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
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.
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.
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.)
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
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.
Removed by mod
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
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.
Removed by mod
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
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
I’m anti genocide. Who am I xenophobic against!?
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.)
ukraini slava
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
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.
Admitting to being uninformed isn’t a good look, lol.
Haha what the fuck? Really showing that you just started paying attention very recently