teaching your kids not to keep your religion ahead of their mother's religion? Or how are you teaching them that your kind, their dad kind who got here just a few years or a few hundred years -- a few decades ago is different or is better than your mom's kind who got here just a generation before?

How are you balancing that? And when you talk about too many immigrants here, what is -- when did you guys decide that number? Why did you sell us a dream? You made us spend our youth, our wealth in this country and gave us a dream. You don't owe us anything. We have worked hard for it. Then how can you as a vice president stand there and say that we have too many of them now and we are going to take them out, to people who are here rightfully so? By paying the money that you guys ask us, you gave us the path.

And now how can you stop it and tell us we don't belong here anymore? And one more thing, I'm sorry, one more thing. Do you have to be -

D Vance 00:32:31-00:32:34 (3 sec)
There's a lot there, I don't know if I'm going to remember all this, but I will try.

Question 00:32:34-00:32:39 (5 sec)
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I had to say all of this and please take it with you. I mean, I'm saying all of this with respect.

JD Vance 00:32:44-00:32:47 (3 sec)
We're not close to causing a scene, don't worry.

Question 00:32:47-00:33:11 (24 sec)
But we talked about Christianity, all of this. I'm not even Christian and I'm here standing to show support. Why are we making Christianity one of the major things that you have to have in common to be one of you guys. To show that I love America just as much as you do, why is that still a question? Why do I have to be a Christian or --?

JD Vance 00:33:11-00:33:33 (22 sec)
OK, so there was a lot there and I'm going to try to respond to as much of it as I can. So, on the question of immigration, so first of all, I can believe that we should have lower immigration levels. But if the United States passed a law and made a promise to somebody, the United States of course has to honor that promise.

Nobody's talking about that. I'm talking about people who came in in violation of the laws of the United States of America. And I'm talking about in the future reducing the number -- reducing the number of people -- sorry, what?

Question 00:33:47-00:34:07 (19 sec)
May I continue on that? Because when you just said you are not stopping with the people who came here legally, right, but you are pushing out policies that hurt us. And these policies are not even solving the problems. These policies are just creating chaos.

JD Vance 00:34:07-00:34:40 (33 sec)
OK, so again, I'm going to finish answering the question and then if -- you know, if I've answered all nine of your questions in less than 15 minutes, then we can keep on going. [Laughter] We've got to have a little fun, right? So, here's the thing, I can believe that the United States should lower its levels of immigration in the future, while also respecting that there are people who have come here through immigration -- lawful immigration pathways that have contributed to the country.

But just because one person or 10 people or 100 people came in legally and contributed to the United States of America, does that mean that we're thereby committed to let in a million or 10 million or 100 million people a year in the future? No, that's not right. We cannot have -- I'll go and finish. We cannot have an immigration policy where what was good for the country 50 or 60 years ago, binds the country inevitably for the future.

There are too many people who want to come to the United States of America, and my job as vice president is not to look out for the interests of the whole world, it's to look out for the people of the United States. Now let me -- now you asked -- you asked a personal question about our interfaith household.

And yes, my wife did not grow up Christian. I think it's fair to say that she grew up in a Hindu family, but not in a particularly religious family in either direction. In fact, when I met my wife, we were both -- I would consider myself an agnostic or atheist and that's what I think she would have considered herself as well.

You know, everybody has to come to their own arrangement here. The way that we've come to our arrangement is she's my best friend. We talk to each other about this stuff. So, we decided to raise our kids Christian. Our two oldest kids who go to school, they go to a Christian school. Our eight-year-old did his first communion about a year ago.

That's the way that we have come to our arrangement. But thank you my eight-year-old was also very proud of his First Communion. Thank you, guys. I'll tell him that Ole Miss wishes him the best. But I think everybody has to have this own conversation when you're in a marriage. I mean, it's true for friends of mine who are in Protestant and Catholic marriages, friends of mine who are in, you know, atheist and Christian marriages.

You've just got to talk to your -- the only advice I can give is you just got to talk to the person that God has put you with and you've got to make those decisions as a family unit. For us it works out. Now most Sundays, Usha will come with me to church. As I've told her and I've said publicly, and I'll say now in front of 10,000 of my closest friends.

Do I hope eventually that she is somehow moved by the same thing that I was moved in by church? Yeah, I honestly do wish that because I believe in the Christian gospel and I hope eventually my wife comes to see it the same way. But if she doesn't, then God says everybody has free will. And so, that doesn't cause a problem for me. That's something you work out with your friends, with your family, with the person that you love.

Again, the most -- one of the most important Christian principles is that you respect free will. Usha is closer to the priest who baptized me than maybe I am. They talk about this stuff. My attitude is you figure this stuff out as a family, and you trust in God to have a plan, and you try to follow it as best as you can.

And that's what I try to do. I want to make a final point. So, I don't want to cut you off. I want to be respectful to all the people behind you in line. But I want to make this point about immigration, OK. If you asked the question, what is the exact right number of immigrants for the United States to let in? It is just very specific on the context.

If you go back to the 1920s, the United States passed an immigration reform act that effectively cut down immigration to close to zero for 40 years in this country. And what happened over those 40 years, the many, many people who had come from many different foreign countries and different foreign cultures, they assimilated into American culture.

And there was an expectation that they would assimilate into American culture. I think we have two problems in our immigration system today. And my guess is you're probably a slightly more leftist political persuasion, liberal political persuasion. Maybe not. But here's the thing -- I remember back in my establishment GOP days when I was still very early getting involved in Republican politics.

I remember a conservative think tank person who told me that one of the reasons why immigration was really good is that if you had enough diversity in a country, people would mistrust each other, and they wouldn't join labor unions. OK. So, when I see a lot of left-wing people who theoretically support organized labor saying we need to flood the country with a limitless number of immigrants, they're unwilling to set any limitations on it. My response to that is you are destroying the very social trust on which American freedom and prosperity was built and that is really important to me. So, the honest answer to your question, what is the exact number of immigrants America should accept in the future?

Right now, the answer is far less than we've been accepting. We have got to become a common community again, and you can't do that when you have such high numbers of immigration, which is one of the reasons why we have the immigration policy we do. Thank you. Next?

Re: Understanding the US - Again

Posted: 02 Nov 2025 23:30
by Rudradev
Anybody who thinks for one second that the Democrats would be better for Indian-Americans than Trump, Vance & co— please watch this short video from a major Democrat Youtube personality.

Apparently Usha Vance deserves to be condemned, not sympathized with, because she is a Brahmin and that equals White Supremacy.



Re: Understanding the US - Again

Posted: 03 Nov 2025 01:35
by Tanaji
You beat me to it Rudradevji…

MAGA dumping on Usha is to be expected on account of her colour and religion. However the Democrats and the Left are even more vitriolic on Usha - apparently she marrying Vance before the latter went to MAGa side is a grievous error that cannot be redeemed. Moreover as per them, her clerking for Brett Kevanaugh is the ultimate sin that proves she is a supremacist. So if JD dumps her it is well deserved.

US Indians should watch out politically - they are going to get screwed by Dems, Repubs and of course the Islamists, Khalis…

Re: Understanding the US - Again

Posted: 03 Nov 2025 03:12
by A_Gupta
Well, first question is who will grab you off the street and deport you without a hearing? Who will take away the citizenship of children you might have had while on a visa?

If you cannot distinguish bad mouthing from actual damage, you deserve what is coming.

Always remember that voting is rarely voting for the good, it is almost always voting for the lesser of evils.

Re: Understanding the US - Again

Posted: 03 Nov 2025 03:52
by Tanaji
A_Gupta wrote: 03 Nov 2025 03:12 Well, first question is who will grab you off the street and deport you without a hearing? Who will take away the citizenship of children you might have had while on a visa?

If you cannot distinguish bad mouthing from actual damage, you deserve what is coming.

Always remember that voting is rarely voting for the good, it is almost always voting for the lesser of evils.
Agreed right now it’s ICE. I am not in US so can’t gauge how frequently the ICE goons grab people - it’s the lack of judicial oversight or procedures that is terrifying. But just wait till the equivalent of Mamdani comes to power.., the guy has clear anti Hindu bias and will go out of his way to bash them to play up to his Islamic and khali base. Once he wins NYC, Dems are likely to repeat his policies everywhere…. and it will be far worse.

Re: Understanding the US - Again

Posted: 03 Nov 2025 05:38
by A_Gupta
Mamdani is not going to be worse than say, the Congress government in Karnataka. And whatever his anti-Hindu bias, he is not going to overthrow the rule of law.

Mamdani is going to try to make living in New York City more affordable for the working class, and will likely fail. In the process he will give a lot of freebies, and may damage the fiscal health of the city, I predict also that he will not have the bandwidth to indulge in his prejudices

I'll repeat, distinguish between people who dislike you but aren't going to go outside the law to damage you, people with passive-aggressive racism, versus the people who will actually damage you by weaponizing the government against you, or by breaking the law.

Added - I can't link to this story in Vanity Fair, so I'll just type in this excerpt.
I {James Pogue} spoke to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent the day after I met Mamdani. He told me that he thought that the manifest unfairness of this system {that operates New York City} had opened a door for Mamdani.

"They are going to come and take it," he said, "like, if you don't fix the way the system is built." He did not think Mamdani's redistributionist project would actually work. But provoking a capital flight and a crash in the real estate market might very well end up being a real way to tackle the affordability issue, not that anyone would ever exactly say this.

"I kind of like Mamdani winning," Bessent said. "Because the worst thing in a way would be when Cuomo comes back in, you just keep losing a bit of altitude for four or eight more years, and they kind of hold it together and more people leave. So if you could just say, 'Okay, he's a shock to the system, and there's a chance you can come back from it.'"