Real question: what would you prefer? Its pretty clear we arent gonna riot. Its also pretty clear if people keep discouraging voting, we're gonna have a republican majority again. Whats the point in voting for someone who 80% of the party isnt going to vote for, while 100% of conservatives vote for the guy their overlord demands.
I legit do not understand what that would be. If we decide to vote for a third party as an internet collective, we split the vote between internet people and normies. Mamdani won because he made national news. I have 0 DSA candidates on my ballot. What would you like me to do, if not just vote blue and pray for a better candidate
I love how the only political action you can conceive of is voting for pre approved candidates handed down to you. Joining a party that actually aligns with your goals, never. Engaging in political agitation (from something as simple as handing out fliers to organising rallies/events), impossible. No the only way to engage with politics is to tick off blue or red genocide before ignoring it for another 4 years.
You can vote for whoever you want comrade but the democrats are not going to get rid of ICE.
Eta a sincere answer because I'm turbo autistic today I guess: google whatever part of america you want to fix and read about what people are doing to make it better and join them. You might have figured out ICE sucks recently but people have opposed them since the beginning.
I dream about a world where children don't starve and people don't sleep under bridges while the wealthy molest children in empty high-rises. I dream about a world where people, no matter their skin color or geographic location, do not have to fear a clear sky, where everyone is free to pursue a life of joy and everyone is ensured a respectable life.
Sadly I understand that the rich child molesters and their bootlickers like you will not let such a world come to be peacefully, thus I accept the knowledge that violence is necessary, even though it is not beautiful. Read Blackshirts & Reds.
if not just vote blue and pray for a better candidate
The dem leaders cannot and will not win without addressing voters needs. They need to own that idea as a group. Every time they are anywhere they need to be yelled at until they get in line. Right now Trump is trying to make a witch hunt case against Illhan Omar for instance and have her deported. She is a US citizen. Where TF are the Dems in defending her? If they dont defend her because she is of somali descent, then its time for scorched earth on the DNC. I'm tired of traitorous behavior from the DNC and I'm not going to just vote for them and hope.
Effing Gavin Newsom is trying to not only kill the billionaire tax measure in California but also ban any future wealth taxes. And you suggest we go along and hope they give us something better in the future? why would they ever do that?
Peaceful national shutdown, the one thing very few of them talk about.
They either like the excuses or the dreaming about rioting, but anything useful that requires action is anathema.
It’s literally the only thing that isn’t violent and would get their Houses moving and it’d take about two weeks which isn’t even enough time to evict someone let alone starve (which they bitch about anyway) but there’s no willingness to make the effort or go through the hardship.
Because it would have violence inflicted on it well before that two weeks. I agree it's a great opening move, but you have to be ready to fight to protect the general strike, both against opportunists who'll scab for the ruling class and against the goons they'll throw at you to break the strike.
Again, this comes across as a preempted excuse, I’m sorry. That’s not necessarily the case and then you do have to have the forces fully against the public.
This is the problem…nothing can apparently be done, because there’s always reasons not to, never reasons to.
The truth is, the country’s people aren’t willing to go through hardship, it’s that simple. They are happy for others to, applaud people like the French but won’t do it themselves and when that’s pointed out, we don’t understand the complexities or some other shit.
Yes, you might have to fight the general strike in some areas. Yes it’ll take hardship. It’d also take about two weeks at most. Hardly enough time to be evicted or starve, or do without healthcare which apparently is an existing issue anyway.
Nobody else is bailing them out, that’s for certain.
We’re also getting tired of their politics being forced on us on top of it. We didn’t vote for fucking CPACS and we don’t want to be inundated with their fucking military.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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/
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.
You probably are a ruskie or a repug LOL... Your rhetoric is obvious. Even if you aren't one your black and white thinking sure reminds me of one. Probably talking to one's and zeroes though. Fast reply and upvotes are pretty funny lol. Need to make it less obvious, hopefully Ukraine bombs more of your shitty computers.
Of course it has been weaponized, that's the whole point of ICE, why else did Obama massively extend family detention leading to thousands of incarcerated children and an expansion of detention camps? It's a weapon against people that don't have documentation
It does seem like we've completed dropped non americans-- they dont count as humans with rights (this is Dems and repubs, not just repubs). We're in the process of dropping gay and trans now, and indians are in the republicans crosshairs, so they're up. I do wonder if brown, black, and latino are next, then asians, then women and children. This is what conservative-lite is about. Same results as conservatism only slower and with some sweet talking and DNC dems shushing us while it happens.
brown, black, and latino were already routinely murdered by the 'normal' police.
The white libs don't care about those either, regardless of their US citizenship
What are you talking about? The first term had people crying about kids in cages and the abhorrent conditions in the concentration camps at the border and the insane practice of separating parents from their children.
People didn't mention that Obama was the one to make those camps, but before we get into that we gotta adress the basic reality that people were freaking out about how Trump was using ICE back then too. Fucked to talk about gaslighting while you're denying basic reality lmao
Acknowledging the reality that ICE was a massive part of the outcry against trump in his first term is "russian talking points"? Jesus christ Russiagate has you guys whipped into a xenophobic frenzy. Goebbels would be bored with how simple you would be to corral. If Putin said the sky is blue, would you suddenly insist it is black?
Anyway:
Ad hominem. You are not adressing the argument, but instead the character of it. Where the argument comes from does not make it any less cogent.
"Everyone who disagrees with me is an insidious foreigner" and other insane conspiracies for the right wing mind.
You're a xenophobic conspiracist. What you define yourself as does not matter, what matters is what you believe, what you say and what you do. And what you do is support genociders, what you say is that critique of democrats is some nefarious foreign plot and what you believe is that basic facts can be disregarded if they are russian. This makes you a right wing conspiracist.
Also I edited the comment, look at it again.
I spelled that out pretty clearly. If youre going to do this lazy obtuse thing then you have to at least do it about something that has not been spelled out explicitly.
Russia, if given its druthers, would be imperialist, but since it presently doesn’t, it presently isn’t. Putin tried to join NATO once, to join the imperialist club, but that was rejected, because the US wanted Russia Balkanized & plundered instead. Russia has figured out it’s better off allying with Global South countries than attempting imperialist adventures upon them. And this war has accelerated that allyship.
Partially correct. The territory making up the modern Russian Republic was also part of the Soviet Union, which is what NATO was created to destroy.
NATO is an anti-communist alliance created and staffed by the Nazis after world war 2. This is a bad thing. West Germany managed to have more Nazis in government after the war, in large part due to NATO.
edit: copypasted from another comment where I stole it from a better user than me
Let's see:
Nazis in Germany post-war were hired and brought directly back into:
(And that's not even mentioning the Nazis and collaborators which made up the origins of Radio Free Europe/Liberty, the "Victims of Communism Foundation" which grew out of the fascist-filled anti-Soviet "Captive Nations Lobby" headed by OUN-B Nazis from Ukraine, and all the Operation Aerodynamic, Operation Paperclip, Operation Sunrise, Operation Beladonna, Operation Lynx, etc etc.)
There's no gaslighting here liberal. Democrats help build the exact same institutions of repression as the republicans, and it was obvious to anybody with even a minimally functioning brain that these would be turned on the public sooner or later.
"Everyone who disagrees with me is a foreigner, and thus I don't have to take anything they say seriously" and other insane conspiracies for the right-wing mind.
Arguing for genocide makes you right wing. Arguing for the right wing party that is the democrats makes you right wing. Arguing that because someone disagrees with you they must be a foreigner and thus should be disregarded is a weird racist mentality and racism and xenophobia is right wing.
What you identify yourself as does not matter, what matters is what you do, what you say, what you support and last and certainly least, what you believe.
Finally normal people just block an instance, it is very weird to feel the need to proudly declare the creation of your personalised echo chamber.
For anyone who doesn't know this, the current ex-CIA Democratic governor of Virginia did not go through a primary. Was just declared the candidate by party fiat.
but there wasn't a wide anti-ICE sentiment in 2017-2020
Sincere question because I've seen this sentiment on a few different topics recently: is the expectation for US politicians to follow popular sentiment? I understand the concept of representing your constituents but I have never taken that to mean making decisions based on the opinions of non experts.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding and what comments like this mean is that these things were not on the minds of the voters so politicians were not campaigning on it.
Does anybody know the names of the many many deaths under the drone king Obama or whoever?
No because they were Mexicans, Philippino or whatever.
Of course when they show up in white areas and even start killing white people the libs care, it's big news and the victims get a name. Poor Renee and Alex!
These are your voters and what that comment means.
A bunch of hypocrites
The job of a political representative is to represent their constituency. One should therefore expect them to pursue policy that is popular amongst their voterbase. This is not the case in the US however 12
What I am having trouble reconciling is how people can have this belief (that individual offices should be filled by people who are committed to enacting the will of their constituents) with the vote-blue-no-matter-who approach.
If there is no nationwide platform for the parties that all candidates are expected to uphold, and the expectation is that the people in office are supposed to carry out the will of their constituents, voting along party lines seems entirely meaningless.
(I am not seeking to understand why this arrangement makes sense overall. I know it doesn't and that the US electoral system even as designed originally was meant to make it impossible to represent local desires in favor of prioritizing preservation of the union. Nothing has changed. My question was meant to understand the perspective of the people who believe these two things can be true at the same time.)
You are correct, the idea that one should make no demands of the person representing oneself does make it so that person has no incentive to represent you, since they will be assured a more stable base of power if they appeal to other voters that do not support them unconditionally.
I think the reason people do the "blue no matter who" mindkilling cliché is twofold: They've fallen for the "just this once"/"most important election of all time" shtick that has been dragged out for at least four decades.
Secondly they believe in the personal project of the politician - ie. They think that the base desires of the politician is aligned with their own. This is delusional, unless one loves genocide, fascism and a merciless police state.
According to a leaked internal government document, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deployed more than 700 personnel in the Washington, D.C. area alone. Most of the officers were from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). They provided “support” to other federal law enforcement bodies responding to protests in the city and near the White House.
While some of the sharpest liberal voices calling for ICE’s abolition have calmed, in part amid a recognition by leading Democratic strategists that the campaign could backfire, the agency has clearly been thrust into the center of a polarized national narrative in an unprecedented way. Attacked in some circles, the agency is being lionized elsewhere. Vice President Mike Pence recently told ICE agents they were “American heroes.” And eager to capitalize on a wedge issue important to its base, the White House on August 20 held a “Salute to the Heroes” of ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which like ICE is a DHS agency.
...
Thus, the issue turned into a litmus test for many Democratic candidates. Possible presidential contenders took up the cry next: first, Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Elizabeth Warren (MA), and eventually Bernie Sanders (VT), who initially refused to call for ICE’s dissolution. Gillibrand also seemed to conflate ICE’s responsibilities with those of CBP, saying, “When we flip the House and flip the Senate, I think the first thing we should do is deal with the children who are being separated from their families at the border. I think we should get rid of ICE.”
I'm also ancient and remember when ICE was created, and how scary the homeland security act was (and is) and the protests against it. It's absolutely wild how normalized all that stuff is now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ICE was created after the dissolution of INS and took over most of its functions. INS was established in 1933, but prior to that it fell under the Department of Labor. Before it was a function of the Department of Labor (which was created as the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903 and split into separate departments in 1913), there was a commissioner of immigration under Treasury. All of this governmental immigration stuff dates back to a Supreme Court case in 1876.
So no, ICE didn’t exist until 2002, but there has been some US authority for 150 years performing some duties surrounding immigration. While I believe ICE needs to be abolished because the organization has become corrupted to its rotten core and it is easier to throw out the current culture and start fresh, there needs to be a replacement for some of its functions. Pretending otherwise is either naive or destructive.
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.
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.
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
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"
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.
I don't follow this stance when looking at the image.
I believe the image is saying the democrats supported ICE until 2017 through 2020, when trump was in office. Come 2021 and the democrats are back in office, they continue to fund it. During the second trump administration, they are back to denouncing ICE.
And after the election abolishing ICE was no longer a priority.
Do you think what ICE is doing now is a fundamental shift from caused the initial outrage during the last admin, rather than just a jump in magnitude?
Even if I imagine myself as someone who thinks reform is possible, I can't understand how the view isn't that by maintaining the status quo the dems have exercised terrible negligence. If the behavior of the first admin was so abhorrent, wouldn't it be critical to ensure a future government couldn't as easily do the same or worse?
Do you think what ICE is doing now is a fundamental shift from caused the initial outrage during the last admin, rather than just a jump in magnitude?
Certainly ICE has shifted from its typical operation in previous administrations. The asylum policy was overhauled. Thousands more ICE agents were hired to conduct militarized raids with little to no oversight. The degree of evidence required for deportation has been lowered. Judicial review has been curtailed and ignored. These are significant changes.
But the point I make is that the image presents a false premise. Democrats and Republicans agree that illegal immigration should be prevented. ICE is the agency tasked with this by each administration and it makes sense that it would be funded.
If the behavior of the first admin was so abhorrent, wouldn't it be critical to ensure a future government couldn't as easily do the same or worse?
It's not so easy to prevent a future government from doing something. Even constitutional change, which is usually a very high bar, can be overruled by a judge or ignored if people allow it. Maybe the best protection is an informed, active public like in France? Not really sure -- what do you think?
I think the false presence you are mentioning requires that readers agree that the dems were right to walk back criticism of ICE between 2018 and 2020, and that ICE as it exists from 2024-2026 deserves it this time. I'm going to assume the author does not agree with that viewpoint.
It was my understanding that there is no overall platform, but each candidate has their own platform, i.e. let's say there are 5 different dem candidates (not for the same office), they will each have their own platform which is generally expected to be in line with the leadership. Unlike in other systems, if a person wants to be associated with a party, they are expected to follow the party platform or they will be kicked out. (If they are elected they keep their position, but they are "independent".)
Is that incorrect? If not, I'm not seeing the relevance of the presidential platform. I know Biden didn't support defunding ICE.
It's not so easy to prevent a future government from doing something. Even constitutional change, which is usually a very high bar, can be overruled by a judge or ignored if people allow it.
I don't disagree.
Maybe the best protection is an informed, active public like in France? Not really sure -- what do you think?
I'm not sure what the protection you are referring to is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-bombers, and start supporting the anti-child bombers, they would start winning.
"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.
The US funded border patrol since 2003? Omg, I don’t believe it. wtf is this post supposed to mean? Blame Democrats? This post is removed.
wow this post got you scratched.
ableist r-word slur. Selective history, incurious about history and self-absorbed. You're fucking pathetic.
I blame every American that voted for that orange shit or didn’t vote at all because they think Democrats are just as bad.
To the outside world, they are both just as bad. To the domestic, the only difference is how it affects white people. As marginalized communities always have it really shit under both parties.
Everyone who doesn’t fucking care about making things better or just too self centered to give a shit about the future.
No, you liberals only give a shit about YOUR OWN FUTURE and NOBODY ELSE'S. You lot are the definition of a self-centered ego.
Everyone that gave up because fuck it. Just let it burn. This is fine. The end of humanity is coming soon enough, but the world will heal after we are gone.
Yes, let Amerika burn, that is good actually. But it won't be the end of humanity then, it'll be what saves it. The world will indeed heal when you lot are gone.
Where you even born then? The same agency existed before 2003. That was just a name change. After 2001, everything changed. But it was nothing like what exists now. I'd like to see how you guys are doing anything to help humanity and not further it's destruction. I agree most/all politicians are are selfish assholes. Most of humanity probably deserves to die off. Any number of man made disasters are ready to make that happen. The USA is already dying. China will likely be next dominant power. But just saying fuck Democrats is pointless. What does "join the revolution" actually mean? Just sow more chaos?
The same agency existed before 2003. That was just a name change.
So the meme should have gone back further and said Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Customs Service and assorted other government agencies? Would that be good enough for you?
After 2001, everything changed.
Yes, I know. Americans decided to allow unprecedented surveillance and militarization in exchange for maintaining their way of life.
But it was nothing like what exists now.
My mistake, I must have imagined Guantanamo.
I'd like to see how you guys are doing anything to help humanity and not further it's destruction.
I agree most/all politicians are are selfish assholes. Most of humanity probably deserves to die off. Any number of man made disasters are ready to make that happen. The USA is already dying. China will likely be next. But just saying fuck Democrats is pointless.
America is the only so- called liberal democracy where criticism of the political establishment is treated like an existential threat to humanity. Free to use slurs but not to dream of a better world, I guess?
What does "join the revolution" actually mean? Just sow more chaos?
I'm sorry you're having such a rough time processing the immense violence happing within your country. However, my comment was "ICE was formed in 2003". If that statement, providing a possible reason that year was chosen in the meme, is unbottling all these feelings, I'd like to suggest that it isn't really my comment that is the problem.
That's a fair comment, I wasn't specific enough in what I meant. I don't think it's unusual for the state to suppress dissidents. That's what states do, after all!
I know the internet isn't real but the only exposure I have to americans is online, and they seem to think that people criticising the democrats are russian agents. Every day americans are so eager to suppress criticism and turn on each other, in service of maintaining the status quo.
Why though? You don't even need to look beyond the comfort zone of imperialist states to see that electoral democracy can exist in places where people are free to form new parties and coalitions when the existing are not pleasing to anyone. Take the UK for example!
I'm not suggesting more parties are going to stop america from continuing to harm the rest of the world and their people at home. I'm just baffled by the idea that anything but uncritical support of one of the two teams you get to pick from is anti democracy. I think getting over that hurdle is the first step to solidarity and class consciousness.
Oh, yeah, the US ideological state apparatus is extremely powerful.
I'm reminded of a joke:
A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink. "I have to admit, I'm always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up," the CIA agent says. "Thank you," the KGB says. "We do our best but truly, it's nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them." The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. "Thank you friend, but you must be confused... There's no propaganda in America."
I am no fan of the us and I live here. Ive hated politics my whole life. I totally get the hatred of America. I would leave if I could. And there are pockets of resistance here and I do what I can to support that even if it means voting democrat. I have to believe there is still a chance.
The same problems always existing before 2003 which is my point. And every year gets worse. Every country gets worse. Every day the future gets worse and all you guys do is blame someone else. Blaming everyone else, minorities/immigrants is what got is here. Doesnt solve anything.
I don't disagree with the criticism. The only thing i dislike is the implication to that "there are no good choices" and we should just give up. That's how the facists win. I also thought the meme was dumb. But tbh I was drunk. I am also new to this platform, so sorry if I fucked up the rules. It still amazed that anyone even read a comment from a noob and took the time to reply.
Of course this is the comment you respond to you monumental coward
China will likely be next
Lol cope. Sorry, but China is not on the verge of collapse, it actually has competent leadership and an educated population that isn't poisoned by the insane individualist colonialist philosophy that lies at the root of the mind of people like you and the other average half-wits that make up the political base of the US.
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
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 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
:::spoiler 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.
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?"
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. My oldest childhood memory is dressing up as Robert E. Lee in second grade to do a presentation on the Civil War, which was really about states' rights, donchaknow.
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 innovate and 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 convincing them of 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:
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.
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!"
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?
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".
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
287 replies
It’s time for the biennial teeing of the football.
Inb4 some liberals start yapping "that you better try and kick the football charlie otherwise the Republicans will win"
Real question: what would you prefer? Its pretty clear we arent gonna riot. Its also pretty clear if people keep discouraging voting, we're gonna have a republican majority again. Whats the point in voting for someone who 80% of the party isnt going to vote for, while 100% of conservatives vote for the guy their overlord demands.
Surely there is something in between rioting and a farce of an electoral process where you pick which team colour does imperialism for you.
Peaceful national shutdown, but there’s excuses why that can’t happen as well.
It’d take two weeks, if around 60% in the urban areas did it. The Houses would run to impeach.
At this point it sure doesn’t seem like there is.
That's by design. Stop accepting the options that are handed to you, and pick the other options that those in power hide behind the curtain.
I legit do not understand what that would be. If we decide to vote for a third party as an internet collective, we split the vote between internet people and normies. Mamdani won because he made national news. I have 0 DSA candidates on my ballot. What would you like me to do, if not just vote blue and pray for a better candidate
I love how the only political action you can conceive of is voting for pre approved candidates handed down to you. Joining a party that actually aligns with your goals, never. Engaging in political agitation (from something as simple as handing out fliers to organising rallies/events), impossible. No the only way to engage with politics is to tick off blue or red genocide before ignoring it for another 4 years.
You can vote for whoever you want comrade but the democrats are not going to get rid of ICE.
Eta a sincere answer because I'm turbo autistic today I guess: google whatever part of america you want to fix and read about what people are doing to make it better and join them. You might have figured out ICE sucks recently but people have opposed them since the beginning.
Here, for example, is some current resistance in Minnesota. It could be applied elsewhere. https://workersvoiceus.org/2026/10/11/if-they-can-criminalize-the-minnesota-15-they-can-criminalize-all-of-us/?amp=1
I dream about a world where children don't starve and people don't sleep under bridges while the wealthy molest children in empty high-rises. I dream about a world where people, no matter their skin color or geographic location, do not have to fear a clear sky, where everyone is free to pursue a life of joy and everyone is ensured a respectable life.
Sadly I understand that the rich child molesters and their bootlickers like you will not let such a world come to be peacefully, thus I accept the knowledge that violence is necessary, even though it is not beautiful. Read Blackshirts & Reds.
Pardon me? I don't understand how I've given the impression I think there is anything positive about the USA.
I'd like for you to not vote for genociders and instead make actual demands of your political representatives
The dem leaders cannot and will not win without addressing voters needs. They need to own that idea as a group. Every time they are anywhere they need to be yelled at until they get in line. Right now Trump is trying to make a witch hunt case against Illhan Omar for instance and have her deported. She is a US citizen. Where TF are the Dems in defending her? If they dont defend her because she is of somali descent, then its time for scorched earth on the DNC. I'm tired of traitorous behavior from the DNC and I'm not going to just vote for them and hope.
Effing Gavin Newsom is trying to not only kill the billionaire tax measure in California but also ban any future wealth taxes. And you suggest we go along and hope they give us something better in the future? why would they ever do that?
https://www.commondreams.org/news/newsom-future-wealth-tax
Peaceful national shutdown, the one thing very few of them talk about.
They either like the excuses or the dreaming about rioting, but anything useful that requires action is anathema.
It’s literally the only thing that isn’t violent and would get their Houses moving and it’d take about two weeks which isn’t even enough time to evict someone let alone starve (which they bitch about anyway) but there’s no willingness to make the effort or go through the hardship.
Because it would have violence inflicted on it well before that two weeks. I agree it's a great opening move, but you have to be ready to fight to protect the general strike, both against opportunists who'll scab for the ruling class and against the goons they'll throw at you to break the strike.
Again, this comes across as a preempted excuse, I’m sorry. That’s not necessarily the case and then you do have to have the forces fully against the public.
This is the problem…nothing can apparently be done, because there’s always reasons not to, never reasons to.
The truth is, the country’s people aren’t willing to go through hardship, it’s that simple. They are happy for others to, applaud people like the French but won’t do it themselves and when that’s pointed out, we don’t understand the complexities or some other shit.
Yes, you might have to fight the general strike in some areas. Yes it’ll take hardship. It’d also take about two weeks at most. Hardly enough time to be evicted or starve, or do without healthcare which apparently is an existing issue anyway.
Nobody else is bailing them out, that’s for certain.
We’re also getting tired of their politics being forced on us on top of it. We didn’t vote for fucking CPACS and we don’t want to be inundated with their fucking military.
I'd prefer if you didn't try to get people to vote for genociders
Like a clockwork lol.
I'd like the DNC to acknowledge your realization and act on it, as if they had an election to win instead of just checks to cash. Too much to ask?
The trick is to kick where the football is going to be rather than where it is.
Sure Charlie, this time you'll get it.
You could also just kick Lucy. Wouldn't get the ball going, but it would probably be cathartic.
Might make her stop moving the ball
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.
funny thing is that he also got Nobel Peace Prize for literally nothing. Because he's a jam-up dude basically.
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.
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.
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
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).
he got that? never know that before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize
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/
still a poor choice in hindsight.
There is always a reason...
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.
Liberals do not consider Palestinians fully human.
Democrats are conservative.
Funny to talk about groupthink when you're the one freaking out about people daring to critique your blue team fascists.
Who cares! Seriously, all you shitlibs care about is your made up holy war against those damn ruskies.
You probably are a ruskie or a repug LOL... Your rhetoric is obvious. Even if you aren't one your black and white thinking sure reminds me of one. Probably talking to one's and zeroes though. Fast reply and upvotes are pretty funny lol. Need to make it less obvious, hopefully Ukraine bombs more of your shitty computers.
This just in: Wiping your ass and washing your hands is russian propaganda.
Emphasis mine, fucking crazy that you embrace the accusation. And leave it to a nazi to make everything about iq
Of course it has been weaponized, that's the whole point of ICE, why else did Obama massively extend family detention leading to thousands of incarcerated children and an expansion of detention camps? It's a weapon against people that don't have documentation
https://www.aila.org/library/detention
https://www.npr.org/2014/06/23/324857970/child-detention-centers-a-headache-for-the-obama-administration
They were a gestapo long before Trump but they didn't bother the white libs so it was OK.
Hypocrite libs don't care about brown people
It does seem like we've completed dropped non americans-- they dont count as humans with rights (this is Dems and repubs, not just repubs). We're in the process of dropping gay and trans now, and indians are in the republicans crosshairs, so they're up. I do wonder if brown, black, and latino are next, then asians, then women and children. This is what conservative-lite is about. Same results as conservatism only slower and with some sweet talking and DNC dems shushing us while it happens.
brown, black, and latino were already routinely murdered by the 'normal' police.
The white libs don't care about those either, regardless of their US citizenship
What are you talking about? The first term had people crying about kids in cages and the abhorrent conditions in the concentration camps at the border and the insane practice of separating parents from their children.
People didn't mention that Obama was the one to make those camps, but before we get into that we gotta adress the basic reality that people were freaking out about how Trump was using ICE back then too. Fucked to talk about gaslighting while you're denying basic reality lmao
This is literally Russian talking points
Acknowledging the reality that ICE was a massive part of the outcry against trump in his first term is "russian talking points"? Jesus christ Russiagate has you guys whipped into a xenophobic frenzy. Goebbels would be bored with how simple you would be to corral. If Putin said the sky is blue, would you suddenly insist it is black?
Anyway:
I'm a liberal
You're a xenophobic conspiracist. What you define yourself as does not matter, what matters is what you believe, what you say and what you do. And what you do is support genociders, what you say is that critique of democrats is some nefarious foreign plot and what you believe is that basic facts can be disregarded if they are russian. This makes you a right wing conspiracist.
Also I edited the comment, look at it again.
How am I xenophobic?
I spelled that out pretty clearly. If youre going to do this lazy obtuse thing then you have to at least do it about something that has not been spelled out explicitly.
So what you're saying is that Russia tells the truth.
Russia is imperialist at best.
What does that have to do with the previous statement?
Irrelevant. You're describing objective historical facts as "Russian talking points."
Zeroth of all, what’s worse than being imperialist?
First of all, even if it were imperialist, how is that relevant in the slightest?
Second of all, previously:
Lmao nato exists specifically because of Russia post WW2.
Partially correct. The territory making up the modern Russian Republic was also part of the Soviet Union, which is what NATO was created to destroy.
NATO is an anti-communist alliance created and staffed by the Nazis after world war 2. This is a bad thing. West Germany managed to have more Nazis in government after the war, in large part due to NATO.
edit: copypasted from another comment where I stole it from a better user than me
Let's see: Nazis in Germany post-war were hired and brought directly back into:
but other than all of that though!
(And that's not even mentioning the Nazis and collaborators which made up the origins of Radio Free Europe/Liberty, the "Victims of Communism Foundation" which grew out of the fascist-filled anti-Soviet "Captive Nations Lobby" headed by OUN-B Nazis from Ukraine, and all the Operation Aerodynamic, Operation Paperclip, Operation Sunrise, Operation Beladonna, Operation Lynx, etc etc.)
There's no gaslighting here liberal. Democrats help build the exact same institutions of repression as the republicans, and it was obvious to anybody with even a minimally functioning brain that these would be turned on the public sooner or later.
Did you vote in your Democratic primary for a progressive candidate?
I'm fortunate enough not to live under the burger reich regime.
Yup, there are only two countries in this world, and everything that the dumb fucks living in the burger reich do to themselves is Russia's fault.
"Everyone who disagrees with me is a foreigner, and thus I don't have to take anything they say seriously" and other insane conspiracies for the right-wing mind.
Anyone who doesn't want to fund genocide is russian.
Anyone who lives in the USA and wants their government to improve somewhat is russian.
Anyone outside of the USA who doesn't want america to harm the people and other beings of the world is russian.
I'd love to see the pitch meeting. Did they flip a coin in 1991 to pick Russia vs Communism as the threat?
here's a baffling one
There's a reason we call them Blue MAGA
Doubtful
Faux leftist not knowing what actually constitutes the minimum requirement of being a leftist, classic.
Are you sure you're not American, with this American tier understanding of the left right divide you could have fooled many people.
Arguing for genocide makes you right wing. Arguing for the right wing party that is the democrats makes you right wing. Arguing that because someone disagrees with you they must be a foreigner and thus should be disregarded is a weird racist mentality and racism and xenophobia is right wing.
What you identify yourself as does not matter, what matters is what you do, what you say, what you support and last and certainly least, what you believe.
Finally normal people just block an instance, it is very weird to feel the need to proudly declare the creation of your personalised echo chamber.
No one believes this.
Yes, you are, as evidenced by your belief that those who dissent are evil foreigners
Did you vote for a genocider?
Its so funny to me that they can just decide not to have a primary, lmao. Or decide to nominate someone who didn't win the primary.
Good luck with that, lol.
For anyone who doesn't know this, the current ex-CIA Democratic governor of Virginia did not go through a primary. Was just declared the candidate by party fiat.
Sincere question because I've seen this sentiment on a few different topics recently: is the expectation for US politicians to follow popular sentiment? I understand the concept of representing your constituents but I have never taken that to mean making decisions based on the opinions of non experts.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding and what comments like this mean is that these things were not on the minds of the voters so politicians were not campaigning on it.
Does anybody know the names of the many many deaths under the drone king Obama or whoever?
No because they were Mexicans, Philippino or whatever.
Of course when they show up in white areas and even start killing white people the libs care, it's big news and the victims get a name. Poor Renee and Alex!
These are your voters and what that comment means.
A bunch of hypocrites
The job of a political representative is to represent their constituency. One should therefore expect them to pursue policy that is popular amongst their voterbase. This is not the case in the US however 1 2
What I am having trouble reconciling is how people can have this belief (that individual offices should be filled by people who are committed to enacting the will of their constituents) with the vote-blue-no-matter-who approach.
If there is no nationwide platform for the parties that all candidates are expected to uphold, and the expectation is that the people in office are supposed to carry out the will of their constituents, voting along party lines seems entirely meaningless.
(I am not seeking to understand why this arrangement makes sense overall. I know it doesn't and that the US electoral system even as designed originally was meant to make it impossible to represent local desires in favor of prioritizing preservation of the union. Nothing has changed. My question was meant to understand the perspective of the people who believe these two things can be true at the same time.)
You are correct, the idea that one should make no demands of the person representing oneself does make it so that person has no incentive to represent you, since they will be assured a more stable base of power if they appeal to other voters that do not support them unconditionally.
I think the reason people do the "blue no matter who" mindkilling cliché is twofold: They've fallen for the "just this once"/"most important election of all time" shtick that has been dragged out for at least four decades.
Secondly they believe in the personal project of the politician - ie. They think that the base desires of the politician is aligned with their own. This is delusional, unless one loves genocide, fascism and a merciless police state.
Honestly. Nobody talked about ICE before 2024. Now it's a household name.
I'm not american and don't live in the states but even I remember this: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/black-lives-matter-ice/
See also, from 2018: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/journal/policy-beat/once-relatively-obscure-ice-becomes-lightning-rod-immigration-debate
...
And the pushback on Obama for his enforcement: https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/border-patrol-was-monstrous-under-obama-imagine
I'm also ancient and remember when ICE was created, and how scary the homeland security act was (and is) and the protests against it. It's absolutely wild how normalized all that stuff is now.
You already memory holed Trump's first term?
Liberals seriously can't help but reveal their lack of object permanence
Lmao are you 12?? There were straight up riots because of ICE under Trump 1
Wow just proving you're a white liberal without any immigrant friends.
They've been a fucking menace since day one, but I guess since they only ever bothered brown people before it didn't matter to you.
Haha what the fuck? Really showing that you just started paying attention very recently
Admitting to being uninformed isn't a good look, lol.
If anything, Democrats present themselves as more competent at deporting and killing people in other countries
Did they really denounce it? They just were upset ice isn't as well trained as the police... Police that are knownfor being just as terrible
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
I blame the Patriot act
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/president-obama-lobbies-senate-extend-patriot-act-provision-allows-phone-record-monitoring
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.
I'm certainly not voting for any Republikkkans, if that's what this post is trying to infer
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025190
ETA: proper spelling
ETA 2: damn, a LOT of Republikkkan voters in here
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yet you keep defending and supporting the people who fund them. Something about that tells me your anti-ICE rhetoric is unserious.
But you will vote for "the other" party that also votes to ensure and raise ICE funding.
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.
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.
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!
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
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?
Go back to reddit
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.
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.
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.
By this logic, is dying the same as voting Republican?
Basically, yeah.
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?
At this point, liberals think anyone disagreeing with them is inherently bad faith
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.
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.
no, those who did not vote, did not vote. Nobody should be compelled to vote for genocide.
Feel Fine, Vote Stein
Id say Gloria la Riva, but anything beats genociders.
Do you need a source for the sun shining or grass growing as well? Lmgtfy.com
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.
Ad hominem
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.
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.
ICE was created after the dissolution of INS and took over most of its functions. INS was established in 1933, but prior to that it fell under the Department of Labor. Before it was a function of the Department of Labor (which was created as the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903 and split into separate departments in 1913), there was a commissioner of immigration under Treasury. All of this governmental immigration stuff dates back to a Supreme Court case in 1876.
So no, ICE didn’t exist until 2002, but there has been some US authority for 150 years performing some duties surrounding immigration. While I believe ICE needs to be abolished because the organization has become corrupted to its rotten core and it is easier to throw out the current culture and start fresh, there needs to be a replacement for some of its functions. Pretending otherwise is either naive or destructive.
We could just dismantile it completely, and not have to fund it at all.
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.
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.
How is anyone supposed to make an informed decision without considering past events? Ignore cause and effect?
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.
It's also what Democrats LOVE to do when finally elected.
Liberals just go through life like goldfish, just vibing in the moment.
You, 30 april 1945, after Donitz was appointed president
Lets not bicker and argue about who killed who
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"
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.
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.
Not really, pretending like ICE were a group of saints before Trump is deranged.
I don't follow this stance when looking at the image.
I believe the image is saying the democrats supported ICE until 2017 through 2020, when trump was in office. Come 2021 and the democrats are back in office, they continue to fund it. During the second trump administration, they are back to denouncing ICE.
I think funding is used here in the context of what the democrats were calling for during the first trump admin. For example in 2018: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394978-warren-its-time-to-replace-ice/
Focusing on a wider range of candidates: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/some-democrats-with-eye-on-2020-abolish-ice/
However, by 2020 the views had shifted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/immigration/abolish-ice/
And after the election abolishing ICE was no longer a priority.
Do you think what ICE is doing now is a fundamental shift from caused the initial outrage during the last admin, rather than just a jump in magnitude?
Even if I imagine myself as someone who thinks reform is possible, I can't understand how the view isn't that by maintaining the status quo the dems have exercised terrible negligence. If the behavior of the first admin was so abhorrent, wouldn't it be critical to ensure a future government couldn't as easily do the same or worse?
Certainly ICE has shifted from its typical operation in previous administrations. The asylum policy was overhauled. Thousands more ICE agents were hired to conduct militarized raids with little to no oversight. The degree of evidence required for deportation has been lowered. Judicial review has been curtailed and ignored. These are significant changes.
But the point I make is that the image presents a false premise. Democrats and Republicans agree that illegal immigration should be prevented. ICE is the agency tasked with this by each administration and it makes sense that it would be funded.
Feel free to verify this against the Democratic party platform by year.
It's not so easy to prevent a future government from doing something. Even constitutional change, which is usually a very high bar, can be overruled by a judge or ignored if people allow it. Maybe the best protection is an informed, active public like in France? Not really sure -- what do you think?
I think the false presence you are mentioning requires that readers agree that the dems were right to walk back criticism of ICE between 2018 and 2020, and that ICE as it exists from 2024-2026 deserves it this time. I'm going to assume the author does not agree with that viewpoint.
It was my understanding that there is no overall platform, but each candidate has their own platform, i.e. let's say there are 5 different dem candidates (not for the same office), they will each have their own platform which is generally expected to be in line with the leadership. Unlike in other systems, if a person wants to be associated with a party, they are expected to follow the party platform or they will be kicked out. (If they are elected they keep their position, but they are "independent".)
Is that incorrect? If not, I'm not seeing the relevance of the presidential platform. I know Biden didn't support defunding ICE.
I don't disagree.
I'm not sure what the protection you are referring to is.
Curious, what did republicans do, given they're the alternative. Not voting isn't a protest, it's a scream to be ignored completely.
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.
Actually the alternative isn't the republicans, but acknowledging this requires you to be able to think further ahead than the next electoral cycle.
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.
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.
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
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?
"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!"
https://lemmy.world/comment/26319780
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.
They are literally guilty of committing a genocide
You are coping with your new historical legacy as "American fascist, 2026, colorized"
🌽
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-bombers, and start supporting the anti-child bombers, they would start winning.
"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.
Well Harris sure as hell wasn't going to get enough votes to win either, so did you refuse to vote for her too?
wow this post got you scratched.
ableist r-word slur. Selective history, incurious about history and self-absorbed. You're fucking pathetic.
To the outside world, they are both just as bad. To the domestic, the only difference is how it affects white people. As marginalized communities always have it really shit under both parties.
No, you liberals only give a shit about YOUR OWN FUTURE and NOBODY ELSE'S. You lot are the definition of a self-centered ego.
Yes, let Amerika burn, that is good actually. But it won't be the end of humanity then, it'll be what saves it. The world will indeed heal when you lot are gone.
🥈
ICE was formed in 2003.
Where you even born then? The same agency existed before 2003. That was just a name change. After 2001, everything changed. But it was nothing like what exists now. I'd like to see how you guys are doing anything to help humanity and not further it's destruction. I agree most/all politicians are are selfish assholes. Most of humanity probably deserves to die off. Any number of man made disasters are ready to make that happen. The USA is already dying. China will likely be next dominant power. But just saying fuck Democrats is pointless. What does "join the revolution" actually mean? Just sow more chaos?
Yes, I talked about it elsewhere in this post: https://crazypeople.online/comment/11609820
So the meme should have gone back further and said Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Customs Service and assorted other government agencies? Would that be good enough for you?
Yes, I know. Americans decided to allow unprecedented surveillance and militarization in exchange for maintaining their way of life.
My mistake, I must have imagined Guantanamo.
America is the only so- called liberal democracy where criticism of the political establishment is treated like an existential threat to humanity. Free to use slurs but not to dream of a better world, I guess?
I'm sorry you're having such a rough time processing the immense violence happing within your country. However, my comment was "ICE was formed in 2003". If that statement, providing a possible reason that year was chosen in the meme, is unbottling all these feelings, I'd like to suggest that it isn't really my comment that is the problem.
The UK is imprisoning nans for holding up signs saying they support Palestine Action.
That's a fair comment, I wasn't specific enough in what I meant. I don't think it's unusual for the state to suppress dissidents. That's what states do, after all!
I know the internet isn't real but the only exposure I have to americans is online, and they seem to think that people criticising the democrats are russian agents. Every day americans are so eager to suppress criticism and turn on each other, in service of maintaining the status quo.
Why though? You don't even need to look beyond the comfort zone of imperialist states to see that electoral democracy can exist in places where people are free to form new parties and coalitions when the existing are not pleasing to anyone. Take the UK for example!
I'm not suggesting more parties are going to stop america from continuing to harm the rest of the world and their people at home. I'm just baffled by the idea that anything but uncritical support of one of the two teams you get to pick from is anti democracy. I think getting over that hurdle is the first step to solidarity and class consciousness.
Oh, yeah, the US ideological state apparatus is extremely powerful.
I'm reminded of a joke:
I am no fan of the us and I live here. Ive hated politics my whole life. I totally get the hatred of America. I would leave if I could. And there are pockets of resistance here and I do what I can to support that even if it means voting democrat. I have to believe there is still a chance.
I mean this with kindness: my comment is directed only to the people who display the behavior I mention.
Denmark jailed a teenage girl for commenting "yaaasss 😍" on a Facebook post sharing an article about Iran firing missiles at Israel.
The same problems always existing before 2003 which is my point. And every year gets worse. Every country gets worse. Every day the future gets worse and all you guys do is blame someone else. Blaming everyone else, minorities/immigrants is what got is here. Doesnt solve anything.
Yes, problems with borders existed before 2003. But this image is about Democrat support of ICE specifically.
What type of criticism is allowed?
I don't disagree with the criticism. The only thing i dislike is the implication to that "there are no good choices" and we should just give up. That's how the facists win. I also thought the meme was dumb. But tbh I was drunk. I am also new to this platform, so sorry if I fucked up the rules. It still amazed that anyone even read a comment from a noob and took the time to reply.
I don't think anyone is saying there are no good choices and to just give up.
If you can't talk about what's wrong, you can't fix it.
Of course this is the comment you respond to you monumental coward
Lol cope. Sorry, but China is not on the verge of collapse, it actually has competent leadership and an educated population that isn't poisoned by the insane individualist colonialist philosophy that lies at the root of the mind of people like you and the other average half-wits that make up the political base of the US.
I meant China will be next to be the dominant power. This was the last comment on the thread. Didn't mean to poke you.
Bullshit. Do I need to spell out why?
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 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
executionexecuting wanton violence before?Because you didn't care
Try harder. Didn't hear != didn't care
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)
"Institutional violence only bad when my favorite color team hate it!"
Lol. Did you even read what I said?
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
What I saw in fallujah
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
Yes please
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?
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.
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 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
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?
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.
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.
ICE didn't exist until 9/11 because they're functions were served by other agencies. It's always been a grift.
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.
We're not talking about a socialist nation. We're talking about the present day US.
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.
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.
:::spoiler 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.
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?"
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. My oldest childhood memory is dressing up as Robert E. Lee in second grade to do a presentation on the Civil War, which was really about states' rights, donchaknow.
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 innovate and 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 convincing them of 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:
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.
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!"
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?
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:
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:
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".
Are you being ironic or
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?
Thank you for admitting fault. Sorry for insulting you. Why was your reflex at seeing critique of democrats to run defense for ICE?
Your brain on Blue No Matter Who
incomprehensible gibberish
Uncultured swine
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.
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.
Counting or not counting brown people
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ice-plans-to-destroy-records-of-abuse-sexual-assault-in-immigrant-detention-centers/
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.