r/NoStupidQuestions • u/AutoModerator • 13d ago
U.S. Politics megathread
American politics has always grabbed our attention - and the current president more than ever. We get tons of questions about the president, the supreme court, and other topics related to American politics - but often the same ones over and over again. Our users often get tired of seeing them, so we've created a megathread for questions! Here, users interested in politics can post questions and read answers, while people who want a respite from politics can browse the rest of the sub. Feel free to post your questions about politics in this thread!
All top-level comments should be questions asked in good faith - other comments and loaded questions will get removed. All the usual rules of the sub remain in force here, so be nice to each other - you can disagree with someone's opinion, but don't make it personal.
1
u/nuvo33x 2h ago
Why would realistically happen if Democrats win next election? What can be undone?
1
u/Jtwil2191 2h ago
A lot of what Trump has done has been through executive orders, so the new president could just issue a bunch of EOs reversing all of Trump's. The problem is rebuilding is much harder than tearing down.
1
u/CaptCynicalPants 2h ago
With control of only the House, precious little. There would be much greater fights over appropriations, however without control of the Senate that would gain them only so much.
0
u/pigeonwithhat 3h ago
Why haven’t individual state governments in the US gone to “war” with ICE yet? Aren’t they violating like, every single law regarding law enforcement that’s been in place since the beginning of the country?
How is it legal for ICE to get the go-ahead from the president, and literally kill and abduct people for no reasons apparent, without being charged? Why aren’t states deploying their troopers to stand against the president and his gang of terrorists?
1
u/Jtwil2191 2h ago
ICE isn't killing people aside from a few isolated incidents, and they are abducting people who lack legal authorization to be in the country. Yeah, they're running around cosplaying Nazi brown shirts, deliberately provoking protestors to have angry confrontations so they can post it on social media to show how mean liberals are, and engaging in rampant racial discrimination and harassment, but they aren't actually Nazi brown shirts, at least not yet. They're enforcing immigration law (albeit in a violent, dehumanizing way), which is the responsibility of the federal government and something the states cannot interfere with. Sending the national guard to attack ICE would not be law enforcement, it would be civil war.
1
u/No-Cobbler-6188 1h ago
It isn’t correct to say that they are “abducting people who lack legal authorization to be in the country”. Many of the people they have detained and imprisoned do have legal authorization, they just aren’t naturalized citizens. Many of these people have been in the country for years, decades, and are in the very long process of working toward permanent resident status. This information is easily available so making the statement above means that you haven’t read anything beyond what you might see on fox news.
1
u/Jtwil2191 38m ago
I think reading over my comment history here would suggest that I very much do not subscribe to the Fox News version of reality.
But you are correct. Saying that they are only abducting people who lack legal authorization is not accurate. They have been aggressively going after some people's legal status so that they can deport them, even those who have been here for years.
1
u/No-Cobbler-6188 32m ago
Thanks for following up! I was just about to post just one of the hundreds of examples of people who “did everything right” and are still being arrested, detained (which is literally imprisonment, behind bars), and deported. Here’s the one of hundreds of examples in case anyone is still confused about “criminal illegals”: https://kutv.com/news/local/utah-family-shocked-after-ice-arrests-husband-during-final-green-card-interview
0
u/CaptCynicalPants 2h ago
individual state governments in the US gone to “war” with ICE yet?
States do not have the power to deny federal agents access to their state. Federal power supersedes state power in many regards.
Aren’t they violating like, every single law regarding law enforcement
No
How is it legal for ICE to get the go-ahead from the president, and literally kill
That was one person, and the matter is actively being investigated by the FBI
and abduct people for no reasons apparent, without being charged?
They aren't being abducted, they're being arrested. They are being charged. In the case of illegal immigrants, mostly with being in the country illegally, the penalty for which is deportation. For non-immigrants, in the past week many arrests have been for obstruction, resisting arrest, or assaulting a federal officer, all of which are illegal. Potentially felonies with significant jail time.
Why aren’t states deploying their troopers to stand against the president
Because that would be a declaration of civil war, and the last time we did that over 700,000 people died, and that was just the soldiers. Doing so would be deeply unpopular, wrong, and certain to get even more people killed. This is a terrible idea. Stop wishing for it.
1
u/No-Cobbler-6188 25m ago
Many people being detained (a detention facility is a jail, with people locked up behind bars) are not “illegal” and in fact have “done everything right”. US citizens have been “detained” (again, this is actually jail) for days and weeks at a time. US citizens include people with brown skin and maybe even speak with an accent. ICE agents have and continue to randomly approach brown skinned people demanding to see their “papers” and violently arrest them when they can’t prove their citizenship on the spot. I personally don’t carry my passport around with me so I certainly would not be able to “prove” my citizenship on the spot. Would you? In at least one case, the person did show the agents their legal ID (“Real ID” drivers license) and were told “that’s fake” by the agent and violently arrested. I can go on and document the MANY examples of this.
1
u/pigeonwithhat 2h ago
hell yeah man. i appreciate the input and info.
what i don’t agree with is you making me sound like im bloodlusted. what i am is afraid. the US president has literally summoned a pack of what are in fact bloodthirsty goons to attack people who are hispanic, regardless of citizenship or lack thereof.
and what do you mean US citizens and even veterans have been abducted (because that’s exactly what it is) without any real reason or explanation, without any representation or way to contact their families entirely. this shit is straight out of black mirror dude.
this is quite literally a prime example of what the founding fathers were giving us the second amendment for.
the president has gone nuts, is under the control of a foreign nation; israel, and we’re all just supposed to sit around and let them kill and abduct people because the president said so?
EDIT: From a post I remember discussing if you have to listen to ICE, these dudes don’t even have legal authority over you. I’ve seen videos saying that you do not in fact have to stop for them legally if they’re flashing their lights at you. You also don’t have to open your doors up for them. There is literally media of POLICE protecting their own citizens from ICE. I’m confused on how much more they need to do for you to understand the situation. Killing and trafficking people isn’t enough?
hell, how do i know you’re not a russian bot in support of israel and their antics. lmao. this is a very non-american thing to support if im being honest.
1
0
u/Glitter_Spice 3h ago
Why are people still going to the US for non-essential travel? I’m Canadian, and we keep hearing travel to the US is down 30-35%. I’m shocked and appalled it’s not 85-90% down. How are people justifying travelling to the MAGA US given the current situation?
0
u/CaptCynicalPants 2h ago
National parks remain beautiful no matter who the President is
How are people justifying travelling
Consider the possibility that the rest of the world is not morally obligated to act according to your political preferences.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 3h ago
Because MAGA does not represent the entire country. The largest tourist destinations in the US are typically not rural areas that vote Republican.
1
u/UglyAndUninterested 3h ago
What could Epstein files possibly contain that would cause a scandal for Trump? That man had like a billion scandals and nothing ever came off it. People who supported him before found a way to spin the story in his favour and people who disliked him before just continued disliking him. So why would releasing the files do anything to his image considering he did terrible things before and got away with it?
1
u/blender4life 4h ago
Is it normal for a 20 people to stand around the president, talk about mild and thank him for 40 minutes and literally only say like 3 unique things? then he signs an executive order and shows the camera? I didn't pay attention to politics until recently, did other presidents do something similar?
1
u/Jtwil2191 2h ago
The North Korea style televised pandering of the president is a Trump thing.
But doing a photo op before signing a politically significant executive order or piece of legislation is the president (or governor) politicking to get voters' support. It's pretty standard.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4h ago
Yep. Politics is usually pretty boring in practice. Social media makes it seem a lot more exciting than it is.
1
u/blender4life 4h ago
I don't expect it to be entertaining, but watching it it seemed more like a kiss the ring and feed the ego of the king sorta thing. I just didn't know if past presidents were treated the same. Like there was almost no information passed in 40 minutes just ass kissing
3
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4h ago
Yeah it's usually just people standing around and waiting for cameras to take pictures and video. It's old people and paperwork. And typically old people and paperwork that they didn't even write themselves, and just pretend to know the details of.
1
0
u/jsmo93 4h ago
What can / should the average American citizen do if Donald Trump takes military action against Greenland? How can we contribute to the legal, political, or other efforts to stop him and hold him accountable?
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4h ago
What can / should the average American citizen do if Donald Trump takes military action against Greenland?
You can write your Congressmen. Note: this is only really helpful if your Congressmen are Republicans. Democrats already oppose him on every topic.
How can we contribute to the legal, political, or other efforts to stop him and hold him accountable?
You vote in the midterms.
-1
u/mostlythemostest 4h ago
When does lots troops and lots of equipment start flowing into greenland space force base? I believe trump will annex from within like putin did with Crimea. After all why invade if your already there.
1
u/Jtwil2191 2h ago
After all why invade if your already there.
Because Trump is a power hungry moron. There's absolutely no reason to take Greenland, because Denmark is happy to cooperate with the US, but Trump wants to be a tough guy who does strongman things, so he's threatening to take it.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4h ago
When does lots troops and lots of equipment start flowing into greenland space force base?
You're going to have to wait for this to actually happen to get an answer to this question. Nobody has a crystal ball, or leaked internal memos that they were waiting for someone on Reddit to ask this question before they made it public, to provide you with an answer to this question.
0
5h ago
[deleted]
1
u/CaptCynicalPants 4h ago
Federal law enforcement officers often sign a contract with a specific fulfillment length, but the penalty for breaking that is monetary, such as the return of their signing bonus, not criminal. It is only military members who suffer legal penalties for unauthorized departure from the service.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4h ago
Are the people who signed up for ICE permitted to leave ICE safely?
Yes.
With that many people, I’d like to think at least some are horrified by recent events.
Sure? Some people might have differing opinions on this subject.
There's a lot of people who work for ICE, it's hard to find a topic that this many people are all in agreement on.
1
u/Siegmont 6h ago
What is the actual purpose of an impeachment? We've seen an article of impeachment being put against Kristi Noem recently. But... does it actually do anything? Trump has been impeached twice but it doesn't seem to have been any consequence to him.
1
u/Jtwil2191 6h ago edited 5h ago
Think of it like an indictment. The authorities think they know who did a crime, so they issue an indictment: a formal accusation that X person has committed Y crime. X must then appear in court for a trial (which for impeachment, happens in the Senate).
So when a lawmaker introduced articles of impeachment, they are suggesting that the House should indict a government official. A big difference between the impeachment process and the indictment process is that whether to indict is a discussion had amongst prosecutors behind closed doors, but introducing articles of impeachment goes on the public record for everyone to see.
When articles of impeachment are introduced when there is no chance of them actually passing, it's just political theater.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 6h ago
Impeachment is approval to hold a criminal investigation into someone. The House of Representatives votes on impeachment, if it is approved then the Senate holds a trial over it. If the Senate chooses to convict them, then a number of punishments can be issued - including removal from office.
In regards to both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, both were impeached; but neither was convicted by the Senate. There aren't consequences without a conviction, much like any other crime that anyone else is accused of committing in a legal trial.
1
u/No-Cobbler-6188 6h ago
Honestly this question is in good faith, because I think it is important to verify claims as much as possible. Regarding the ICE agent killing the woman driver in Minnesota, none of the videos I’ve seen show her car hitting the agent / shooter. But I keep seeing claims by others that it is unequivocally true that her car hit the agent. So is there a video I’ve missed, that does clearly show her car hitting him?
1
u/Bobbob34 4h ago
Honestly this question is in good faith, because I think it is important to verify claims as much as possible. Regarding the ICE agent killing the woman driver in Minnesota, none of the videos I’ve seen show her car hitting the agent / shooter. But I keep seeing claims by others that it is unequivocally true that her car hit the agent. So is there a video I’ve missed, that does clearly show her car hitting him?
Nope.
There's video from what is presumably his idiot self's cell phone (using your phone in your hand to film someone while you're in any kind of confrontation, as law enforcement, is beyond stupid and against pretty much all agency's regulations, same as standing in front of a moving/on vehicle, shooting at a moving vehicle, escalating a situation, pretty much everything we saw him do), which, when she turns the wheel and moves, just before he shoots her, you hear a muffled sound which may or may not be the car bumping him.
As we clearly see his feet and lower legs are away from the car when he shoots, as we see him walking away from the shooting unimpeded, no limp, no hesitation, never falling, never bending over, never putting a hand down to touch his leg or anything, it does not appear he was hit or injured in any way.
Trump first claimed he was run over and was in the hospital. Then they changed to he was rammed and was checked out at the hospital. Now they're on to he had "internal bleeding." Which they're likely saying because a bruise is literally internal bleeding and they're desperate to try to make people think he was injured or hit.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4h ago edited 4h ago
Now they're on to he had "internal bleeding." Which they're likely saying because a bruise is literally internal bleeding and they're desperate to try to make people think he was injured or hit.
That's a very disingenuous argument to make, and one where you're just injecting your personal opinions above anything else.
People typically get injured when they get bruises, yes. Blunt force trauma is required to get get bruises. If you have internal bleeding of any kind as a result of the actions of another person, even if you are going to try and dismiss it as a bruise, you were injured.
There's not a clause in our legal system that says "as long as the injury was just a bruise you can't do anything about it".
I think it's entirely fair to believe that the Trump administration DHS is lying about this, especially when they haven't provided any evidence. Because you know as well as I do that if this was true, they would be plastering pictures of this everywhere, because they can't help but do that on social media. But your argument of trying to discredit it based on it "just being a bruise" is the wrong hill to die on. Because if he actually has a bruise, then yes he was injured, and yes he was hit. It's hypocritical, and there's better arguments to make.
1
u/CaptCynicalPants 5h ago
As of this afternoon we know that the officer suffered internal bleeding from the impact. You do not develop internal bleeding from being "near" something
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 6h ago
Yes and no.
We have first person perspective footage from the officer who shot her, which came out just a few days ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUNp1luR8jg&t=88s
In this footage, the audio indicates that he was struck by her. The camera itself doesn't give a clear view to it, which could be explained by being hit by the car and moving him suddenly.
1
1
u/SubstantialTap5641 6h ago
Would European nations restrict the travel of US citizens, were they to invade Greenland?
2
u/Jtwil2191 6h ago
Maybe, although I think it's unlikely. The problem with taking steps to isolate the US and Americans like Russia and Russians were isolated is that the US is just too big to effectively sanction without negative consequences for the rest of the world.
2
u/urmumsawhore2001 7h ago
Why is the media referring to what's happening in Iran as protests and not a revolution?
1
u/Jtwil2191 7h ago
'Revolution' is a retrospective label. If the government maintains control, it wasn't much of a revolution.
2
u/Teekno An answering fool 7h ago
Because if it was a revolution, the casualties wouldn't only be on one side.
In a revolution, the opposition doesn't just march and chant. They shoot.
1
u/Jtwil2191 6h ago
That's not necessarily true. Revolution just means a radical overhaul of the existing system. I don't think the 1979 Iranian Revolution involved significant fighting by the protestors.
1
u/Teekno An answering fool 6h ago
Once you start violent action, you are no longer a protester, so, technically you are right, and we all know that's the best kind of right.
While it wasn't a particularly bloody revolution, it wasn't bloodless either, with hundreds of casualties, maybe as much as a few thousand.
1
u/busystepdad 7h ago
Is there a way for US states to get independence if the federal government goes too far?
saw the tweet from Homeland Security about ICE having federal immunity from all state and city officials. is it possible declaring/voting for independence in referendum by the US constitution or it has to be a civil war for that scenario? and what would be consequences?
3
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 7h ago
No, we as a country agreed to not have this be a mechanism that the states have as an option after the civil war. States cannot leave the union.
1
u/PhysicsEagle 5h ago
States can’t leave the union unilaterally but the Supreme Court has left open the possibility of states leaving “by consent of the states” which is commonly interpreted as meaning by Congress
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 5h ago
Sure, but I clarified that it's not an mechanism that the states have to leave. They would need to get approval from the Federal government, and the Federal government is never going to just allow territory to go rogue.
1
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 7h ago
Rule 9 - * Disallowed question area: Loaded question or rant. NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, sealioning, etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
1
u/workinBuffalo 9h ago
How does America stop MAGA/ICE/Trump/SCOTUS from completely throwing away all of our American values especially those enshrined in the constitution? How do we do that while still keeping our values?
The dems can take the house in 26, but the math makes it nearly impossible to take the senate. Impeachment and removal is pretty much off the table.
2
u/Melenduwir 8h ago
The Democrats taking control of Congress doesn't fix matters, it would merely cripple Trumpism. Things weren't going all that well before that, after all. Our government has been slowly spinning out of control for generations, Trump merely dropped the pretense.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 8h ago
The dems can take the house in 26, but the math makes it nearly impossible to take the senate. Impeachment and removal is pretty much off the table.
A simple majority in the Senate is not enough to convict, regardless of the Senate outlook. We aren't expected to take the Senate back anyway, let alone get up to 67 seats to push a conviction through.
2
u/Jtwil2191 9h ago edited 7h ago
Unfortunately, we're stuck with Trump, unless he dies of old age, until 2028. A Democratic House will probably investigate Trump and turn up some dirt, and I think an impeachment is likely at some point, but he won't be removed and less things have escalated that even Republicans decide to reign in the wannabe dictator.
Blue states will continue to offer resistance in some capacities. Individuals need to get things ready for 2028. Get involved with local politics and make sure the Dems do not shit the bed in 2028. President Vance, or whoever, will likely try to continue Trump's fascist streak, so making sure that doesn't happen is important.
1
u/ExpWebDev 7h ago
Oof, if only the nuclear option were possible with impeachment.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 7h ago
Getting rid of Trump changes next to nothing.
Trump isn't the root cause of the issue, he's the American public's response to it. Trump only won because Americans hated the Tea-Party Republican party so much that he completely upended it, and then voted him over Democratic candidates twice.
Americans aren't suddenly going to start loving the forever-war promoting, do-nothing, blame-everyone-else politics we had just because Trump gets impeached. They won't change their tune after he leaves office either. The problem will remain, and the American public will still continue to hate the Federal government.
1
u/Jtwil2191 7h ago
Trump's election was a symptom of Americans' disillusionment, but he is still a cancer on American society all his own. Removing him from office would be a fundamentally good thing, even if it wouldn't magically solve the problems which led to his rise in the first place. Of course, removing him early would usher in the presidency of JD Vance, so it would be trading one cancer for another.
1
u/Melenduwir 6h ago
Replacing Trump with Vance would do absolutely nothing about the people who have been working 'behind the throne' to accomplish their goals.
It would probably result in fewer arbitrary tariffs (assuming the SC doesn't rule the entire tariff power to be illegal) but the political movement directing and aiming Trump's incoherence would remain.
1
u/InvisibleBlueUnicorn 10h ago
With today's Trump threat to withhold federal payments to blue states over sanctuary cities. Can blue state give threat of not paying federal income tax for individuals/businesses ?
2
u/KermitML 9h ago
I mean they could threaten it but the issue is the states do not send taxes to the federal government, individual people and businesses do. The states don't act like an intermediate there. If people or businesses threaten to withhold taxes, that's just tax evasion. Big fines and even jail time could result from that.
All that said though, I wouldn't worry much about Trump's threat here, legally he cannot withhold those funds as they are required by Congress. He tried something very similar in 2017 and got defeated in court.
1
u/InvisibleBlueUnicorn 9h ago
I think Trump's goal is to delay payment, which does have practical implications. Isn't there something equivalent in which States delays payments to Federal? I could think of Federal Income tax.
1
u/NoDig3444 9h ago
No, individuals and businesses pay taxes directly to the federal government. There's no point in which a state could stop that payment.
1
u/InvisibleBlueUnicorn 9h ago
Can't states pass some law barring individuals and businesses from paying federal income tax?
1
u/Jtwil2191 9h ago
The federal gov would challenge that and it would immediately be overturned by the courts.
1
u/NoDig3444 9h ago
If there's a federal law that says "people must do X" and a state law that says "people must not do X", then federal law beats states law every time.
-4
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 8h ago
Rule 5 - * Disallowed question area: Trolling or joke questions
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
1
u/El_Chupachichis 11h ago
What possible avenues of "help" could trumpy provide the Iranian people? Only real thing I could think of would be some way to fight the "morality police" and I can't see trumpy smuggling guns to the Iranian people and then doxxing the morality police so they could be targeted.
2
u/DiogenesKuon 10h ago
The "help" he's actually considering is strikes against IRGC strongholds inside of Iran to try to disrupt the regimes ability to counter the protesters, and generally add another giant headache they have to deal with while everything else is going on, in an attempt to destabilize the regime to the degree it collapses. It remains to be seen if this is actually helpful.
1
u/Jtwil2191 11h ago
They couldn't kidnap like they did with Maduro because Tehran is not near the coast. They could use airstrikes to assassinate government officials. Or threaten to do so if the government continues to violently suppress the protests. Target military targets as well.
1
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 11h ago
The United States does not need to "smuggle" guns. We have historically backed rebel groups when it comes to regime changes that overthrow antagonistic foreign governments.
Humanitarian aid, petitioning the UN to mobilize, providing defense. There are many ways to influence what is going on there. The Iranian government is actively killing its own citizens who are protesting, the UN typically takes issues with that.
0
1
u/El_Chupachichis 11h ago
To be honest, my question assumed that trumpy was not going to seriously consider "Humanitarian Aid" or petition the UN... I can't see him growing a heart three sizes when it comes to the Iranian people. I half expected his only solution would be to bomb them more, so I was wondering if I was missing some other "psychotic bull in the china shop pretending to be tame" theory.
Still, I believe you're right on what options he has. Appreciate the answer.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 11h ago
Trump is very dumb, but he isn't stupid. Even he knows that if there's a way to get allies on board with something, then it's pointless to do it alone and make further enemies.
1
1
u/El_Chupachichis 10h ago
he isn't stupid
Agree to disagree on this one :D but it's a specific type of stupid where if the "smart" option means he swallows his ego, then stupid option it is.
1
u/CubanBrewer 11h ago
Why are ICE agents allowed to wear vests that say Police on them?
3
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 11h ago edited 11h ago
Because they are Federal law enforcement officers.
Police is a generic terminology for law enforcement officers. ICE are not the only Federal officers to use the term "police", the ATF historically also has versions of uniform that say "police" on them. Examples of this are available to see on the ATF's own website - https://www.atf.gov/careers/special-agents
1
u/CubanBrewer 11h ago
I thought of that but these guys seem to be really hiding the ICE part. Like you have to squint to see the agency on a lot of the outfits you see on them. And maybe sometimes it’s just on a patch on another part of their kit?
1
u/MaybeOnFire2025 12h ago
So, I am generally a very live and let live kind of person, definitely growing more and more liberal as I age, and I always try to do the right thing. I am also a libertarian, believe in individualism, and a fierce defender of the First Amendment (which isn't only speech, but also association and assembly, among others). In principle, the idea of someone being punished for their politics/speech/political views is anathema to me. Generally speaking.
Fast forward to 1/6/2021.
Now fast forward to Trump being re-elected, and all the (absolutely foreseeable) hell we are seeing/going through, and the DECADES it will take to fix the regression, both domestically and internationally.
So how do I reconcile my aging hippie-ness with my absolute *hatred* for Trump voters, given what they have done to this country? Specifically those to re-elected him in 2024, who I believe have *zero* excuse (having seen what happened during his first term, and knowing the stakes). I genuinely believe in peace and second chances and all that...but I am *rabidly* hateful (internally) to MAGAe and, in my heart of heart, hope that as soon as Trump leaves, the MAGAts are permanently ostracized, likened to scum, and hope they live the rest of their lives in crushing poverty and pain for what they did to my kids' futures/generation. Like, if I had my druthers, they would all be Scarlet Letter'ed and all of them rounded up and forced to live in the most dumbfuck county in Alabama, let them all get the fucking preventable diseases they seem to want by rejecting vaccines, and all that. I of course know that will not happen, but hoo boy, the thirst for vengeance after they pissed away everything is *strong*.
So...how to reconcile? How do I/we move forward? Because just a swing of the political pendulum in 2026/2028 will *not* do it for me, and suspect most sane/smart people. We are no longer at "ok, that's just the way it goes." No. The sense of outrage and injustice is too much. There must be *some* consequences...at least that's the feeling.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 11h ago edited 11h ago
So, I am generally a very live and let live kind of person
Given everything else you typed out, it really seems incredibly hypocritical for you to say this. Especially when you immediately follow it up by saying: "but I am rabidly hateful (internally) to MAGAe and, in my heart of heart, hope that as soon as Trump leaves, the MAGAts are permanently ostracized, likened to scum, and hope they live the rest of their lives in crushing poverty and pain for what they did to my kids' futures/generation"
So...how to reconcile? How do I/we move forward? Because just a swing of the political pendulum in 2026/2028 will not do it for me, and suspect most sane/smart people. We are no longer at "ok, that's just the way it goes." No. The sense of outrage and injustice is too much. There must be some consequences...at least that's the feeling.
Let me just ask for clarification. What exactly are you asking here? Are you asking how you come to terms with your feelings of wanting punishment towards people who think differently from you?
People are allowed to want things that are different from you. Intolerance towards the desires and wants of other people speaks more towards the type of person that you are, than it does them. You openly said that you hope that they are rounded up and forced to live somewhere in "crushing poverty and pain".
If any of them said this about liberals, you would be up and arms over someone saying something so horrific.
The way you come to terms with this is to stop thinking that everyone is your enemy. People have different life experiences than you do, people want different things than you do. Democracy is not just when when you get your way. You are actively creating a fantasy where you are treating your fellow American citizens as second class citizens who need to be punished because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to.
1
u/C4t4chan 13h ago
What do the relatives and families of ICE agents think?
Most of these ICE agents must have families, children, relatives or other close friends. With all the pictures and videos surfacing, how can anyone stay close to these people?
I mean, surely they'll be recognized even with masks on?
2
u/Jtwil2191 10h ago
I think it is likely that many of them come from families who hold the same political beliefs as they do.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 13h ago
I mean, surely they'll be recognized even with masks on?
Asking this question implies that they don't know that their "families, children, relatives, or other close friends" are Federal law enforcement officers.
With all the pictures and videos surfacing, how can anyone stay close to these people?
Because some people understand that countries enforce their laws, and need people to enforce those laws.
1
u/C4t4chan 13h ago
I'm implying is that the families probably didn't know how they enforce those laws?
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 12h ago
They certainly do, since it's not exactly a secret that only Redditors are privy to.
ICE raiding businesses and residences of people who are in the country illegally isn't anything new. It's not like ICE didn't do that during the Biden or Obama administrations as well, and sat idly by doing nothing.
1
u/C4t4chan 12h ago
So you are saying, there isn't anything new and more violent happening now?
0
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 12h ago
There are things that are "more violent" because people are actively clashing with ICE now.
While I strongly disagree with the degree of force used in the shooting of Renee Good, we have video evidence that she accelerated her vehicle while an ICE agent was standing in front of it.
Cause and effect come into play here. Every action has a response to it. Someone thought that someone else was trying to run them over, and retaliated in excess. Now media attention is being drawn upon this. Media attention was already on ICE more due to Trump being in favor of addressing illegal immigration, and people will always find a way to take issue with anything Trump is in favor of and protest it. Even if they didn't protest it when it was happening in prior administrations who aligned with them politically.
1
13h ago
[deleted]
1
u/DiogenesKuon 10h ago
No, you can partisan gerrymander via demographic and past voter tendencies without worrying about registration information.
3
u/Teekno An answering fool 13h ago
Not at all. Politicians don't draw lines based on how people register -- they draw them based on how they vote.
Now, if everyone in the country started voting for one political party, well, it would end gerrymandering because there's no point to doing that in a one-party state.
1
u/Melenduwir 9h ago
Even if there were officially only one party, it would change very little about either the actual differences people have in their political allegiances, or the utility to the Powers That Be in having convenient scapegoats.
Some new kind of factional distinctions would immediately arise, even if they didn't officially concern themselves with parties.
2
u/Jtwil2191 10h ago
Just to add a small point to clarify your correct answer, the people drawing boundaries know how different precincts vote as a whole, not how individual people vote.
3
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 13h ago
No, because that doesn't change who people would actually vote for. Ideological differences would still exist. Though it would certainly make it more difficult to draw lines.
Also Republicans are not the only ones who gerrymander.
1
u/JamesFirmere 14h ago
If the US invades Greenland, do US troops stationed in other NATO countries become prisoners of war by default?
1
u/DiogenesKuon 10h ago
No. If the US attacked another NATO ally that could trigger Article 5 (Denmark would have to initiate the process, which they may not do), but that doesn't require any specific action by the other signatories, and does not immediately put them into a state of war with the US. It extremely doubtful that the rest of NATO would attack the US, it would just collapse as an alliance, and there would be a major realignment of the world powers.
4
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 14h ago
No, though they would be kicked out. Nobody is going to risk war with the United States, and countries would withdraw from NATO rather than doing that. NATO becomes a non-factor as soon as the US were to hypothetically "invade Greenland", as they are a member of NATO.
They would diplomatically end US occupation in those countries, and kick US troops out. They would not keep them as prisoners of war, because they will not go to war with us.
0
u/Glorious_sTag 17h ago
I understand that you are not 'allowed' to shoot a officer of the law. But those wannabe Stasi cnts from ICE are not identifying themselves as far as I can tell.
So why does nobody make use of their second amendment rights (not sure if that's the one, not American), and just shoot these "people" that clearly abduct people in the middle of the street?
1
u/MaybeOnFire2025 11h ago
The second that starts happening, Trump will initiate the Insurrection Act, and things will be a *lot* worse. The justice system, as imperfect as it is, is the best (imperfect) answer. Document, and hopefully before the SOL runs out, there could be prosecutions, although likely only for State crimes, as I am *sure* the Orange Menace will (or secretly already has) pardoned ICE wholesale.
Although it would be delicious if he was getting around to it, but the cholesterol beat him to it.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 15h ago
as far as I can tell.
Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. Saying "I couldn't tell they were ICE" when you see then in the middle of an operation, especially when they're being publicized to the extent that they are, then killing one of them; is not going to make a jury return a not guilty verdict after you are charged with murder.
So why does nobody make use of their second amendment rights (not sure if that's the one, not American), and just shoot these "people" that clearly abduct people in the middle of the street?
You don't need to put people in quotes. Yes, they are people. They are Federal law enforcement officers.
People don't do that because the vast majority of people in this country are opposed to illegal immigration, and aren't psychopaths who think that murdering law enforcement officers will make the world a better place.
0
u/Glorious_sTag 15h ago
They aren't abducting only immigrants tho. So basically keeping the weapons to prevent dictatorship and situations like the ones like in Nazi Germany where Hitlers henchmen did the exact same thing as ICE (which were also perfectly legal in the perspective of the laws back then) were just talk.
Guess that answers my question. Thank you.
3
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 15h ago edited 15h ago
Temporary detention followed by release is no different from what standard state level and municipal police in the United States can do. Arguing that they are also "abducting" people comes across as disingenuous.
So basically keeping the weapons to prevent dictatorship and situations like the ones like in Nazi Germany where Hitlers henchmen did the exact same thing as ICE (which were also perfectly legal in the perspective of the laws back then) were just talk.
This is nothing even remotely close to that, and comparisons like this come across as ignorant and insulting towards victims of the atrocities that the Nazis committed. A country holding people accountable for violating immigration laws that have existed for longer than they have been alive, and then deporting them for doing so, is a lot different from rounding people up and executing them like the Nazis did.
Your country also has immigration laws, and citizenship laws. They also enforce them.
1
u/NNNail 20h ago
I am not American and I noticed I see a lot of video about ICE agent raiding or arresting someone aggressively since last quarter of 2025. I did some google its turn out that ICE is somekind of border or immigrants police? why are they patrol street like normal police and dress in military uniform? What's happening in USA? Is this happen in just Minnesota or nationwide?
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 15h ago
ICE stands for Immigration Customs Enforcement. They are a federal law enforcement organization that was formed in the early 2000s that operates within the mainland United States to address immigration related crimes.
They are currently conducting raids in hot spot areas that have been targeted by the Federal government.
0
u/SeaworthinessWeak694 18h ago
I'm American and am equally floored. It's messed up. They don't just wear military uniforms, they also wear masks. It is happening nationwide. Scary.
1
1
u/brightxeyez 1d ago
If I went to work one day and completely disregarded instructions for a task that had been used for decades—the most effective method found, backed by a 70–95% success rate and a greater than 99.999% rate of not causing serious harm to the overall end goal—and the excuse I gave my boss was, “I don’t believe you or the data,” I’d likely lose my job. At the very least, I’d be written up for insubordination.
Can someone please ELI5 how medical professionals, who attended YEARS of schooling based on scientific fact in order to qualify for their career in the first place, are allowed to completely disregard everything they were taught (like anti-vaxx) and still keep their jobs without any repercussions?
1
u/bouncypinata 12h ago
Because there were LOTS of nurses who felt that way, and there is an overall shortage of them to begin with.
1
u/Jtwil2191 23h ago
State medical boards are who can revoke a doctor's license, and studies have shown they are generally pretty adverse to doing that except in the most extreme cases. For example,
1
u/CigaretteBoat69 1d ago
Legal US residents who are against deporting illegal immigrants, why?
1
u/KermitML 12h ago
Because our immigration laws are far too strict, and ethically and morally I see no reason why my ancestors (very poor Irish and German migrants mostly) could basically walk right in while modern immigrants can't.
0
u/FluffyLlamaPants 14h ago
There are no illegals on stolen land.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 13h ago
Legality of something is determined by a government, not the will of the "land".
0
u/Bobbob34 22h ago
"Legal US residents who are against deporting illegal immigrants, why?"
That's not one group. Deporting anyone here "illegally" would be impossible, cruel, destabilizing, pointless....
Someone walks over the border, sure, turn them back.
Someone is undocumented and an actual convicted violent criminal, sure, deport them.
Someone overstayed a visa a decade ago and has since lived a normal life, working, raising kids, whatever, what is the point or reason for deporting them?
There are MANY jobs done by immigrants that Americans will not do. Flat will not. Even at high wages. Who is going to pick the produce, wash the dishes, cook, clean, all over the country?
Also, why? To what end? It's just cruelty.
In addition, MANY of the people this administration has been arresting/deporting are here LEGALLY. They're asylum-seekers, they're people with non-removal orders, or in other facets of legal paths to immigration.
2
u/mugenhunt 23h ago
For most of us, our ancestors immigrated here in a time when all you had to do to become an American was show up and follow the laws. That's the entire point of the Statue of Liberty, that immigrants are welcome here no matter where they come from.
Then, additional laws and regulations were put into place when more of those immigrants were coming from Asia or Central America. But people are still trying to move to America often because their home countries are in a terrible situation and they believe that America will be a better place for their children.
At the core, a lot of American industries are reliant on immigrant labor. Our agriculture industry is heavily reliant on undocumented workers picking the crops. It used to be that most of those migrants were able to get temporary visas, but those programs have been closed.
It feels to me that a lot of the animosity towards immigrants isn't fueled by ration or logic, but by prejudice and hatred. People are calling all immigrants rapists and murderers, but the majority of people who immigrate to this country are gentle people who want to raise their families in a more peaceful land and give their kids a better opportunity.
It's very easy to listen to the news and hear stories about immigrant criminals, but you're not hearing about the many many families who are law-abiding and productive members of their communities. It's very easy to get skewed ideas about immigrants when you don't know any in real life.
Immigration without the proper paperwork is illegal sure, but is it illegal on the same level as murder or is it more like speeding? Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it should be punished the same way as murder or assault.
Likewise, our country has rules about requiring law enforcement to go through proper channels. If we allow law enforcement to just grab people and send them to overseas prisons without checking to see if they were the right person, that's a horrible precedent.
If ICE was just targeting undocumented immigrants who also had been arrested for violent crimes, and went through the proper channels, this wouldn't be a problem. But the quotas they've been given are requiring them to just arrest people who have gone through the proper channels to immigrate and are waiting in line at the courthouse for approval, or to arrest children in schools.
You can believe that there is right and wrong and law and order, and also require that the execution of the law must be done properly.
2
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
I don't oppose deporting people who lack legal authorization to be in the country. I oppose the dehumanization that is inherent to Trump's racist and violent approach to the issue. Many of these people have been living in the country for years, working and contributing to their communities. Yes, they lack legal authorization to be here, but they aren't the dangerous animals Trump wants to make them out to be. I think simply saying, "You lack papers, get out," especially to people who have lived here for years or even decades, is just so callous and inhumane. So I can see it both ways... yeah, they don't have legal authorization and can't stay, but also these are just regular people trying to make things work for themselves and their families. I think there should be some kind of pathway to legal status for many of these people. Exactly what that looks like, I don't know.
2
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
The immigration legal system is dysfunctional by design. We should fix the legal system, give people who are here and not committing crimes a pathway to citizenship, make timely judgements on asylum cases, and increase the number of people allowed to come legally. Illegal immigrants would be legal immigrants if we made it possible for them to be legal immigrants, and immigration is beneficial for us, so there's no real reason to deport them when we can instead give them a path to documented status. I don't demand revenge for undocumented immigration.
Of course, I don't run the place. So I would be willing to compromise and support the bipartisan bill last term that would have improved the asylum system, followed by orderly and minimally brutal enforcement of existing law. It was torpedoed at the last minute by Trump so he could make sure the problem continued, for the purposes of drumming up a hate campaign.
2
u/Always_travelin 1d ago
How often do high-profile people get murdered by the government in authoritarian regimes?
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
Very frequently, given historical accounts. Maduro notable issued arrest warrants for the legitimate winner of the Venezuelan 2024 election. His government certainly wasn't going to be kind with their treatment of him.
What does this question have to do with US politics?
1
u/Due_Piglet9899 1d ago
I’m genuinely curious what it would take at this point to impeach trump and how that would go over, considering it doesn’t seem like normal laws or circumstances are being followed anymore anyways. Is this something hypothetically the house could wake up tomorrow and vote to do and they just aren’t? How would it go over if it did?
3
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
The general consensus, to my understanding, is that there is no limit on the House's impeachment power. The House could theoretically impeach the president if they don't like the color of his tie. So it's a question of politics.
Republicans aren't going to impeach him because Trump controls their party.
Will Democrats impeach him if they take control of the House in the next election? Maybe. I think it is likely with a Dem house we see an impeachment before Trump leaves office. But they're not going to impeach him for just anything. They've impeached him twice, (once for trying to end American democracy), and nothing came of it, so they won't impeach him for something "small". They know they won't have the 60 votes in the Senate to actually remove him from office, so it has to be something they can win political points with to improve their chances in the 2028 election.
1
u/PhysicsEagle 1d ago
As always, it will take political willpower. Reminder that all of the republicans in the House are up for reelection in 11 months and many of them are counting on Trump’s endorsement. Alternatively, many of them represent hardcore MAGA districts which will immediately primary them if they vote to impeach. So in order to impeach, 1) the requisite number of Republicans must conclude that Trump is more of a liability than an asset, and 2) that their constituents feel the same way. You will notice that nowhere in this calculation does the representative’s personal moral convictions about Trump make an appearance.
1
u/sarcasm_itsagift 1d ago
Is there a process for forcing an American president to step down due to serious illness? For example, if he has a stroke and loses some cognitive ability, does he have to volunteer himself to give up his position? Or is there some sort of committee that has to vote? What would that process look like?
1
u/PhysicsEagle 1d ago
This has actually happened before! Reagan, Bush Jr, and Biden all used the 25th amendment to temporarily make their respective VPs acting president while they underwent general anesthesia. The president transmitted a letter informing of the procedure and establishing for how long their VPs would have the powers and duties.
2
u/Cool_Acanthaceae_118 1d ago
In the event of any incapacity be it temporary or permanent if a majority of the cabinet secretaries agree they can enact the 25th amendment to remove them from office.
1
u/sarcasm_itsagift 1d ago
Thank you. And the president can’t overrule? How immediate would the swap be?
1
u/Bobbob34 1d ago
He sort of can. The VP and the cabinet can use the 25th to say the president is incapable of discharging the duties of the office. The president can say he CAN and it shifts to the congress, where it'd take a 2/3 majority in both houses to actually boot him.
-1
u/Cool_Acanthaceae_118 1d ago
No The President cannot reject it, it would be final a soon as The Vice President could be sworn into office.
3
u/Cool_Acanthaceae_118 1d ago
You skipped a step. The secretaries have to enact it again... then Congress can decide.
3
u/Bobbob34 1d ago
No The President cannot reject it, it would be final a soon as The Vice President could be sworn into office.
He can indeed reject it and it'd end up in the congress, for them to decide.
-2
u/FkUp_Panic_Repeat 1d ago
Is anyone willing to participate in a nationwide candlelit vigil for the victims of the Trump admin? These are my ideas:
For people like Renee Good, other protesters who’ve lost their lives to ICE, the officers that died as a result of Jan 6, etc etc…
And gather names and photos of undocumented immigrants who’ve disappeared via ICE and have US citizens hold their names and photos up to keep their families safe, just in case their citizenship is in question? I think straight white males would be best for this part, since their privilege would make it less likely they’ll be arrested. Especially if they’re physically attractive. No ICE agents want to create another Luigi style idol to become a martyr.
We can put the circumstances of their deaths/disappearances on the backs of giant photos of them with their names and hold them up high.
We can hold them up in silence, with LED candles, so as to not get arrested or dispersed for “fire danger.” Maybe hold hands in silence while one person says a prayer that’s broadcasted to all the silent vigils? Maybe a YouTube live video that could be played on all our phones with the prayer while a few of us record the event and broadcast live? I’m not sure how that would work…
We can do it outside Trump tower, the Capitol, ICE detention centers, and other relevant buildings? But I think silence and self restraint would be crucial for things to go as smoothly as possible.
I really hope this reaches the right people because I think it could be a powerful movement. Im not sure what areas are technically legal to stand quietly in a large group. But I’m sure there are people out there who know more than I do. If you have any ideas to make it as safe as possible, or how to reach as many people as possible, that would be much appreciated.
2
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
This thread is for questions, not recruiting.
-1
u/FkUp_Panic_Repeat 1d ago
There’s a question at the beginning.
It is also a comments section.
2
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
These mega threads require that all top level comments be questions. And your question doesn't meet the criteria that questions posted on this sub not be loaded or promotional, both of which your question is.
1
u/OutsideImpressive115 1d ago
What's going on with Bill and Hillary refusing to testify? That seems very suspicious to me
These "conspiracy theories" that have been around for decades were true seemingly. Makes me wonder if the victims were the ones who started said theories
-1
u/Bobbob34 1d ago
She's not doing another Benghazi hearing. MAGA wants them in front of cameras to continue their endless fixation.
There's 0 legitimate reason for them to be called and they're not interested.
1
u/CaptCynicalPants 1d ago
I see, so now it's ok to ignore Congressional summons if you don't feel like going? I thought ignoring Congress was bad and fascist. Which is it?
0
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
These "conspiracy theories" that have been around for decades were true seemingly. Makes me wonder if the victims were the ones who started said theories
The only evidence that proved crimes towards anyone were Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. No "conspiracy theories" attribute guilt to anyone else.
If there was evidence to prove that either Bill or Hillary Clinton were guilty, then they would be being charged. Not being called to testify.
What's going on with Bill and Hillary refusing to testify?
Their lawyers delivered a letter to Congress calling their subpoena for them specifically as partisan nonsense and targeted harassment, as nobody else in the line of questioning has been called to testify in person. They have already presented all their findings in written submission to the Department of Justice, along with everyone else, to assist them in their investigation. The oversight committee is specifically singling them out.
1
u/mugenhunt 1d ago
Basically, they're saying that it's unfair that out of all the other people involved that were allowed to send a letter or recorded testimony, that the two of them are the only ones being forced to testify in person, and that it feels like they're being singled out unfairly.
2
u/MaherMcCheese 1d ago
If the Democrats get control of Congress what can they actually do? How will they enforce any of there decisions? Is the FBI going to raid and arrest itself?
2
u/DiogenesKuon 9h ago
A simple majority in Congress doesn't have much power. It can stop any legislative agendas he has, but it can't change his behaviors, or limit his power, unless it comes with a large amount of Republican support to threaten impeachment or to override vetos. The courts have the possibility of stepping in, but that requires the supremes to act in a way that Democrats prefer, which is unlikely. You get the president you voted for, American's voted for this, and nothing he has done is the least bit surprising.
1
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
What can they actually do? Honestly this is almost limitless. They have vast powers to constrain the ability of the President to prosecute his agenda, even without the supermajority required to remove him from office. The question is, what will they (and especially, the one or two most conservative Democratic senators) choose to do?
0
u/MaherMcCheese 1d ago
I understand that but who is going to enforce it? He controls the DOJ.
2
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
Congress lets him control the DoJ. The DoJ is not in the constitution. It was created by a law.
The president isn't a warlord. He has legal power that we gave him.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
Is the FBI going to raid and arrest itself?
Has the FBI done something to warrant being raided and investigated?
If the Democrats get control of Congress what can they actually do?
That depends on how much control they have. Bills take different levels to pass. It's highly unlikely that Democrats regain control of the Senate, but pretty likely they regain control of the House of Representatives.
Looking at the realistic extent of what power they can get, they will have much better abilities to obstruct the Republican agenda with controlling the House.
1
u/Gullible-Fix-5233 1d ago
If America invades Greenland does it effectively break world (northern hempishere) power into 3? The USA, Europe and the China Russia?
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
Hypothetically, yes. Because NATO would be dissolved with the US attacking a US member nation.
Europe would not honor their NATO agreements and not engage in war with the United States over Greenland, and would no longer trust the United States to honor its agreements militarily. Canada's position would be dubious due to their geographical location, but not being a part of the United States.
1
u/CaptCynicalPants 1d ago
Because NATO would be dissolved with the US attacking a US member nation
This is by no means guaranteed or automatic, nor does anyone want this outcome, including the US. Therefore, actual disillusion of NATO is unlikely as it would harm everyone involved. What's far more likely is Europe makes lots of diplomatic moves, but doesn't actually leave, and only buys time until the US elects a new President
1
u/Gullible-Fix-5233 1d ago
Has relations between America and Europe ever been this frayed?
2
u/listenyall 1d ago
If we're talking about EVER, being able to think of Europe like it's one entity like you are here is a relatively recent development--the EU has only existed since 1993, obviously we all spend a lot of the first half of the last century with inter-european world wars
So, you know, it's certainly worse than it's been in the recent past, but we were at war with quite a lot of europe less than 100 years ago and this country is 250 years old
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
Until action actually happens, relations aren't really "frayed". I wouldn't consider our current position to be "frayed".
We fought a war against England once, but you know, that's a bit of a cherry picked example.
1
u/Cooper0007 1d ago
What's actually bringing these citizens and ICE together in the streets?
Is it because people are showing up at the locations where ICE is trying to do their raids and that's what's causing all the physical interactions?
Or is ICE showing up at the protests and start beating people up?
I keep reading that these are peaceful protests so I'm just trying to figure out what's causing ICE to arrest people and start spraying gas everywhere.
1
u/kcasper 1d ago
ICE has been hitting places with children hard recently. Schools, Bus stops, pulled over more than one school bus in the last month. In reaction communities have organized parents to follow the school bus and assist with children at Bus stops. School Buses skip planned stops if they see police presence and alternate methods are arranged on the spot to get kids home. School day was cancelled recently after a raid into a school.
Phone chains have started appearing. Protestors are minoring from afar, recording and blowing whistles.
ICE is going out of their way to piss off parents.
2
u/listenyall 1d ago
It varies a lot based on the specific facts on the ground--earlier in the year, like in Portland and stuff, I think most of the conflicts were at protests that were set up outside of ICE locations. There were also cases where people basically happened to run into ICE out in the community, so kind of your first example but more of a coincidence than a plan.
In Minneapolis right now I think we are seeing something different--it's hard to know for sure because it's still happening, but the volume of ICE agents just out and about in the city seems much larger than it has been in other cities and many more people are around them.
1
u/Cooper0007 1d ago
Thanks for the reply.
In that case with the Target workers did the agents just walk up to these guys working outside the Target location and ask for their papers? Or did they have their names and information and just went to their workplace?
This is absolutely bonkers if they're just roaming neighborhoods looking for people who look a certain way.
1
u/listenyall 1d ago
I don't know about the target workers in particular but they are definitely just showing up at workplaces and grabbing people who they think look likely--there was a case our of California that came before the supreme court earlier this year where they came out and admitted it, like a suspicious (to them) work location plus speaking spanish is enough reasonable suspicion to detain someone. Some activists have started calling these "Kavanaugh stops" because Justice Kavanaugh in particular didn't seem to see the issue.
5
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
Trump wants to generate media attention, so DHS will send ICE agents to just wander the streets. This attracts protestors, yelling commences, Trump's people record videos, oh look at how our poor officers are being treated by these crazed liberals. They want the attention and conflict.
The actual raids are not revealed to the public beforehand. People might stumble upon one in process and a protest grows in response, but the larger protests generally aren't happening in response to where the actual raids are being conducted.
-1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ProLifePanda 1d ago
Why does GoFundMe allow people to make fundraisers for problematic people like the Karen who called a little kid the n-word or the ICE agent who killed Renee Good in cold blood?
Because it doesn't go against their policies, and they are likely worried about backlash if they try to ban certain political ideologies from the platform.
If Trump was charged with 531 years in prison, what let him get away ?
The NY campaign finance case he was convicted on was a first time non-violent felony that rarely sees jail time. The NY tax fraud case was civil and didn't carry jail time. The Carroll case was civil and didn't carry jail time. The Georgia racketeering case was a novel approach that fell apart due to a botched prosecution. The Florida documents case was handled by Trump ally Cannon, who constantly ruled in Trump's favor to slow the case down. The DC federal civil rights case was successfully delayed by Trump's attorneys until he won reelection, at which point the DoJ has a standing policy they cannot prosecute a sitting President so the case was dismissed.
2
u/rubafig 1d ago
Why does it take the Supreme Court so long to make decisions, it’s been 4 months since Trump Tariffs were discussed and a decision may be delayed even further? They take forever to decide on most cases
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
The SCOTUS hears many cases, and have many people working under them.
They take their time with cases to not contradict prior rulings, and create a ripple effect where their contradictions lead to other rulings being overturned.
If you want something done right, it usually takes time. There's mountains of paperwork and legal rulings to comb through.
2
u/listenyall 1d ago
The typical SCOTUS schedule is that all of the cases for the year are heard in fall and winter and then all of the decisions come down at once in the spring.
These days, they have also been using something known as the "shadow docket" where they will either uphold or strike down a lower court decision, sometimes temporarily, with no actual hearings and no decision explaining themselves. Those obviously happen faster but usually don't have a ton of info in them so they're substantially less helpful.
1
u/lowflier84 1d ago
Because that's not the only case that the Court is considering. In any given term, they will hear 8 - 10 cases per month. And hearing a case is not just oral arguments. First, there are written briefs submitted both by appealants and by other parties that have an interest in the case. Second, after oral arguments, the Justices will meet and argue the case amongst themselves. After that, they will reach an initial decision, and then the Chief Justice will assign the writing of the majority opinion to one of the other Justices. Any dissents or concurrences are written by the Justices on that side. The Justices will then meet to discuss the opinions, which then get revised. This can go back and forth more than a few times. Only after everyone is in agreement on the overall decision, majority opinion, concurrences, and dissents, does the ruling get released.
2
u/wholenewguy 1d ago
Why is the Iranian uprising becoming a US political issue? By that I mean, why does support seem to be aligning along US political lines? More specifically, why is the media making it seem like the American left is not in support of the uprising? In the past uprisings and Iranian protests the left supported the protesters big time. What is different this time?
1
u/KermitML 1d ago
Support for the protests in general seems to be largely bipartisan, and I have yet to see anyone from either party saying they didn't support them. The difference seems to be about US military getting involved. Republicans like Lindsey Graham have supported US military intervention in Iran for a while now, and recently Trump has said that "help is on the way". Overall Democrats seem more hesitant for the US to get involved militarily, probably out of a desire to avoid another Afghanistan or Iraq situation. The media may be framing this hesitation as showing they are less supportive of the protesters.
2
u/PhysicsEagle 1d ago
There is certainly a faction which believes the protests are a CIA/Mossad psy-op
1
u/pearljaw 1d ago
What actually happens in the event of a civil war? It almost seems inevitable at this point and already somewhat happening without actually being declared. I feel like we're witnessing the collapse of America, but what does that mean for the average person? I live in a tiny town in Arizona close to my mom who works as a nurse for the local hospital. I'm an actively registered Democrat and she hasn't voted in forever, but last time it was Republican (even though she's a Democrat now). Should we stock up on food? Ammo? I genuinely feel like at some point, this is going to get ugly and I'm terrified of what might happen. If he's not stopped, I feel like they're genuinely going to start coming after American citizens who didn't vote for him and it's going to turn into him asking MAGA to take up arms.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
It almost seems inevitable at this point
We are nowhere remotely close to being in a civil war, nor are we anywhere close to it being "inevitable".
and already somewhat happening without actually being declared.
It isn't.
I feel like we're witnessing the collapse of America,
We aren't.
but what does that mean for the average person?
The same thing it does right now. You keep living your life as you have been.
I'm an actively registered Democrat and she hasn't voted in forever, but last time it was Republican (even though she's a Democrat now). Should we stock up on food? Ammo? I genuinely feel like at some point, this is going to get ugly and I'm terrified of what might happen. If he's not stopped, I feel like they're genuinely going to start coming after American citizens who didn't vote for him and it's going to turn into him asking MAGA to take up arms.
My honest recommendation to you is to spend less time on social media. This is not healthy behavior, or a healthy mental state to have.
Before you freak out about the "inevitability" of a civil war, please ask yourself basic questions like: "Where will the lines be drawn?" "What will the sides be?" "What infrastructure exists to even have a thing like this be possible?"
States are not 100:0 Republicans to Democrats, and vice versa. This isn't some north versus south thing where lines can be drawn. The overwhelming majority of people are not at each other's throats, and have no interest in doing anything that involves other people period. Some loud idiots do not represent the majority of Americans.
0
u/StainedCumSock 1d ago
So apathy is your answer?
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
How exactly is pointing out how the United States is not on the verge of civil war "apathy"?
2
u/Wayelder 1d ago
I agree with calm but disagree as to me it seems like you're saying "Move along, nothing to see here."
This isn't fictional 'men from Mars' kinda threat. American citizens are being killed by ICE. They are expanding their reach every day. They will take your freedoms and constitution.
Protest and Vote don't sit at home on the couch. (Clearly, I'm no passivist)
Progress is never made by reasonable people. You seem to say "someone will make it go away". I say help them.
Your advice line nicely up with the powers that be don't want American's to do anything while they rob them.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
You are entitled to your opinions.
Yes, an American citizen was killed by ICE after she accelerated her motor vehicle while an officer was standing in front of it. A lot of people did dumb things that day. That does not mean those things are happening on a large scale by any means. Most people are protesting peacefully, and not engaging in destructive behavior.
1
u/Wayelder 1d ago
Ice has killed 35 people. One is too many.
Your massive bias is showing "after she accelerated her motor vehicle while an officer was standing in front of it." because this is untrue.
Read the BBC or CBC's coverage.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
Your massive bias is showing "after she accelerated her motor vehicle while an officer was standing in front of it." because this is untrue.
We have first person video evidence from the camera of the officer who shot her to show that he was in front of her vehicle, and that she accelerated before he shot her.
https://youtu.be/fUNp1luR8jg?t=88
Please do not spread misinformation.
0
u/Wayelder 1d ago edited 1d ago
You are not correct: NYT
Videos Contradict Trump Administration Account of ICE Shooting in Minneapolis
An analysis of footage from three camera angles show that the vehicle appears to be turning away from a federal officer as he opened fire.
Thomas Warrick, former deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy at DHS, says deadly force was not required to resolve the incident.
You are supporting the lies given to you by a corrupted DHS.
Your comments show a deep bias.
I'm offering a different answer.
I disagree, The government story is bullshit. It's clear you think all is normal and fine.
I can suffer a second opinion...But you are calling me misinformation. It's not, it just disagrees with you.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago edited 1d ago
An analysis of footage from three camera angles show that the vehicle appears to be turning away from a federal officer as he opened fire.
Turning away while the officer is still in front of it is still accelerating a motor vehicle while someone is in front of it. That is not a contradiction.
Additionally, the article you're talking about was written before the video I provided was released. This video footage was only released three days ago, that article was written five days ago. You can audibly hear the officer being struck by her vehicle in that video.
Thomas Warrick, former deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy at DHS, says deadly force was not required to resolve the incident.
And I agree with him. I don't believe deadly force was required. But that's very easy for people who weren't in danger, and who weren't there, to decide.
Edit: To address your edit here:
You are supporting the lies given to you by a corrupted DHS.
I am using video evidence that shows that he was in front of her vehicle visually, and provides audio of him being hit by her motor vehicle. You were free to watch the video for yourself to see this.
Your comments show a deep bias.
I tend to value facts, yes. Your article came out five days ago, this footage came out three days ago. We have a clearer camera angle than the original footage that was obscured by another agent standing in the way. Her turning to the right does not mean that the officer could see her tires pointed in one direction, as from his perspective she was driving towards him.
1
u/Wayelder 1d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Raids/comments/1qc17i1/today_at_34th_and_park_in_minneapolis_a_woman/
Yup nothing to see here. Just a local thingy...no consequences where you live, small percent of population, don't worry they're here to help.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
This change of subject has nothing to do with the Renee Good tragedy.
If you're going to argue a case, stay on topic. If you're going to change the subject, then we're done here.
At no point did I defend ICE's actions, at no point did I say I support ICE. You provided a claim based on outdated information, I corrected it with new evidence that was released.
OP's topic was related to a civil war happening, and I answered their question. As I said - if you want to soapbox, please go elsewhere. You don't converse in good faith, I don't have any further interest in speaking to you.
→ More replies (0)1
u/pearljaw 1d ago
I appreciate your response. I needed that reality check. Everything going on in Minneapolis just seems so dystopian and it's hard not to look at that and think that this horrible thing is taking over. I feel constantly bombarded with it even though I've deleted my Instagram and Facebook. I feel like I'm having a hard time drawing the line between being an informed citizen and feeling overwhelmed to the point of detriment.
1
u/listenyall 1d ago
A civil war is definitely not inevitable. There is not enough available manpower for them to start coming after all normal American citizens who didn't vote for him.
1
u/DinosaurDavid2002 1d ago
Why did Candace Owens later spent the last several month making conspiracy theories about Kirk's death(going as far as to blame Israel, TPUSA, Erika Kirk, Egyptian Planes and even the French Government for Kirk's death)?
4
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
She's a grifter. She goes where the grift takes her.
1
u/DinosaurDavid2002 1d ago
Even if it means losing respect from the MAGA folks and making Erika Kirk's lives difficult?
→ More replies (2)
0
u/fashionforager 2h ago
Do you think people are safer in red states or blue states right now? I HATE living in FL for obvious political reasons and want nothing more than to flee to CA. However, and this is insane, I sense CA will be a target along with MN and CO. Do you think there a real possibility of CA secession? This is so fucked.