|
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 |
"ICE cruelly separates mother and 5 year old daughter in deportation." I assume you'd object to that, which is why highlighting her deportation isn't even the story here. Unless you are indeed asking for mothers and their children to be separated. Her mother had a deportation order from a judge since 2019, before her daughter was even born.
The story is about whether ICE didn't ask her whether she wished for her citizen daughter to stay with family in America (the article mentions sending her daughter back to America now). The story also alleges that she was not permitted to contact family in a reasonable time frame after detention, and a search specifically for the mother and daughter by ICE agents did not locate them in the system. These are weighty topics for investigation and lawsuits and potentially hearings. This looks like one telephone or in-person interview with Karen.
Lovely job counting those shot by anti-ICE terrorists, who were trying to make last year deadlier for ICE officers. The Guardian should probably include that facet in the story's introduction, for those that are just going to trumpet the number '32' and not read the full article.
|
The "anti-ICE terrorists" that only killed people in ICE custody? Careful, there might still be a little bit of unlicked boot down there.
|
I think it’s kind of funny how people use Obama getting rid of more illegals as if that’s bad for Dems. They should promote the hell out of it for votes.
When Obama did it, ice budget was under 6 bn and in 2025 it was over 10 with “access to much more”. And it is expected to be over 70bn!!! In 2026.
As usual Trump does way less for way more expensive. But way “flashier” making his fans cheer. There is no logical reason to vote for Trump. He’s awful at everything other than wasting other people’s money and taking shit for himself.
|
Obama didn't order them to willfully be as cruel as possible so they could put images of starving children in concentration camps on the news, though. MAGA voted for minorities to suffer and if $70b is what it's going to cost, $70b is what they're gonna pay for.
|
On January 29 2026 00:59 Billyboy wrote:
I think it’s kind of funny how people use Obama getting rid of more illegals as if that’s bad for Dems. They should promote the hell out of it for votes.
When Obama did it, ice budget was under 6 bn and in 2025 it was over 10 with “access to much more”. And it is expected to be over 70bn!!! In 2026.
As usual Trump does way less for way more expensive. But way “flashier” making his fans cheer. There is no logical reason to vote for Trump. He’s awful at everything other than wasting other people’s money and taking shit for himself.
The cruelty is the point.
|
On January 29 2026 01:02 LightSpectra wrote:
Obama didn't order them to willfully be as cruel as possible so they could put images of starving children in concentration camps on the news, though. MAGA voted for minorities to suffer and if $70b is what it's going to cost, $70b is what they're gonna pay for.
Also, note that Obama did the thing while being black. Which immediately makes it far less good than what Trump is doing.
|
So far the administration’s retreat on ICE isn’t much of a retreat – they’re still beating up random civilians in MN, Noem and Miller still have jobs – but it is notable in that their whole theory of power and PR has been “never back down, never apologize.” They’ve arguably backed down before – bringing back Kilmar Abrego Garcia when SCOTUS told them to, for example, or promising not to take Greenland by military force – but this is a pretty public “oo, we touched the hot stove, we regret that” which they are normally insistent they never do.
Now part of why they normally refuse is because they think it just shows weakness and forces you to keep giving more and more ground. We’ll see, I hope so! But a big component here is that it happened to time out exactly with Senate Democrats deciding whether to block more ICE funding. If it were just public outcry over the killing, they might have held to their line; if it were just Democrats shutting down the government over ICE, they might have relished the fight; but the combination has them suing for peace.
In the broader picture, I regret to conclude that elected Democrats, those limp-dick septuagenarians, are still a pretty important piece in stopping the fascists. How best to use them, I’m not sure, but impressive as the street-level organizing in MN has been, I don’t think we can take our eyes off the traditional mechanisms of power, however badly they’ve failed us up to this point.
|
On January 29 2026 00:55 LightSpectra wrote:
The "anti-ICE terrorists" that only killed people in ICE custody? Careful, there might still be a little bit of unlicked boot down there.
Now I want to know if more people than LightSpectra think shooting an occupied ICE van in an ICE facility is not anti-ICE terrorism, and you're a bootlicker for thinking otherwise.
Granted, prior to this reply I would say 0 people thought this. So I'm learning something even if nobody replies.
|
On January 29 2026 00:59 Billyboy wrote:
As usual Trump does way less for way more expensive. But way “flashier” making his fans cheer. There is no logical reason to vote for Trump. He’s awful at everything other than wasting other people’s money and taking shit for himself.
You've convinced me, he's lost my vote in 2028, I'm going with Rubio instead.
By the way if you guys didn't bet on Rubio in 2028 when he was still 40 to 1 you were leaving money on the table.
|
United States44354 Posts
On January 29 2026 01:34 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2026 00:55 LightSpectra wrote:
The "anti-ICE terrorists" that only killed people in ICE custody? Careful, there might still be a little bit of unlicked boot down there.
Now I want to know if more people than LightSpectra think shooting an occupied ICE van in an ICE facility is not anti-ICE terrorism, and you're a bootlicker for thinking otherwise.
Seems like legitimate self defence to me. Feared for their lives and so forth. Nobody can possibly know the intentions of anyone else, it seems entirely reasonable to simply shoot people. It's also possible that they were being in some way impeded, or at least there was the concept of imposition, in whatever they were trying to do and had no real alternative but to engage in self defence. Also the shooters may have had blood on the inside of their body, internal blood.
|
On January 29 2026 01:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2026 01:34 dyhb wrote:On January 29 2026 00:55 LightSpectra wrote:
The "anti-ICE terrorists" that only killed people in ICE custody? Careful, there might still be a little bit of unlicked boot down there.
Now I want to know if more people than LightSpectra think shooting an occupied ICE van in an ICE facility is not anti-ICE terrorism, and you're a bootlicker for thinking otherwise. Seems like legitimate self defence to me. Feared for their lives and so forth. Nobody can possibly know the intentions of anyone else, it seems entirely reasonable to simply shoot people. It's also possible that they were being in some way impeded, or at least there was the concept of imposition, in whatever they were trying to do and had no real alternative but to engage in self defence. Also the shooters may have had blood on the inside of their body, internal blood. I'll try to remember the trolling about a rooftop shooter firing into an ICE facility being done in self-defense the next time people moralize on how certain posters are presumptively engaging in bad faith.
With the continuing progression of extreme views, it's getting hard to distinguish between one poster legitimately believing in a false flag ICE facility shooter, and someone else trolling JimmyJ. Of course, you've refused to comment on the subject of my post, so I don't know what you think. If one person thinks the shooter shot an ICE van in an ICE facility intending to kill non-ICE officers, I'm sure it's just a tiny bit more extreme to think the person was justified in shooting the ICE van in legitimate self-defense. Gestapo, right?
|
On January 29 2026 01:34 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2026 00:55 LightSpectra wrote:
The "anti-ICE terrorists" that only killed people in ICE custody? Careful, there might still be a little bit of unlicked boot down there.
Now I want to know if more people than LightSpectra think shooting an occupied ICE van in an ICE facility is not anti-ICE terrorism, and you're a bootlicker for thinking otherwise. Granted, prior to this reply I would say 0 people thought this. So I'm learning something even if nobody replies.
Shooting immigrants detained by ICE suggests immigrant hatred, and the FBI is currently being helmed by a Trump sycophant that's pretty much openly said he was going to weaponize the agency to go after Republicans' enemies.
But just to be clear, the bootlicking part isn't that you uncritically believe things Kash Patel says, it's that your only remark about innocent people dying in secret police custody is that a small fraction of that number includes people who might've been killed due to ICE negligence rather than direct malice.
|
On January 29 2026 01:47 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2026 00:59 Billyboy wrote:
As usual Trump does way less for way more expensive. But way “flashier” making his fans cheer. There is no logical reason to vote for Trump. He’s awful at everything other than wasting other people’s money and taking shit for himself. You've convinced me, he's lost my vote in 2028, I'm going with Rubio instead. By the way if you guys didn't bet on Rubio in 2028 when he was still 40 to 1 you were leaving money on the table.
Perfect maybe he can spend a trillion to deport as many as Obama did with 5bn. But you will get a bunch of pissed off people maybe even a bunch more deaths of your real lucky.
It will be funny to watch the infighting once they stop pretending Trump is a stable genius.
|
On January 29 2026 01:47 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2026 00:59 Billyboy wrote:
As usual Trump does way less for way more expensive. But way “flashier” making his fans cheer. There is no logical reason to vote for Trump. He’s awful at everything other than wasting other people’s money and taking shit for himself. You've convinced me, he's lost my vote in 2028, I'm going with Rubio instead. By the way if you guys didn't bet on Rubio in 2028 when he was still 40 to 1 you were leaving money on the table.
Do you think Rubio will be the next Republican presidential nominee?
|
United States44354 Posts
On January 29 2026 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2026 01:47 oBlade wrote:On January 29 2026 00:59 Billyboy wrote:
As usual Trump does way less for way more expensive. But way “flashier” making his fans cheer. There is no logical reason to vote for Trump. He’s awful at everything other than wasting other people’s money and taking shit for himself. You've convinced me, he's lost my vote in 2028, I'm going with Rubio instead. By the way if you guys didn't bet on Rubio in 2028 when he was still 40 to 1 you were leaving money on the table. Do you think Rubio will be the next Republican presidential nominee?
Over Trump’s dead body maybe.
|
On January 29 2026 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2026 01:34 dyhb wrote:On January 29 2026 00:55 LightSpectra wrote:
The "anti-ICE terrorists" that only killed people in ICE custody? Careful, there might still be a little bit of unlicked boot down there.
Now I want to know if more people than LightSpectra think shooting an occupied ICE van in an ICE facility is not anti-ICE terrorism, and you're a bootlicker for thinking otherwise. Granted, prior to this reply I would say 0 people thought this. So I'm learning something even if nobody replies. Shooting immigrants detained by ICE suggests immigrant hatred, and the FBI is currently being helmed by a Trump sycophant that's pretty much openly said he was going to weaponize the agency to go after Republicans' enemies. But just to be clear, the bootlicking part isn't that you uncritically believe things Kash Patel says, it's that your only remark about innocent people dying in secret police custody is that a small fraction of that number includes people who might've been killed due to ICE negligence rather than direct malice. Thats why I was asking about others. You have a somewhat interesting view on people on rooftops shooting at ICE vans entering ICE facilities. I’m wondering if the majority here are also truthers on the matter. Your logic implies firefighter hatred in Butler, Pennsylvania, since 100% of people killed by a rooftop shooter in a famous event there were firefighters.
But, again, I’d be more interested in how many others believe it instead of just you. You can believe that people take guns to vantages above ICE facilities intending to kill detained immigrants (and thereby succeeding in their true targets), but if 10 more people think that’s exactly what happened and that the government is therefore lying to you, then my interest grows. If nobody responds, or the majority think he shot an ICE vehicle in an ICE facility seeking to kill or injure ICE officers, and it was his weapon proficiency and distance that led to others hit, then I’ve also learned something about this forums general belief on bootlickers and government conspiracies.
|
Feel free to pontificate to your heart's content about your feelings about the Dallas shooting. Doesn't change the fact even if you discount the victims of that one event, dozens of innocent people are dying in horrific conditions and the secret police have been stonewalling all attempts to help or investigate.
|
To me the scariest thing is look at the blatant lying about this most recent shooting. Which has a shit ton of witnesses and videos from multiple angles. Imagine how different reality is from what they are saying when it’s behind closed doors.
|
On January 29 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:
Feel free to pontificate to your heart's content about your feelings about the Dallas shooting. Doesn't change the fact even if you discount the victims of that one event, dozens of innocent people are dying in horrific conditions and the secret police have been stonewalling all attempts to help or investigate. You're the first that called me a bootlicker for thinking they shot at ICE agents when they fired on an ICE vehicle in an ICE facility, but maybe you’re intending this post to transition to something more defensible. In the vein of “I never actually thought you were a bootlicker for believing the official explanation. I just reacted angrily because I thought you were therefore discounting the victims.” You can both honor the victims, and not call people bootlickers. Well, at least reserve the term for circumstances apart from government conspiracy doubters.
|
On January 29 2026 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2026 01:34 dyhb wrote:On January 29 2026 00:55 LightSpectra wrote:
The "anti-ICE terrorists" that only killed people in ICE custody? Careful, there might still be a little bit of unlicked boot down there.
Now I want to know if more people than LightSpectra think shooting an occupied ICE van in an ICE facility is not anti-ICE terrorism, and you're a bootlicker for thinking otherwise. Granted, prior to this reply I would say 0 people thought this. So I'm learning something even if nobody replies. Shooting immigrants detained by ICE suggests immigrant hatred, and the FBI is currently being helmed by a Trump sycophant that's pretty much openly said he was going to weaponize the agency to go after Republicans' enemies.
If someone hated immigrants, or minorities, they could target them anywhere. The ICE facility is pretty specific.
You would target an ICE facility if you were anti-ICE. Now you might also hate ICE and immigrants (i.e. from a perspective of "I hate these immigrants and I hate ICE who is deporting them too slow and not enough") - but then the only reason to hit only immigrants and not ICE agents while targeting both is incompetence. Easier to just realize the aim was awful and the target was ICE since the explanation needs him to be incompetent anyway.
On January 29 2026 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2026 01:47 oBlade wrote:On January 29 2026 00:59 Billyboy wrote:
As usual Trump does way less for way more expensive. But way “flashier” making his fans cheer. There is no logical reason to vote for Trump. He’s awful at everything other than wasting other people’s money and taking shit for himself. You've convinced me, he's lost my vote in 2028, I'm going with Rubio instead. By the way if you guys didn't bet on Rubio in 2028 when he was still 40 to 1 you were leaving money on the table. Do you think Rubio will be the next Republican presidential nominee?
I think the contenders are DeSantis, Rubio, and Vance.
The problem for Vance and Rubio, as it is for first term presidents, is campaigning while you're at work, especially if the job is important. In a general election, the VP has more leeway for that (e.g. Bush VP -> 88), or Senators who don't do anything anyway, but to be fair, to go all-in on campaigning Rubio can resign as Secretary first. But he can't do that just for a primary. So realistically it's hard to discount DeSantis's sort of timing headstart/advantage. He can easily win the primary so the safe answer is no, I can't say with over 50% confidence it would be Rubio. Cruz is a niche now, but still a very shrewd one, while Paul will be eaten alive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
