Much as Bernie will definitely continue to be the face of the movement, I have doubts he has many years left for politics. We’re in need of new faces for that same initiative.

Some context:

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36e41dx425o
• https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/03/02/how-border-apprehensions-ice-arrests-and-deportations-have-changed-under-trump/
• https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/3266633/biden-did-not-abolish-ice-not-problem-democratic-party/

The basic idea is, while Trump aims for very visible rhetoric to inflame his racist base, ICE’s presence has still gone up regardless of which president is taking the chair. In fact, Biden beat Trump’s deportation numbers (and I’m sure given his ego, he aims to inflate that further, and finds due process one of his obstacles).

One thing that can be said is that when ICE has been in the news, it was never visibly aiming for cruelty under Democratic presidents. But that’s also only accounting for the cases that we know about. And, the last article points out how even through a full term, Biden not only failed to address the growing worries of cruel behavior within ICE, but built them a new quarter-billion-dollar headquarters.

I mean, you have to go where the evidence takes you, even if you don’t like the results. The best thing you could perhaps say about Biden or Obama, was simply that any of their direct participation in border patrol activities followed rule of law.

Generally, CBP/ICE has stayed above much direct scrutiny or supervision, and if an individual doesn’t have reporters, lawyers, or family asking after them (sometimes even then) a lot can be hidden even from administration.

It’s very likely Trump did not do much to “push” ICE’s behavior, he just enabled them, and they reward him by threatening his direct opponents.

What might be scary is if America’s Auschwitz moment is revealed to be completely independent of administration. We’ve already heard many stories about ICE during each presidency, just that many details were hidden or unconfirmed.

It was the same way at the end of WW2. Even many Germans were aghast at what they’d been doing at the camps.

Politics is a form of negotiation with other elements of leadership to make a nation’s major policy decisions.

Musk, you never DID get involved in politics. You hired a private army and got involved in criminal intimidation.

It’d be very curious if there was literally no country on the planet that permitted him entry. I was about to say Russia, but he’s only been useful as a pawn in the US to them.

I’ve wanted this for ages. And it’s represented so well in Republicans having only one platform: “Oppose Democrats. If it makes a Democrat angry, do it.”

Cleanse - and I mean CLEANSE - the opposition party. No one here can claim the Democrats never have good ideas. And yet, we can definitely do better than them. A better party means having better ideas - not just “Stop them libruls”. Bernie just toured the States with a message of exactly what that would look like.

“In power”? In a perfect world he’d never again be on this side of a prison cell!!

The horrific absurdity is that even Trump was beginning sentences with “Somebody should …” AFTER he became president.

They are too used to the conspiracy-theorist, “humble-truth-finder” mindset EVEN when they are at the top.

One place that there’s still a lot of defiance is from lawyers and judges. There’s still scary stories there about attorney intimidation and even surrender, but courts are often winning against him. Brian Cohen recently interviewed Marc Elias who resolved not to cater to threats, and even Chief Justice Roberts gave a warning to Trump over his attempts to use bullying instead of normal appellate process.

It is in fact common for presidents to make up new advisory positions. If Trump wanted to make up an “Advisor of Best-Tasting Coffee”, there’s no problems there - they can help him make decisions with executive orders, or inform Congress about best steps forward for certain initiatives, etc. So just “making up a role” isn’t an issue in itself.

BUT, even the attorney general or SoD would not have powers to fire people at will all over the administration. In many court cases it’s been found even Trump himself wouldn’t have that power.

I learned about this only recently, and was very disappointed on this.

It’s made me examine my own biases that I’ve only “grumbled” about Biden’s relatively quiet acceptance of Israeli genocide, and now understanding he deported protestors. I’d desperately want to understand what drives the tacit support there. That said: The “Genocide Joe” tagline didn’t ever convince me.

EDIT: Wow, and now I’m being thrown back in a loop and wondering if the links I just came across earlier today were correct, or if I was reading info out of context. Sounds as though, yes, ICE kept deporting in often suspect circumstances under Biden, but those were unrelated to protests? I’ll…leave this comment up as a public lesson in how easy it is to be misinformed while I keep reading to understand as best I can.

I have not confirmed, but a post on BlueSky suggested this was just a postured threat and not taking place. I suggested to one of the threatened families that he should immediately file a Tort lawsuit against the administration anyway, just to make clear even threats won’t be accepted.

I’m the opposite. I know that snappy comebacks on live stages are not what make a presidency great. Even if someone can’t give immediate responses in a debate, I can respect them if they display anger and passion when appropriate, and reason and negotiation when that’s appropriate. You might be overestimating that a president needs to be an image of perfection all the time to every single person, when our current one survived conviction as a sex offender.

I’ve wanted to develop a conversation on this subject for a long time, because it’s a fallacy “both sides” have fallen for: The fact that illegal actions are often right, and legal actions are often immoral.

People will often harp on the fact that an act was “technically not legal”; yet throughout history, we have needed illegal acts to frame what’s right in the world. When we discuss these things online, it’s more honest to talk about “What the harm is” - a subject that often leans in favor of left-leaning opinions both for what’s illegal (living in the USA illegally, generally causing negative harm) and improperly using presidential powers to shut down government agencies (not just illegal, but also extremely harmful).

If you disagree and specifically want to harp on legality, then I invite you to see what happens if you start shooting jaywalkers in the street for their flagrant violation of the law. Prosecutorial discretion exists for a very important reason.

The sudden rush of tankies in the comments indicates to me that this is a strong enough move to make some oligarchs worried.

When Bernie Sanders brought forward another fervent request for free healthcare for all Americans, and the only retort the R he was addressing could come up with was a completely fabricated lie about Bernie taking money from pharmaceutical companies, I stopped believing anyone sensible could oppose it.

“Ew, Obamacare? I’d rather have the Affordable Care Act!!”

The short answer is: Yes.

The long answer is: YEEEEESSSS.

Politicians come in varying types, and most want to hold what power they have. It’s all they have - they’re literally at risk of being fired every few years. Many of them know what the right thing is to do, but worry that more domestic issues are their voter’s real concern. So, if they confirm a whack job in Congress while taking a back room deal to boost employment numbers in their state, they’ll do it - perhaps reluctantly.

But that CHANGES if their office is flooded with calls, or even just signed emails. It is a BIG oh shit moment: “Wait, people actually care about what’s happening in Washington as opposed to here??” The biggest problem reps have had, as repeatedly echoed in interviews, is they don’t know which issues are most significant to their voters. The result may be a matter of trading favors to be given table scraps, etc.

It is OUR problem too - we thought it was a common sense, braindead position not to vote for a diaper grandpa that spends 90% of its time drooling over Fox News, but the active voting population disagreed! So don’t think it is a hard mistake to make!

Every time people with experience judge these issues, they have recommended the same thing. Even if you live in a red state that won by 30 points, even if you live in a blue state that won by 20.

I encourage you to watch the movie Darkest Hour. London Parliament did NOT think it would be an obvious decision to oppose Hitler, AT ALL. They insisted Britain would chew them up for pushing them into a “pointless” war against a legitimate machine of progress and industry. It finally took Churchill going nutso and taking a subway ride in public to get a chance to actually see how people felt.

AOC talked about exactly this in her video (it’s over an hour long, but when you have time, I’d say it’s worth a watch). There was a specific effort to start this madness after Congress adjourned for the week, and there’s been a scramble to get back for continued pushback.

And, even for democrats we presume to fight for these issues, there is complacency where people only whine on social media without making themselves known directly to their representatives. That’s important both for people in Democrat, and Republican districts, to make it known their constituents are not blind to these problems.

There’s also mounting evidence that many of them didn’t actually stay home.

https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/