|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 24 2026 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:
People hoping to eventually dismantle ICE need to find a way to convince people there isn't an enormous problem being solved by ICE. I feel like when you read between the lines, it becomes clear a lot of people who support Trump's ICE campaign genuinely believe they see no other option. When you bring up stuff about kids and other major ICE-related tragedies, its not that they don't care. Its that they believe there was such a big problem that Trump's ICE is the only way to solve it. They believe a major, devastating issue has been persistently harming not just our country, but their own wellbeing directly. They believe lots of presidents have tried various things to solve the problem, but fallen short because they weren't willing to do what is needed to fully resolve the problem. They view Trump's ICE as solving the problem. They see real, concrete results. The videos of violence and clashes show these people not just that ICE is cruel and poorly trained, but effective too. They show these people that something is genuinely happening. And because of that, they are overwhelmed with joy to realize this gigantic, critical, personally-relevant issue is finally being tackled in earnest.
I don't think there is a path to dismantling ICE without convincing people the problem ICE is trying to solve is not as critical as they currently believe. A lot of people try to draw attention to the cruelty in hopes their neighbors will be outraged enough to say "enough is enough". But their neighbors have been genuinely very scared and very angry about immigration-related issues for many years. They quietly view this similar to war-time tragedies where there's no non-tragic solution.
And yet, in this new age of "church riots" and "Jonathon Ross is fighting for his life in the hospital", supercharged by AI, I am not sure if that's possible. I think the ruling class have a new weapon to fight us with and its really, really powerful. I don't know how we overcome that.
Been grinding at this regarding US police for over a decade with Democrats that ostensibly agree with me and aren't supposed to be remotely as hostile to facts/reality as Trump supporters.
A primary problem with fascist cops/ICE isn't that people don't know they are bad, or that they aren't actually solving problems. A central problem is that everyone thinks it's better to compromise/placate/run/hide/save themselves than it is to fight. That is until the fascists come for them and there's nowhere left to hide and no one left to fight with them.
There isn't really a scenario (that immediately comes to my mind anyway) like Japan bombing Pearl Harbor to bail the world out against the fascists this time.
|
On January 24 2026 02:59 Sadist wrote:
I think a bigger thing is when they say abolish ice people could assume it means dont enforce immigration at all. We still need imigration enforcememt in the country just not ICE as an org. Its more of a repeal and replace type thing.
Abolish ICE, don't replace them. We have Customs & Border Patrol to address the points of entry. Use the DEA and ATF for federal drug and weapons crimes which includes those done by immigrants. Collaboration between the Judicial system (including Marshals when needed) and local authorities for civil offenses. Streamline the immigration process and fund the judicial system to handle it appropriately. All of the above can be done for way less than the $150B we just gave ICE, with way less casualties and without shitting all over our constitutional rights.
|
On January 24 2026 03:57 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2026 02:59 Sadist wrote:
I think a bigger thing is when they say abolish ice people could assume it means dont enforce immigration at all. We still need imigration enforcememt in the country just not ICE as an org. Its more of a repeal and replace type thing.
Abolish ICE, don't replace them. We have Customs & Border Patrol to address the points of entry. Use the DEA and ATF for federal drug and weapons crimes which includes those done by immigrants. Collaboration between the Judicial system (including Marshals when needed) and local authorities for civil offenses. Streamline the immigration process and fund the judicial system to handle it appropriately. All of the above can be done for way less than the $150B we just gave ICE, with way less casualties and without shitting all over our constitutional rights.
I agree with you i think it just needs to be explained other than abolish Ice.
|
On January 23 2026 14:25 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 14:24 Acrofales wrote:On January 23 2026 13:41 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 13:22 Falling wrote:
Except my examples were not about bartering for a watch or anything comparable.
Were they.
They were things like seizing power against the will of the people or threatening to destroy American hegemony over a bit of land in the Arctic. And? Why do you think zelensky made that speech at Davos. I have mentioned this before, Japan and Taiwan won't have increases trade with China even if the US asked for more. That's the allies US should and need to have to remain in dominance. Not Europe unwilling to spend more effort to self reliance. Or not contributing enough at NATO. The world was kept in balance via overwhelming strength. You really need to stop getting your opinions from Russian state TV. You really should stop making assumptions on where I get my sources. Ah you are from Spain. Why Spain is not meeting NATO spending targets - Atlantic Council https://share.google/CGyrJUtDz0l9K1zZBSpain’s defense spending has long fallen short of NATO’s benchmarks. Under the previous NATO benchmark of reaching 2 percent of GDP in military spending by 2024, Spain consistently underperformed, spending only about 1.2 percent in recent years. In 2024, its military budget stood at approximately €17.2 billion, or 1.24 percent of the country’s GDP, the lowest among NATO members as a percentage of economic output. Did you know about this from your non Russian state tv?
A normal leader concerned about his would just use the normal levers like asking them to increase their contribution, public pressure, or exclusion from the benefits of NATO rather than threatening global economic instability and taxing their own citizens.
There are external costs to what you view as an intelligent "negotiation" tactic of throwing around insane ideas and capturing any (real or imagined) change as a win. We have completely eroded any seriousness we previously had, we have added friction (and expense) at every layer of commerce and general interactions with international partners, we have created massive domestic chaos, and in general just look like idiots. You don't run a global superpower like a reality TV show or bartering at a pawn shop and this shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.
|
On January 23 2026 12:05 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 12:01 LightSpectra wrote:On January 23 2026 11:58 ETisME wrote:There are actual experts that say otherwise. Golden Dome looks technically doable, but brings strategic complications | The Strategist https://share.google/qjyaIHblqPHzrbiJrNext? This article doesn't cite a single expert or outside source. It also heavily emphasizes the need for allies to contribute, which would suggest going around threatening their sovereignty every five seconds is a bad idea. Ok sure. Space systems expert explains technical challenges of building a 'Golden Dome' | Hub https://share.google/Ns3n3uACLOuDqMbddChallenges, like any other major program then. I think we will reach to a stage where US will get to the strongest missile defense system ever and countries that are crying about US threats now will want to get in it. Unless they start buying arms from China and russia while transitioning out from US. That's the political reality to it.
The part referred to in that article, the space based interceptors, if even realistic could end up costing $500B+ and taking 10 years on it's own.
In that time we could use $500B to fund other deterrents that would be more effective and realistic.
Or the Golden Dome could end up spurring China & Russia to develop anti-satellite technology driving a new space-arms race dragging us back to the mid 1900s and spending unfathomable amounts of money while sending the globe closer to to the dark ages than progress.
There's also the opportunity cost of spending an additional $1T on this project, in addition to the annual $1T military budget, that we refused to instead invest in education, health care, and infrastructure in our own country while we continue to fall further and further behind in education/quality of life compared to the rest of the developed world while simultaneously going on a war campaign against immigration which has been one of the biggest source of increasing our intellectual capital over the past 100 years.
|
On January 23 2026 23:02 Jankisa wrote:
It's all just so, so stupid.
During the Iran - Israel flare up last year USA and Israel employed all the best and greatest Anti air defenses, including atmospherics interceptors, plus other countries like UK, Jordan and a few others I believe contributed in shooting down Iran's missiles and drones. Iran telegraphed their strikes and everyone knew to be prepared.
Out of the serious, medium range missiles shoot from Iran more then 30 of them hit Israel proper, that is with all these high technology powers focusing it's defense, including USA moving it's best systems to Israel prior to these strikes. Apparently, according to the sources I can find the intercept rate was 80-90 %.
Those missiles had very small payloads and there was only about 350 of them used, the largest barrage of ballistic missiles was apparently between 60 and 70 of them.
Now, Israel is tiny, roughly the size of New Jersey, a smaller target is easier to defend then a huge one like USA, and despite all of the above the success rate was only between 80 and 90 %.
If anyone ever decides to shoot at USA, they won't fire 60-70 missiles, they will fire in the thousands, with technology far superior to Iran's, with decoys and flares and multiple re-entry vehicles that split into more as they reach the terminal stage.
This all seems like yet another way that someone around Trump wants to make incredible amounts of money off of selling him on an idea that he is too stupid to recognize is stupid, so he bites and none of the sycophants he surrounds himself with would ever tell him that he fell for a stupid idea, so now billions are going to be invested in something that is never going to work.
Hopefully it's also never going to be tested in any real way, but Jesus, it's so dumb and exhausting that this moron rules the world...
But the US will have a Trump class battleship, so checkmate, nerd!
|
On January 24 2026 04:00 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2026 03:57 decafchicken wrote:On January 24 2026 02:59 Sadist wrote:
I think a bigger thing is when they say abolish ice people could assume it means dont enforce immigration at all. We still need imigration enforcememt in the country just not ICE as an org. Its more of a repeal and replace type thing.
Abolish ICE, don't replace them. We have Customs & Border Patrol to address the points of entry. Use the DEA and ATF for federal drug and weapons crimes which includes those done by immigrants. Collaboration between the Judicial system (including Marshals when needed) and local authorities for civil offenses. Streamline the immigration process and fund the judicial system to handle it appropriately. All of the above can be done for way less than the $150B we just gave ICE, with way less casualties and without shitting all over our constitutional rights. I agree with you i think it just needs to be explained other than abolish Ice.
This is the same issue as "Abolish the Police". Messaging. Will the Ds figure out a way to get that message across effectively this time? I think "Repeal and Replace" kinda works as it states clearly the intent. But you gotta convince Theo and Cletus and Bobby Rae.
|
Canada11440 Posts
On January 24 2026 08:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2026 04:00 Sadist wrote:On January 24 2026 03:57 decafchicken wrote:On January 24 2026 02:59 Sadist wrote:
I think a bigger thing is when they say abolish ice people could assume it means dont enforce immigration at all. We still need imigration enforcememt in the country just not ICE as an org. Its more of a repeal and replace type thing.
Abolish ICE, don't replace them. We have Customs & Border Patrol to address the points of entry. Use the DEA and ATF for federal drug and weapons crimes which includes those done by immigrants. Collaboration between the Judicial system (including Marshals when needed) and local authorities for civil offenses. Streamline the immigration process and fund the judicial system to handle it appropriately. All of the above can be done for way less than the $150B we just gave ICE, with way less casualties and without shitting all over our constitutional rights. I agree with you i think it just needs to be explained other than abolish Ice. This is the same issue as "Abolish the Police". Messaging. Will the Ds figure out a way to get that message across effectively this time? I think "Repeal and Replace" kinda works as it states clearly the intent. But you gotta convince Theo and Cletus and Bobby Rae.
I don't actually think is the same though. The police has been a fixture of modern societies since the Bow Street Runners that it is embedded into our language. And so when you hear 'abolish the police' people will want to know who will police us then? Whereas ICE is far more specialized, a newish organization whose function could be taken up by a number of organizations. It doesn't even have the visceral naming of 'border guards' where Theo and Cletus immediately wonder, well who will guard the borders?
Furthermore, the more ICE homogenizes in ideological purity, the more it will be seen as exclusively Trump's personal army- that's a lot easier to shut down just because it has become entirely irredeemable. The decentralized nature of the police also means the failures are not the same. ICE is in your face and in your homes if Trump points in your direction. You won't nor need to convince MAGA who are salivating for cruel acts against immigrants. Right of centre, Independent, centre left, and left is enough to rally around abolish ICE: Border Guards out of your house and back on the border. (And increase asylum judges to close the current exploit.)
I cannot see a world where I would support abolishing the police. But at this point, I would absolutely detonate ICE as an organization and start over with something else.
|
On January 24 2026 11:12 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2026 08:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 24 2026 04:00 Sadist wrote:On January 24 2026 03:57 decafchicken wrote:On January 24 2026 02:59 Sadist wrote:
I think a bigger thing is when they say abolish ice people could assume it means dont enforce immigration at all. We still need imigration enforcememt in the country just not ICE as an org. Its more of a repeal and replace type thing.
Abolish ICE, don't replace them. We have Customs & Border Patrol to address the points of entry. Use the DEA and ATF for federal drug and weapons crimes which includes those done by immigrants. Collaboration between the Judicial system (including Marshals when needed) and local authorities for civil offenses. Streamline the immigration process and fund the judicial system to handle it appropriately. All of the above can be done for way less than the $150B we just gave ICE, with way less casualties and without shitting all over our constitutional rights. I agree with you i think it just needs to be explained other than abolish Ice. This is the same issue as "Abolish the Police". Messaging. Will the Ds figure out a way to get that message across effectively this time? I think "Repeal and Replace" kinda works as it states clearly the intent. But you gotta convince Theo and Cletus and Bobby Rae. I don't actually think is the same though. The police has been a fixture of modern societies since the Bow Street Runners that it is embedded into our language. And so when you hear 'abolish the police' people will want to know who will police us then? Whereas ICE is far more specialized, a newish organization whose function could be taken up by a number of organizations. It doesn't even have the visceral naming of 'border guards' where Theo and Cletus immediately wonder, well who will guard the borders? Furthermore, the more ICE homogenizes in ideological purity, the more it will be seen as exclusively Trump's personal army- that's a lot easier to shut down just because it has become entirely irredeemable. The decentralized nature of the police also means the failures are not the same. ICE is in your face and in your homes if Trump points in your direction. You won't nor need to convince MAGA who are salivating for cruel acts against immigrants. Right of centre, Independent, centre left, and left is enough to rally around abolish ICE: Border Guards out of your house and back on the border. (And increase asylum judges to close the current exploit.) I cannot see a world where I would support abolishing the police. But at this point, I would absolutely detonate ICE as an organization and start over with something else.
But that's my point. You typed out what "Abolish the Police" failed to do. Like you said, when people here that, they don't agree and will fight tooth and nail to get MORE cops. Whereas Repeal and Replace ICE: Back to the Border! would immediately state what the Ds are hoping to rally people to. It's all about messaging.
FYI I'm not for abolishing the police, but I am in favor of extensive reform to the duties they are asked to execute.
|
Canada11440 Posts
Yeah, it can't be purely abolition (no matter how much ICE has cooked their credibility) because it's clear border is an voter issue and will remain an issue. So it has to be more Back to the Border and off our streets and out of our homes. Dems are still unlikely to be seen as strong on the border except after the fact ala Pierce " 'ang on, 'ang on, don't you know Obama's was Deporter in Chief" Morgan. But yeah, I guess I am agreeing with you.
|
On January 24 2026 14:23 Falling wrote:
Yeah, it can't be purely abolition (no matter how much ICE has cooked their credibility) because it's clear border is an voter issue and will remain an issue. So it has to be more Back to the Border and off our streets and out of our homes. Dems are still unlikely to be seen as strong on the border except after the fact ala Pierce " 'ang on, 'ang on, don't you know Obama's was Deporter in Chief" Morgan. But yeah, I guess I am agreeing with you.
Agreed. That's what I posed earlier to Mohdoo and others. Who are the new Ds and what is their messaging going to be going forward?
Also, you should change the "where" to whom" in your sig. Would be hilarious.
|
@Zero/Falling:
your argument about "abolish ICE/the Police and the point being raised a bit earlier shows exactly the importance of the use of - if not exact - but at least "correct" and effective language getting a worthwhile point across. without the baggage of alienating people generally being open to
1, acknowledging that there's a massive problem
and
2, getting them on your side to work with you to solving it
iirc it was slogan "Defund the Police" back then that gave an incredible opening to Republicans.
that catchphrase hamstrung Democrats for no good reason even if the intention (reforming Police) behind it might have been correct. the reality is that you are communicating with the slogan not with the intention behind it.
just check Trump out, he is not even acknowledging there are negative effects of his policies. until reality breaks in and he has to rearrange his stance e.g blame others and others bend over backwards to mitigate damage.
then he swoops in and declares victory. for some inexplicable reason bizarre and effective, especially on low propensity voters and in the age of tribal politics. and a media environment open to playing "stupid games for ill gotten gains" in service of their... benefactors.
|
On January 24 2026 14:23 Falling wrote:
So it has to be more Back to the Border and off our streets and out of our homes.
My sentiments exactly, I could not agree more.
On January 24 2026 14:23 Falling wrote:
Dems are still unlikely to be seen as strong on the border except after the fact ala Pierce " 'ang on, 'ang on, don't you know Obama's was Deporter in Chief" Morgan. But yeah, I guess I am agreeing with you.
ICE isn't about the border to begin with. CBP is the border. It's already there. Abolishing ICE to get them back to the border doesn't follow because abolishing ICE doesn't abolish CBP, so you wouldn't need to abolish ICE to replace it with something else that already exists. It's like abolishing the DEA because they don't go after serial killers to replace it with the FBI.
But if you hypothetically replaced ICE with a new federal agency: What would it look like and what would it do, and how?
|
Probably worth remembering the problems with policing are bipartisan. Many of the examples that probably come to people's minds are from places that have been under Democrat control for much/most/nearly all of the last ~50 years.
The framing that it's Republicans/recent attention to slogans that have prevented those Democrats from dealing with their own police departments over the last ~50 years demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the problems imo.
If Abolishing ICE gets watered down/coopted by libs like Abolishing the Police did, we'll end up with similar results. Democrats doing their best Tuxedo Mask impersonation. Then getting blamed for defunding police while actually giving police more resources than Republicans ever had.
|
On January 24 2026 02:59 Sadist wrote:
I think a bigger thing is when they say abolish ice people could assume it means dont enforce immigration at all. We still need imigration enforcememt in the country just not ICE as an org. Its more of a repeal and replace type thing.
Isn't the US based on immigration? So you (and all countries in my mind) should start with that as the baseline. How do we do more and better immigration? How do we welcome our fellow man and make society better for it? ICE doesn't fulfill that vision.
I know the above stance loses elections and thus cannot be run as a platform. But stronger and more enforcement isn't the only point of view that exists on the issue.
Illegal immigration shouldn't be a term. It should be citizen vs non-citizen. Where the same protection such as minimum wage, police support and taxes apply to everybody. With rights such as voting and citizenship automatically applying after X years of paying taxes.
Things such as asylum where some extra support is extended being a middle stage, where you help non-citizens based on applications of need. Allowing them to work and pay taxes would solve it for a lot of people regardless.
|
On January 24 2026 18:05 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2026 02:59 Sadist wrote:
I think a bigger thing is when they say abolish ice people could assume it means dont enforce immigration at all. We still need imigration enforcememt in the country just not ICE as an org. Its more of a repeal and replace type thing.
Isn't the US based on immigration? So you (and all countries in my mind) should start with that as the baseline. How do we do more and better immigration? How do we welcome our fellow man and make society better for it? ICE doesn't fulfill that vision. I know the above stance loses elections and thus cannot be run as a platform. But stronger and more enforcement isn't the only point of view that exists on the issue. Illegal immigration shouldn't be a term. It should be citizen vs non-citizen. Where the same protection such as minimum wage, police support and taxes apply to everybody. With rights such as voting and citizenship automatically applying after X years of paying taxes. Things such as asylum where some extra support is extended being a middle stage, where you help non-citizens based on applications of need. Allowing them to work and pay taxes would solve it for a lot of people regardless.
We already a cheap labor force, that couldn't vote, that by every data point behaved better than natural born citizens, that still paid $100B in taxes without receiving most tax funded benefits. It's a literal capitalist dream, short of slave labor, that we gestapo'd into oblivion because of racism.
|
On January 24 2026 18:14 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2026 18:05 Yurie wrote:On January 24 2026 02:59 Sadist wrote:
I think a bigger thing is when they say abolish ice people could assume it means dont enforce immigration at all. We still need imigration enforcememt in the country just not ICE as an org. Its more of a repeal and replace type thing.
Isn't the US based on immigration? So you (and all countries in my mind) should start with that as the baseline. How do we do more and better immigration? How do we welcome our fellow man and make society better for it? ICE doesn't fulfill that vision. I know the above stance loses elections and thus cannot be run as a platform. But stronger and more enforcement isn't the only point of view that exists on the issue. Illegal immigration shouldn't be a term. It should be citizen vs non-citizen. Where the same protection such as minimum wage, police support and taxes apply to everybody. With rights such as voting and citizenship automatically applying after X years of paying taxes. Things such as asylum where some extra support is extended being a middle stage, where you help non-citizens based on applications of need. Allowing them to work and pay taxes would solve it for a lot of people regardless. We already a cheap labor force, that couldn't vote, that by every data point behaved better than natural born citizens, that still paid $100B in taxes without receiving most tax funded benefits. It's a literal capitalist dream, short of slave labor, that we gestapo'd into oblivion because of racism.
The problem for the Republican party is that in my solution they would get to vote if they showed participation. In the current setup (where ICE isn't enforcing the rules) they do the work, have much less rights and can never vote. It is thus the preferable solution. Racism says they are worth less and the current system is setup to make that happen. Work under minimum wage, under threat and deported/imprisoned without trial whenever. It is as close to slavery as they can get right now.
|
On January 24 2026 11:12 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2026 08:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 24 2026 04:00 Sadist wrote:On January 24 2026 03:57 decafchicken wrote:On January 24 2026 02:59 Sadist wrote:
I think a bigger thing is when they say abolish ice people could assume it means dont enforce immigration at all. We still need imigration enforcememt in the country just not ICE as an org. Its more of a repeal and replace type thing.
Abolish ICE, don't replace them. We have Customs & Border Patrol to address the points of entry. Use the DEA and ATF for federal drug and weapons crimes which includes those done by immigrants. Collaboration between the Judicial system (including Marshals when needed) and local authorities for civil offenses. Streamline the immigration process and fund the judicial system to handle it appropriately. All of the above can be done for way less than the $150B we just gave ICE, with way less casualties and without shitting all over our constitutional rights. I agree with you i think it just needs to be explained other than abolish Ice. This is the same issue as "Abolish the Police". Messaging. Will the Ds figure out a way to get that message across effectively this time? I think "Repeal and Replace" kinda works as it states clearly the intent. But you gotta convince Theo and Cletus and Bobby Rae. I don't actually think is the same though. The police has been a fixture of modern societies since the Bow Street Runners that it is embedded into our language. And so when you hear 'abolish the police' people will want to know who will police us then? Whereas ICE is far more specialized, a newish organization whose function could be taken up by a number of organizations. It doesn't even have the visceral naming of 'border guards' where Theo and Cletus immediately wonder, well who will guard the borders? Furthermore, the more ICE homogenizes in ideological purity, the more it will be seen as exclusively Trump's personal army- that's a lot easier to shut down just because it has become entirely irredeemable. The decentralized nature of the police also means the failures are not the same. ICE is in your face and in your homes if Trump points in your direction. You won't nor need to convince MAGA who are salivating for cruel acts against immigrants. Right of centre, Independent, centre left, and left is enough to rally around abolish ICE: Border Guards out of your house and back on the border. (And increase asylum judges to close the current exploit.) I cannot see a world where I would support abolishing the police. But at this point, I would absolutely detonate ICE as an organization and start over with something else.
American police were originally created to control slaves and protect the wealthy and never really progressed from that. While they serve to form some sort of societal structure, they will never provide an equitable rule of law amongst Americans and should be entirely torn down and rebuilt. Every study ever has shown that they will serve themselves and the ruling elite at every turn over their own constituents and are largely useless when needed.
Democrats would have more success steering into this rather than waffling on the subject where they try to pretend to care about equality but also say they love police so they don't seem too controversial
|
Immigration is a non-problem-problem.
It's literally bajillionaire aristocrats giving the people some 180 billion dollar blood games to make them fight a culture war, instead of a class war.
Trump sat in a bunker during the protests for him not accepting the 2020 election, he would sit in a bunker if protests wouldn't neatly be spread accross the US against ICE.
|
On January 24 2026 18:21 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2026 11:12 Falling wrote:On January 24 2026 08:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 24 2026 04:00 Sadist wrote:On January 24 2026 03:57 decafchicken wrote:On January 24 2026 02:59 Sadist wrote:
I think a bigger thing is when they say abolish ice people could assume it means dont enforce immigration at all. We still need imigration enforcememt in the country just not ICE as an org. Its more of a repeal and replace type thing.
Abolish ICE, don't replace them. We have Customs & Border Patrol to address the points of entry. Use the DEA and ATF for federal drug and weapons crimes which includes those done by immigrants. Collaboration between the Judicial system (including Marshals when needed) and local authorities for civil offenses. Streamline the immigration process and fund the judicial system to handle it appropriately. All of the above can be done for way less than the $150B we just gave ICE, with way less casualties and without shitting all over our constitutional rights. I agree with you i think it just needs to be explained other than abolish Ice. This is the same issue as "Abolish the Police". Messaging. Will the Ds figure out a way to get that message across effectively this time? I think "Repeal and Replace" kinda works as it states clearly the intent. But you gotta convince Theo and Cletus and Bobby Rae. I don't actually think is the same though. The police has been a fixture of modern societies since the Bow Street Runners that it is embedded into our language. And so when you hear 'abolish the police' people will want to know who will police us then? Whereas ICE is far more specialized, a newish organization whose function could be taken up by a number of organizations. It doesn't even have the visceral naming of 'border guards' where Theo and Cletus immediately wonder, well who will guard the borders? Furthermore, the more ICE homogenizes in ideological purity, the more it will be seen as exclusively Trump's personal army- that's a lot easier to shut down just because it has become entirely irredeemable. The decentralized nature of the police also means the failures are not the same. ICE is in your face and in your homes if Trump points in your direction. You won't nor need to convince MAGA who are salivating for cruel acts against immigrants. Right of centre, Independent, centre left, and left is enough to rally around abolish ICE: Border Guards out of your house and back on the border. (And increase asylum judges to close the current exploit.) I cannot see a world where I would support abolishing the police. But at this point, I would absolutely detonate ICE as an organization and start over with something else. American police were originally created to control slaves and protect the wealthy and never really progressed from that. While they serve to form some sort of societal structure, they will never provide an equitable rule of law amongst Americans and should be entirely torn down and rebuilt. Every study ever has shown that they will serve themselves and the ruling elite at every turn over their own constituents and are largely useless when needed. Democrats would have more success steering into this rather than waffling on the subject where they try to pretend to care about equality but also say they love police so they don't seem too controversial
I probably wouldn't go that far but the problem with the police is primarily incompetence. It's because they're not being paid well enough so they don't attract the best people as a career opportunity and they're not trained enough. Since they don't attract the brightest of the bunch and don't have enough training they have to resort to violence more often than not and it creates a vicious cycle. And now you have police that you fear instead of police that you respect.
Imagine if we lived in a world where all those movies about bad/corrupt cops were in the horror genre and people would be going like "oh my god, imagine if that really happened, it would be terrible!" or "damn, what twisted mind concocted this?" instead of those movies being based on true stories more often than should be reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
