You must log in or # to comment.
Unfortunately, ICE does a lot of things other than being Trump’s personal paramilitary force. Either we can continue to fund it, but at a reduced level, or we need to replace it. Honestly we probably need to replace it at this point, because ICE has such a bad reputation that good people will be discouraged from taking a job there.
Or we could simply not abduct and terrorize immigrants for literally no reason (beyond racism).
Germany still prosecutes people who guarded their concentration camps. That’s what should happen to every single member of ICE. They knew.
Well yes, but those were blue collar workers, not scientists and administration.
we didnt have ICE at all until 2003, and we seemed to have been fine. Were we like-- living in caves and engaging in canibalism in 2003? I dont think we were.
Was the country better or worse off before 2003? …Better right? By a lot. So who cares if people are discouraged from taking a job at ICE. If they are that gives me a ray of hope that some Americans are fundamentally decent people.
We could just dismantile it completely, and not have to fund it at all.
Everyone realizes that ICE during democratic administrations are performing the normal functions of border security, which we must have in this country, but during Republican administrations they basically become an authoritarian purging tool.
ICE is not responsible for border security you imbecile. They are an internal immigration agency, border “security” is handled by various other goons of the state. So specifically what part of ICE do you find necessary?
I was wrong. I was too focused on seeing ICE so many times in the image.
Thank you for admitting fault. Sorry for insulting you. Why was your reflex at seeing critique of democrats to run defense for ICE?
normal functions of border security, which we must have
Lmao, what? Why?
While I am aware ICE does not do anything related to border security and I’d like to live to see a world without borders, in the world we have currently border security makes sense for socialists nations. Stopping influx of smugglers, agitators, weapons, drugs, weird religious groups, invasive biomass and stuff like that seems pretty good.
Speaking of “invasive” biomass I do actually wonder how that would function in a world without borders. The introduction of various plants and animals have done immense harm to various ecologies around the globe.
in the world we have currently border security makes sense for socialists nations.
We’re not talking about a socialist nation. We’re talking about the present day US.
Stopping influx of smugglers, agitators, weapons, drugs, weird religious groups, invasive biomass and stuff like that seems pretty good.
Other than “weird religious groups,” all of that would be much easier to control with mostly open borders. When you have desperate people crossing the border, completely outside the system, then it’s much easier to hide contraband in that mass of people. Making immigration a formality doesn’t mean getting rid of basic customs checks entirely.
As for weird religious groups, I’m not really sure what you mean by that. The US is full of some of the weirdest religious groups in the world. I’m not sure there’s any religious group out there that’s weirder or more dangerous than the Christian nationalists we already have.
Speaking of “invasive” biomass I do actually wonder how that would function in a world without borders. The introduction of various plants and animals have done immense harm to various ecologies around the globe.
I’m not talking about completely abolishing borders overnight. I’m talking about removing, for lack of a better word, the political component of borders. If people could freely cross borders with only a simple check to see if they’re carrying anything illegal, then borders have begun to “wither away.” Yes, they still exist, but only as a simple administrative function.
Wall of text elaborating on what I mean:
Let’s imagine a future that’s well on it’s way to communism, where borders still exist but have become nothing more than checkpoints for invasive species, a world where people grow up with them not meaning anything more than that. Perhaps those people would notice that natural habitats don’t map cleanly to borders, that it doesn’t make sense to have a checkpoints between two countries with shared habitats, or to not have checkpoints between different habitats in the same country. So, they simply decide to redraw borders around natural habitats, since the only function of the borders is to check for invasive species. In that world, where an inconceivable decision can be made so casually, we can say that borders, as we understand them, have ceased to exist. Yes, there are still lines on maps and checkpoints and searches, but they’re an entirely different thing from what we call borders today, so much so that we can reasonably say that borders have been abolished.
And perhaps their children will find that education about invasive species has improved to the point that the checkpoints never find anything anyway and are no longer necessary, perhaps they will reorganize the administration of natural habitats to remove these hard lines entirely, seeing as nature doesn’t follow hard lines, and regarding them as outdated.
It’s the same way, I find it hard to imagine how a world could function without some form of money. Certainly, if we tried to do it overnight, by decree, it wouldn’t work. But, if say housing was provided by the state, then people would be less desperate for money because they’re no longer scrambling to make rent. Someone who decides to stay in a relationship because renting on their own would be too expensive, would be free to decide such things based on how they really feel. In turn, perhaps someone decides that working out and staying fit will be a better way to appeal to a partner than making money, and so their drive for money decreases. An artist, who might otherwise take whatever commission they can find because they need to pay rent, might be more selective and exercise more creative control over their work. Etc.
We could imagine a world where all of the basic necessities of life are provided for without money, but money is still used for collectables and rare items. Like in Star Trek, there are some people who care a lot about “gold pressed latinum,” but there are others who don’t care about it at all. While currency exists, collecting it has become little more than a hobby, and it’s not someone anything needs. You could reasonably say that money, as we understand it today, has been abolished in Star Trek.
I think you might have misinterpreted my intention. I am not trying to run defence or even really discussing US border fascism. The other users post and your response just made me think about how stuff like that would work in a socialist world, which is why I put that at the top. Its the framing for the rest of the question.
What would you like the border to be managed?
Open borders, essentially. Massive reforms to streamline the immigration process to make it a formality so that people don’t have a reason to immigrate illegally, and treat it as a paperwork violation if they do, since that’s what it is.
Completely dismantle immigration courts which are kangaroo courts where young children have to defend themselves against threat of deportation with no right to an attorney. Full due process for immigrants.
If an immigrant commits a crime, deal with it the same way as anybody else committing a crime.
So again, why is ICE or anything like it remotely a “must have?”
Let’s say this happens and a large amount of people come into the country in a short period of time. They can move anywhere they want and many of them move into your neighborhood and now they make up the majority of your town’s population. They don’t share your values, they’re a different class than you, and they feel the town should adapt to their way of life. The character of your town completely changes.
You’re okay with that?
What do these things you’re saying actually mean? How the hell are other proles a “different class” than me? What in the vagueposting about values, Great Replacement fuck are you actually talking about? What is the concrete concern here?
Taco trucks on every corner! The horror! What will happen to our sophisticated culture and way of life?! What will happen to:
Speaking as a leftist who was born and raised in the Bible Belt, it’s bold of you to assume that I shared the values of my town or neighborhood in the first place.
More seriously, cultural diversity is a strength in a similar way biodiversity is. Bringing together the knowledge, experiences and perspectives from across the world is an asset that will only help us to make wiser, more informed decisions that account for factors that one culture might have as a blind spot.
Furthermore, accepting and respecting immigrants will help build a sense of solidarity. Even if they don’t value inclusivity, welcoming and including them is the first step towards showing them the benefits of such values.
Also, your argument is literally the exact argument used for redlining, when PoC were segregated from white neighborhoods. “What if a black person moved next door to you? What if a whole bunch of black people move in? There goes the neighborhood!” It was racist bullshit then and it’s racist bullshit now, but it also illustrates another point, which is that there are already many different cultures within the US that are free to move wherever they please already. For example, I was born and raised in the South, but I moved to a different region with a different culture and different values. The only difference between me and an immigrant is that one of us crossed an imaginary line called a state line and the other crossed an imaginary line called a national border.
I hate to post greentext, but immigration is an issue where you can literally just do this:
It’s hard not to read your response as a parroting of the views of others.
Because you’re a real free thinker with such novel concepts as “guys we have to vote for genocide, its the most important election of our lifetime! Incrementalism is this cool new thing I just invented, the system will let us reform it and all we have to do is give more power to fascists!”
Right back at you.
If I was interested in “parroting the views of others” I’d still be in the South and I’d be a conservative just like my parents, religious leaders, and (many of) my teachers were.
What I said is my genuine opinion and the result of critical, independent thought. If I happen to agree with the arguments some people make, it’s coincidental.
Frankly, I doubt many people on the anti-immigration side could say the same thing. They freak out over it because the TV tells them to, even though it doesn’t actually affect them at all.
Most if not All of our law enforcement agencies are completely out of control. Under both republicans and Dems. Laws are not followed. Remediation by the courts is not a given. Under this system its not reasonable to say, "we must have border security forces". Its like saying we must have drug sniffing dogs in a world where every dog has gone rabid. Sure they will bite and kill, but we must have that function they used to do. No. Just no. Plenty of other countries make this an administrative process, and even now ICE is rounding up people on civil charges, immigation violation is not a criminal charge and never has been.
normal border security, (…), must have
No and no
They’ve never performed the “normal functions” of border security. They’ve always pretty openly been racists who kidnap, torture, and deport people that they don’t like. We don’t need that at all.
Help me see the line between “normal” and authoritarian.
This article comparing obama to the first trump presidency calls out that trump did not prioritize the enforcement goals he put forth. Obama did prioritize them, but included a blanket priority to remove anyone who entered illegally after 2014. I don’t see how the distinction between targeting individuals convinced or charged/suspected of criminal activity has any meaning if the obama priorities include blanket removal of people who entered after 2014.
My perspective is that the distinctions only have meaning to those who prioritize the appearance of respectability, or those seeking to minimize disruption to sectors of the US economy that rely heavily on the ability of capitalists to exploit the uncertain status of undocumented individuals.
Perhaps that is where the line sits for those who feel that the dems being on board with ICE during obama but opposing it during trump was reasonable and consistent.
This article compares Biden and the second trump admin. (It’s got a different take than the first but I’ll be honest I just googled comparisons of the two admins and assumed the facts would be accurate and that I didn’t need to read into their analysis, if you disagree with the facts I’m happy to listen).
If we carry forward the idea that it is just to prioritize the arrest of undocumented individuals with arrests and convictions, the percentage of annual ICE arrests that were of people with arrests or convictions were:
- 2022 (biden): 32.5%
- 2023 (biden): 43.3%
- 2024 (trump): 71.7%
Yes, there has been a significant increase in deaths in ICE custody since 2024. I have not found annual stats for deaths involving border enforcement, so I don’t know that a meaningful comparison can be made about the use of force overall. And yes, trump is deporting people to countries where they have no status. Biden did that too, however, by extending the trump initiated title 42 expulsion where people are expelled to their country of last transit. I guess the question is, do people feel that if there are a larger number of individuals with criminal charges or convictions deported, do they feel the increase in deaths at the hands of the enforcers are justified? How many deaths, injuries or use of force or detention are justified in boarder enforcement?
Finally, yes, trump is using the deployment of ICE as a threat against people in cities he considers his enemies. I don’t understand why this, in particular, is causing uproar. Not because I agree with it, but because I think there are so many different reasons it could upset people and I want to understand which ones are upsetting whom and why. For example it could be that:
- it shatters the illusion of immigration enforcement as the good guys.
- it forces those who oppose ICE in general to take a stand or appear hypocritical, potentially overwhelming existing support networks and leaving people scrambling and exhausted.
- it is an implied threat against those with status (as bystanders or suspects themselves) with the implication that having status should be protection from state use of force.
- it implies that more ‘good’ individuals who are without legal status will be removed
I’m sure I’m missing some.
To be clear, I’m not seeking to agree with people on their stance or cause them to agree with mine. This is why I have avoided giving my opinion on the topic of ICE overall. I just don’t understand what people see when they say this time is so much different than the last.
It’s clear the bar for the activities of ICE (and CBP) being acceptable is very different for different people and I wonder if that’s the key to the disagreement on if the meme is “fair”.
it shatters the illusion of immigration enforcement as the good guys.
I think you hit the crux of the matter with this one. Liberals need to believe they and the state they uphold are the good guys and Trump just makes it too damn hard for them.
ICE didn’t exist until 9/11 because they’re functions were served by other agencies. It’s always been a grift.
So there was no border control in Murica before 2003?
Are you being ironic or
Worth noting centrist democrats are simply Republicans-light. They cave to conservatives constantly to get concessions republicans immediately undo as soon as they take congress. Democracy has not fared well since democrats caved to Reagan. Schumer’s legacy sucks.
To the RNC, The Democratic party is something between colleagues in empire, controlled opposition and bratty subs
Curious, what did republicans do, given they’re the alternative. Not voting isn’t a protest, it’s a scream to be ignored completely.
You would obey every tape in a SAW movie and sacrifice all your fingers before you ever started looking for a loose window pane
I’m going to steal this one
So what you’re saying “/u/stummies” is that if we didnt vote for Harris in the last election, who was annointed without a primary, who was on stage with a republican talking about her guns and praying, while also saying she wouldnt change any of Joe Bidens policies which were polling underwater even with Dems, whose mega-zionist husband guaranteed that not supporting Israel (antisemitism) needed to have “real consequences”… If you didnt vote for her you dont get to be part of the political process. Is that right? No one buys your diet fascism here. And you’re either a simpleton or a republican. Get off our lawn or shut the hell up. Take your pick. But you dont talk to us that way and you dont make any rules or demands of us.
Luckily for us the Republicans aren’t the only alternative, just one of many.
And which of these many alternatives is going to get more than a single digit percent of the vote?
Well Harris sure as hell wasn’t going to get enough votes to win either, so did you refuse to vote for her too?
“Why would I want to put an egg into boiling water? It’s not boiled after one second, so that means the boiling water does nothing. My only option is to eat it raw I guess, too bad. Hey stop trying to cook my food! We all know it doesn’t work since the food is not cooked the second it touches the stove!”
So there’s this thing called “planning” and “long term thinking” you might want to try it some day. You know, instead of reactively screeching at the latest symptom of a system in decline, try to create something new. Now this might be shocking to you, but you actually don’t get everything immediately as soon as you start, things take time.
Probably not many, because the Democrats fight against the parties that want to stop bombing kids. Maybe if voters like you would stop supporting the child-killers, and start supporting the anti-child-killers, they would start winning.
“I didn’t vote for positive-candidate but rather Blue-Hitler at least as I know he’s electable, we got to vote blue no matter who after all!”
Blue-Hitler
That’s exactly the kind of dipshit take we all expect from you guys.
They are literally guilty of committing a genocide
I’m not wrong, that’s how you Amerikans react every time. “oh we can’t have x, we need to vote the bigoted fascist in the primaries to be able to defeat Trump!” Like with Gavin Newsom. This behaviour is not new.
You are coping with your new historical legacy as “American fascist, 2026, colorized”
Every comment from you idiots is dumber than the last.
🌽
Actually the alternative isn’t the republicans, but acknowledging this requires you to be able to think further ahead than the next electoral cycle.
Are they an alternative it just another head on the same body? A hyperracist capitalist party is not a practical alternative to the hypergay capitalist party.
If your vote is guaranteed you’re already being ignored completely. Why should Democrats listen to anything you say? They can do anything they want to you and you’ll beg for more.
I voted for Obama because Bush signed off on the Patriot Act. Obama expanded it. How am I supposed to think after that? That’s why there’s all these chilly situations happening.
Oh, I know this one! Don’t vote next time so Republicans win! Step 2: ???
Seriously though, I understand the frustration. Obama absolutely deserves criticism for continuing and expanding parts of the post-9/11 surveillance state. But the US was fundamentally changed by 9/11, and reversing that political momentum was always going to be difficult. That doesn’t excuse his decisions, but it does help explain the political environment in which they were made.
The same nuance applies to ICE. Democrats have funded immigration enforcement for decades, and their record deserves scrutiny, particularly under Obama. But funding an existing federal agency isn’t the same as endorsing Trump’s use of that agency. Enforcement priorities, oversight, detention policies, and the scale and purpose of operations matter. Treating all ICE funding as equivalent ignores some pretty significant differences between administrations.
And let’s not forget the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare wasn’t universal healthcare, and it certainly wasn’t the single-payer system many progressives wanted, but it wasn’t nothing. It expanded coverage to millions of Americans, protected people with preexisting conditions, and fundamentally changed what Americans could expect from their healthcare system. Those were substantial gains, even if the legislation was compromised from the start. That’s exactly what I mean about political momentum: imperfect progress can establish protections and expectations that future reforms can build upon.
My larger concern is that abandoning Democrats over their failures doesn’t move the country left. If anything, it risks pushing the Overton window even further right. The American electorate hasn’t consistently supported the kind of progressive policies many of us would like to see, and there’s been an enormous, well-funded political and media effort over the past decade to discredit those policies, particularly around civil rights, immigration, and anything labeled “woke.”
I’m 43 now, and one thing I’ve come to appreciate is how much political momentum matters. Progress isn’t linear, and meaningful social change often takes decades to establish. It’s much easier to capitalize on fear, resentment, and existing prejudices than to build lasting public support for expanding rights and changing institutions.
None of that means Democrats should get a free pass. Quite the opposite. They need to be challenged, especially when they compromise on fundamental rights. But there’s a difference between holding a party accountable and allowing its opposition to consolidate even more power.
The Democratic Party is divided, and I don’t know who is going to provide the leadership it needs. But I don’t see the Republican Party advancing civil liberties, economic equality, or a more humane immigration system. And I certainly don’t see how handing Republicans more power helps us get there.
Real change takes time, organization, and political momentum. We have to build on what we have while pushing for something better. Abandoning the imperfect opposition to an increasingly authoritarian right doesn’t strike me as much of a strategy.
imperfect opposition
Liberals do not consider Palestinians fully human.
and wtf do conservatives think of Palestinians? Bacteria? This thread is full of immature low iq group thinking edgelords.
and wtf do conservatives think of Palestinians? Bacteria? This thread is full of immature low iq group thinking edgelords.
Emphasis mine, fucking crazy that you embrace the accusation. And leave it to a nazi to make everything about iq
Democrats are conservative.
Funny to talk about groupthink when you’re the one freaking out about people daring to critique your blue team fascists.
Sure thing bud. The Russians are applauding your efforts.
This just in: Wiping your ass and washing your hands is russian propaganda.
The Russians are applauding your efforts.
Who cares! Seriously, all you shitlibs care about is your made up holy war against those damn ruskies.
Don’t make it too obvious now. LOL! 01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110010 01110101 01110011 01110011 01101001 01100001
funny thing is that he also got Nobel Peace Prize for literally nothing. Because he’s a jam-up dude basically.
He seemed to have mostly gotten it because he was the first black president of the US. Though, they might have thought it would spur him to get out of the wars in the middle east (it didn’t).
There was a reason even if you don’t agree with it. It may also partially explain Trump’s drive to do the opposite since Obama is a permanent fixture in Trump’s dementia-stricken brain. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/obama/facts/
There is always a reason…
still a poor choice in hindsight.
he got that? never know that before
he also got Nobel Peace Prize for literally nothing
I believe this is the main reason Trump believes he deserves one too.
his best chance was in 2017 right after he got elected. that’s how Obama pulled it off. No way Nobel committee would’ve done that by the end of his second term.
I was going to reply to your prior comment with, “Wrong, he got elected!”
the whole endless needless attempts to “cut a deal” to broker some kind of peace all over the place seem like some very bad political satire but Kissinger got a prize for way less if you think about it (and it messed up the region for decades onwards) - so while demented there is a bit of logic going on.
Fair. He could broker a lot of peace by refusing to meddle but that ego…
the size of Unicron at least
They frequently give them to gusanos who advocate for bombing their own countries, and they gave one to Kissinger, so I don’t think that matters much to them.
The thoughts of the only Chinese national to win a nobel peace prize. It’s a truly vile institution that spends the majority of its time laundering the horrific histories of some of histories most vile people and institutions.
Interviewer: “Then what conditions would allow a true historic transformation in China?”
Liu Xiaobo: “Three hundred years of colonization. Hong Kong took a hundred years of colonizing to get where it is today, so the mainland, huge as it is, would need three hundred to reach Hong Kong’s level. I don’t even know if three hundred would be enough."
That’s appalling, and very relevant.
weren’t there a guy who got the prize and then did 180 and committed a bunch of war crimes?
Yeah, Obama.
nah, there is another one - Abiy Ahmed.
Let’s focus on what’s going on now, shall we? Whatever happened before was what happened before. What is happening now will continue to happen if you spin info this way. Has there been any other party involved in funding? Has any of funding been included with a multitude of other items in a bill? Let’s hear the whole story of every year - not just this cherry-picking intended to make the Democrats in Congress responsible for today’s storm trouper ICE tactics.
If the Democrats in Congress don’t want to be held responsible for today’s storm trouper ICE tactics, then maybe they shouldn’t keep increasing funding to ICE, and training them to act like Storm Troupers.
I like how providing evidence that the Democrats don’t even deny is “spinning info”
Lets not bicker and argue about who killed who
Let’s focus on what’s going on now, shall we? Whatever happened before was what happened before. What is happening now will continue to happen if you spin info this way
You, 30 april 1945, after Donitz was appointed president
How is anyone supposed to make an informed decision without considering past events? Ignore cause and effect?
Whatever happened before was what happened before.
I means this is MAGA level critical thinking.
What happens now is a result of what came before. Ignoring history only makes you blind, it does not do you any good. This “lets focus on the now” line I see some of you oafs expouse only helps to shield fascists.
This “lets focus on the now” line I see some of you oafs expouse only helps to shield fascists.
It’s also what Democrats LOVE to do when finally elected.
Liberals just go through life like goldfish, just vibing in the moment.
But the democrats didn’t fund the same ICE as the new gestapo version of ICE now run by a fascist turnip, one that employs rape-bro psychos who shoot unarmed civilians for no good reason, one that built deliberately inhumane detention centre to illegally hold people without trial etc.
This is the first result I found, after doing less than 5 minutes worth of searching. I’ve always found it better to do basic levels of research before I start talking about things. Maybe you should too.
Yes they did.
Do you think ICE turned into something else overnight? Tom Homan was installed by Obama. The kids in cages people were crying about under Trump 1 were put there initially by Obama. Biden expanded the camps. When do you think ICE turned?
Moreover, all of the instances where an ICE agent shot a member of the public were commited by agents who had been with ICE for years. The brutality is part of the fabric of the agency. Abolish.
how may people did ICE shoot before trump?
You could just google it. “how many people did ice kill under Obama and Biden”
Barack Obama Administration (2009–2017)
• During the Obama presidency, total reported deaths in ICE detention numbered approximately 70 to 80+ individuals across the multi-year span (averaging roughly 8 to 12 deaths per year during most fiscal years, with year-to-year totals fluctuating).
Joe Biden Administration (2021–2025)
• During the Biden presidency (January 2021 to January 2025), reported deaths in ICE detention totaled approximately 75 to 85+ individuals across his four-year term (with totals varying yearly based on detention populations and healthcare conditions inside facilities).
And it gives this link for followup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_in_ICE_detention
No way of knowing since this shit happens all the time and the state has a long history of hiding the evidence.
Its also not really the thing that matters to mesince I care about more than just the murder of nice white people, and ICE has been throwing children into concentration camps since the inception and thats the actual issue - Not the fact that the state has now turned its ire towards white people.curious about what the differences are between where ICE shoves people and a standard holding cell?
I’d start by doing a basic google search. Consider using search terms like “-Trump” and “before:2016” in order to get results from before his time.
this us conflating immigration agencies before Trumps ICE redirect.
ICE was founded in 2003
pretending ICE before Trump and after Trump are the same thing is dishonest.
Not really, pretending like ICE were a group of saints before Trump is deranged.
Pretending that ICE wasn’t kidnapping, murdering, raping, torturing and deporting people under Obama and Biden, as well as Trump, is more than dishonest, it shows your true priorities.
If anything, Democrats present themselves as more competent at deporting and killing people in other countries
Let’s see your source?
Do you need a source for the sun shining or grass growing as well? Lmgtfy.com
Oh shit, this is lemmy.ml. Tanky town.
Ad hominem
Are you on crack? WTF are you talking about? So you don’t have a source?
A source for the historical voting records of the democratic party that isn’t just the publicly accesible voting records that you can just go look at? No, not anything that’s any better than that.
Feel Fine, Vote Stein
Id say Gloria la Riva, but anything beats genociders.
I’m certainly not voting for any Republicans, if that’s what this post is trying to infer
What the post is clearly inferring, is that Demcratic voters don’t care about the attrocities that ICE is comitting, they only care that the Blue Team is the one doing it.
If you are against the Republicans because of ICE, you should be against the Democrats because of ICE.
Curious why the post mentioned noting about the Republikkkans that always vote to ensure I.C.E. funding. Every vote, 200+ party members, and yet, OP focuses on the minority. Very Republikkkan behavior.
Because the Republicans don’t pretend to be anti-ICE. The Democrats do. Of course OP focuses on the party that fights leftists. Unlike you, they don’t want ICE to continue on.
Incorrect. Thanks for playing!
Haha, every single sentence in that statement is factually true. But pretending that factually true data is incorrect is exactly what I expect from Libs that support racists, rapits, murderers and thieves.
removed you would phone bank for John McCain if he were alive today
You’ve voted for a Reagan clone in every election since you joined the age of majority
Incorrect. But thanks for playing!
Go back to reddit
So you haven’t voted for democrats in the last two decades?
I didn’t vote for Republikkkans, did you?
Answer the question
I didn’t vote for Republikkkans. Not once. Have you?
Why are you so afraid of answering the question?
Twerp behavior
And I’m not incorrect. Unless you’re lying out your ass and stayed home every election since 1980, you voted for a Reagan clone.
K
Nah the post is trying to advocate for not voting at all, which is the same thing as voting for Republican
By this logic, is dying the same as voting Republican?
Basically, yeah.
Did you choose to die? No.
But you did choose to vote republican, by not voting.
no, those who did not vote, did not vote. Nobody should be compelled to vote for genocide.
And not voting to stop it is what?
You really think that Dems are just as bad as Republicans?
That is insane.
By not voting dem you are saying you are okay with all yhe extra suffering from Republican rule
Okay, so, committing suicide is the same as voting Republican.
Basically, yes.
Then I think you should vote republican
Why would I do something stupid like that?
Yes. Obviously.
God, what’s so hard to get?
/Sarcasm, cause you’re obviously arguing in bad faith
At this point, liberals think anyone disagreeing with them is inherently bad faith
When someone forces me to confront something extremely stupid I said outside of my own deliberate framing it’s called bad faith.
You’re only allowed to talk to me in the same voice as my inner monologue.
I’m pointing out the obvious logical conclusion of your argument, you just don’t want to engage with it because you are arguing in bad faith. In your mind, no one has a good reason to not vote for Democrats, therefore, they are Republicans.
Frankly, it’s incredible that’s what you arrived at looking at the post.
Considering that there’s basically just Dems and Reps on the ballots *checks notes* literally right NOW, and your post is **definitely **anti Democrat, I can only infer you want Republikkkans to be voted for an win.
Considering that there’s basically just Dems and Reps on the ballots…
Thats not true at all. I had a few options that weren’t Dems or Reps. In many races, you can also write in people.
…your post is definitely anti Democrat…
Wait, so you are upset that they are against ICE, kidnapping, torture, and murder…? I’m not sure you realize what that says about you.
…I can only infer you want Republikkkans to be voted for an win.
You can inferr a lot from what they said, but you are the one who appears to be pushing people into supporting Republican policies, not the OP.
Nah fam. A post specifically decrying Dems without also specifically decrying Republikkkans is obviously anti Dem, and pro Republikkkans.
I want to shoot and kill every I.C.E. member I see, but I know that won’t work, and I didn’t have the means yet.
So I’m gonna ensure that I never vote for the party that perpetually has 200+ votes every single time to ensure or raise I.C.E. funding. If there’s a third party and they’re the opening, I’ll vote em in (like I did with Nithya Raman).
The obvious pro-I.C.E. party is the Republikkkans. I will always vote against them. And always have.
Also, I understand mitigation, and I’m not a single issue voter, unlike the myriad Republikkkans in this comment section.
People here don’t need to be told republicans suck, they are aware already. On the other hand the site is full of brainiacs like you who think dems are saints.
A post specifically decrying Dems without also specifically decrying Republikkkans is obviously anti Dem, and pro Republikkkans.
That’s not obvious at all. In fact, that’s a blatently false statement. It’s an anti-Dem post, but I see no mention of support for Republicans, except from people like you, supporting their policies.
I want to shoot and kill every I.C.E. member I see, but I know that won’t work, and I didn’t have the means yet.
Yet you keep defending and supporting the people who fund them. Something about that tells me your anti-ICE rhetoric is unserious.
So I’m gonna ensure that I never vote for the party that perpetually has 200+ votes every single time to ensure or raise I.C.E. funding.
But you will vote for “the other” party that also votes to ensure and raise ICE funding.
The obvious pro-I.C.E. party is the Republikkkans. I will always vote against them. And always have.
Well, the Republicans are one of the obviously pro-ICE parties. And you may vote against them, but you sure are keen on voting for their policies, as long as the Blue Team is doing it.
Also, I understand mitigation, and I’m not a single issue voter, unlike the myriad Republikkkans in this comment section.
I’ve yet to see any Republican, or single-issue voter in these comments. Maybe you can point them out to me? But something tells me that you wont.
There’s actually more, you should probably check your notes better.
By the way the checks notes bit is so played out, its come to the point even republicans do it. If you want to be effective with your snark then you gotta move beyond what wasn’t even novel in 2016.
K
Shit yourself to death.
K
Democrats are controlled opposition. It’s all bullshit. Don’t vote, buy a gun and ammo and practice your aim peeps
See the idiot walk. See the idiot talk. See the idiot write up their name on the blackboard.
See the robot walk. See the robot talk. See the robot write up their X on the ballot.
Your brain on Blue No Matter Who
incomprehensible gibberish
Uncultured swine
I can’t see the posted image. All I get is “Unable to load page”. Is that happening for anyone else?
Maybe your instance couldn’t load it? https://lemmy.ml/post/53841606 Try this link to see it from this instance?
It loads now. Must have just been a brief outtage.
Bullshit. Do I need to spell out why?
Yes please
Done, see my other comments
Thats not you spelling it out lmao. Write out your arguments or at the very least link to a specific comment you think spells it out.
It is spelling it out. But some folks say only thing changed is that I’ve become more informed about what ICE does
I made a comment where I linked to articles from the first trump term where democrats were calling for ICE to be defunded : https://crazypeople.online/comment/11610798
This got walked back as the 2020 election drew near. Which is why people are questioning the sincerity of this new opposition. Does this satisfy you that the mainstream opposition to ICE isn’t new during this term?
“I actually have all the arguments and proof against your position. Just go look for it through my comment history” is not spelling it out you dumbass
Lol. Have a nice day
Have the day you deserve
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025190
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the Bill that gave I.C.E. a huge budget increase), not a single Dem voted for it.
https://ballotpedia.org/One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act
Seems like a downward trend from the post 9/11 days.
So because of another bill the democrats didn’t vote for, this means they didn’t vote for a bill that they did vote for?
I see you fail to understand “downward trend”. That means there was a high, and over time, the amount has gone down.
“Up” or “high” can be like looking toward the sky. And “down” or “low” can be like looking toward the ground.
A “trend” is something that happens after a period of time.
So the number of people voting for I.C.E. asshole money has gone down over time. Which is a good thing.
Downward trend.
I see you fail to understand “the democrats voted to increase funding for ICE”, which they did. You seem very set on moving the goalposts instead of relating to the facts at hand. You said it was bullshit, what about the democrats not voting for another bill makes it bullshit that the democratic party voted to increase ICE funding?
7 Democrats
218 Republikkkanshttps://newrepublic.com/post/205604/seven-democrats-voted-keep-funding-ice
Tom Suozzi (New York)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Don Davis (North Carolina)
Laura Gillen (New York)
Jared Golden (Maine)
Vicente Gonzalez (Texas)
Marie Glusenkamp Perez (Washington){I live in California)
I know “downward trend” is hard to understand. But please make an effort. And stop voting for Republikkkans.
I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but please try to make a miniscule effort: You claimed the post was bullshit, yet you cant disprove it, so you keep trying to move the goalposts. The democrats ensured ICE funding increased each of the years given in the post, that is a fact. Your “proof” that that isn’t a fact is not proof of that, its proof that you think it is okay to fund ICE as long as there’s another party thats worse. Thats literal whataboutism and completely irrelevant to the statement YOU made and YOU have yet to provide proof for.
If you are so certain the statement in the post is bullshit, then why is it so hard for you to actually engage with it, instead of dancing around it? Go through each year given in the post, disprove that the democrats ensured ICE funding for each year given. It should be easy, since its bullshit according to you. Either that or fuck off with your weak rhetorical tricks.
Why?
When did ICE become yet another version of Gestapo?
I was going to write “instrument of opression”, but state is one by definition, so need to be more specific
The day it was founded. On what grounds do you argue that the xenophobic minority hunting group with dedicated private concentration camps isn’t a modern gestapo?
Somehow I doubt that. Ground: that’s only orange shitstain’s second term brought “we shoot you because we feel like it” news to me. But I live far from America, so could be wrong
It seems you’re asking in earnest, so here’s some different sources for you to read that might help expand your understanding of how historically terrible the US is.
Facilitating the global heroine drug trade - A thread
Massive drone assassination program
Chicago Police has had “black sites” for decades
Ferguson Riot leaders were assassinated and disappeared under Obama in a dem city with a dem governor [2]
American police used to (and still does) torture detainees [2]
Biden deported more than Trump 1
Biden expanded the concentration camps [2]
Biden was planning on doing mass deportations using ICE as well
Thank you, will read
You are wrong, yes
That’s horrible. Thank you
“Institutional violence only bad when my favorite color team hate it!”
Lol. Did you even read what I said?
The propaganda got completely wild, but the day to day operations didn’t change a whole lot, it’s just more public now
Focking hell if that’s true. So only thing that’s changed much is that I am now more informed about what they do? (Yes, it is so hard for me to believe that I need this re-stated a few times)
The day it was found.
Doubtful. The day it was found it was already an instrument for oppression, but just a gang of armed dumbheads with state approval of whatever they feel like doing? I am still clinging to hopeful thought that it’s a “recent” development, not something that’s been happening for decades
Why didn’t I hear about them execution executing wanton violence before?
Because you didn’t care
Try harder. Didn’t hear != didn’t care
Idk, maybe you had ear surgery or something
