top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 24 points 1 month ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 50 points 1 month ago (21 children)

    It’s time for the biennial teeing of the football.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    Inb4 some liberals start yapping "that you better try and kick the football charlie otherwise the Republicans will win"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 month ago (18 children)
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    Surely there is something in between rioting and a farce of an electoral process where you pick which team colour does imperialism for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (10 children)
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 1 month ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

    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?

    https://www.commondreams.org/news/newsom-future-wealth-tax

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago (6 children)

    I legit do not understand…

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    Because it would…

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    I didn't say not to, I said it'd be tantamount to just opening with a violent attack on a bank. The ruling class will react the same way to any threat to their wealth and power.

    If we started a general strike, anyone who's got any kind of platform and discussed the strike in any kind of positive light can expect their door to be kicked in by a federal SWAT team by day 2 or 3.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    That’s gonna be hard if it’s a substantial amount of the population. Not all of those police and SWAT teams are going to be keen on pushing through with it either, if the other decision and direction results in them keeping jobs in the future and a better government.

    Honestly it’s either that, hope for the best (all of which have failed thus far) or it goes down badly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    That’s gonna be hard if it’s a substantial amount of the population.

    It won't be. First off a substantial amount of the population doesn't have a platform big enough to cause problems. Secondly, most of the people who do are friendlier to the ruling class than they'd like you to believe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago

    It won’t be

    I get the feeling that once it’s collapsed and you’ve gone out to bully others, rpthen those others fight back, it might be.

    If it gets to that, hopefully the others give them a decent beating.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 4 weeks ago (21 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 4 weeks ago (17 children)

    funny thing is that he also got Nobel Peace Prize for literally nothing. Because he's a jam-up dude basically.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 weeks ago (10 children)

    he also got Nobel Peace Prize for literally nothing

    I believe this is the main reason Trump believes he deserves one too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 weeks ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 child)

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    I was going to reply to your prior comment with, "Wrong, he got elected!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 weeks ago

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    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/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 child)

    imperfect opposition

    Liberals do not consider Palestinians fully human.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (1 child)
    [–] 19 points 4 weeks ago*

    If anything, Democrats present themselves as more competent at deporting and killing people in other countries

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 4 weeks ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    I can't see the posted image. All I get is "Unable to load page". Is that happening for anyone else?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 25 points 1 month ago (18 children)
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 weeks ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 18 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Did you vote in your Democratic primary for a progressive candidate?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 24 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I'm fortunate enough not to live under the burger reich regime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Honestly. Nobody talked about ICE before 2024. Now it's a household name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago

    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/

    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.

    See also, from 2018: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/journal/policy-beat/once-relatively-obscure-ice-becomes-lightning-rod-immigration-debate

    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.”

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (13 children)
  • [–] 5 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 4 weeks ago* (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] [S] 17 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    Frankly, it's incredible that's what you arrived at looking at the post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    Considering that there’s basically just Dems and Reps on the ballots...

    Thats not true at all. I had a few options that weren't Dems or Reps. In many races, you can also write in people.

    ...your post is definitely anti Democrat...

    Wait, so you are upset that they are against ICE, kidnapping, torture, and murder....? I'm not sure you realize what that says about you.

    ...I can only infer you want Republikkkans to be voted for an win.

    You can inferr a lot from what they said, but you are the one who appears to be pushing people into supporting Republican policies, not the OP.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -6 points 4 weeks ago* (5 children)
  • [–] 9 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

    By this logic, is dying the same as voting Republican?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 4 weeks ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 12 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    Okay, so, committing suicide is the same as voting Republican.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 4 weeks ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 4 weeks ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›