What did Democrats do wrong?

[Trausti]

The Democrat party has become the "women writing love letters to serial killers" writ large.

 

[EHocking]

No, you’re thinking of posters to Truth Social.

 

[Trausti]

No, you’re thinking of posters to Truth Social.

It's a party that values releasing criminals into communities rather than deporting them far away. If you had that choice, why would opt for the former?

 

[bruto]

The Democrat party has become the "women writing love letters to serial killers" writ large.

Credibility is hard to assert when you continually, and knowingly, refer to a party which does not exist.

It's two extra letters. It's the internet, so you can't even say it saves ink. If I, for example, suggested leaving half the letters out of "the Republican party," starting with the "L" you'd be correct in suggesting it's childish, and a low blow. Aim higher.

 

[EHocking]

It's a party that values releasing criminals into communities rather than deporting them far away. If you had that choice, why would opt for the former?

Oh, I’d just stay in Not-America, and not have to worry about my government trying to kill me because I disagree with the Cuntmander in Chief.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's a party that values releasing criminals into communities rather than deporting them far away. If you had that choice, why would opt for the former?

Unlike Republicans, who pardon drug dealers and cover up sexual abuse of minors.

 

[dirtywick]

is the guy that voted for trump making moral judgments on the people who didn’t vote for trump? lol dishonesty must be a virtue

 

[jimbob]

It's a party that values releasing criminals into communities rather than deporting them far away. If you had that choice, why would opt for the former?

That is quite a disingenuous take. I'm sure you can find plenty of people with misdemeanours against them, but it's probably a stretch to call them criminals.

It's a principle of justice that the state should err on the side of presuming innocence, "better a hundred murderers go free than one innocent person hangs" so of course there will be some. However nobody in the Democratic Party is in favour of the president providing pardons for serious crimes if the criminals give sufficient money to the president

 

[Emily's Cat]

America is not using it's military to protect other countries - it's to shovel money to defense contractors and distract from domestic issues.

As evidenced by there being no change at all in EU and UK expenditures for their country defenses, and to defend Ukraine, when Trump *said* they were going to stop footing the bill against Russia?

All of the US's allies rely on US military might to protect them from aggressors. None of them can stand on their own against an attacker right now. I'm not even sure if the entirety of EU and English speaking nations combined could stand against Russia if Putin went all-in. And Russia's military is demonstrably dog ◊◊◊◊. While the prevailing opinion is that China and NK are paper tigers whose military is largely an illusion, there's a lot more uncertainty about how much damage they could do if they got aggressive.

Yes, it distracts from domestic issues sometimes. I don't disagree with that at all. But the reality is that the rest of the world absolutely relies on the US military to keep them safe. And because of that reliance, they don't spend their GDP on defense. I would quite happily say that the US should spend less on maintaining a "world" military, and more on our own domestic issues and systems... but turns out EU gets pretty anxious whenever we announce a reduction in our spending.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Many people don't think that neighbours who have been living peacefully in their community for years or even decades, obeying the law, working hard, and making significant contributions, deserve to be dragged from their homes by armed enforcement officers in front of their terrified children and treated abominably before being deported back to a place they took great risks to escape. Not even if they bent one or two laws in order to do so.

If the majority of the electorate of a state consist of such people, and they elect officials accordingly, those officials may well stop fully co-operating with a federal authority which was elected by a majority of voters who think otherwise.

If that federal authority reacts by flooding the state with thousands of masked thugs that lack of co-operation will almost certainly turn into deliberate obstruction, and eventually outright rebellion.

Minnesota was engaging in deliberate obstruction well before ICE showed up.

The root cause of that situation, it seems to me, is a fundamental difference of values: the values which drive some people to vote Democrat, and others to vote Republican. I'd say it's compassion vs selfishness, because I'm a lifelong socialist. YMMV.

I don't think it's compassion for the police to apprehend an illegal alien and charge them with a crime, note that they're here illegally, and then release that criminal back into the populace at large.

So what's the solution? Force states whose populations fundamentally disagree with federal laws to toe the federal line (whether that's forcing red states to obey a blue administration, or blue states to obey a red one)? Give more autonomy to the states? Civil war?

I think you're working from a very tilted idea of how immigration enforcement works. In most of the US, immigration works with local law enforcement. Local LEOs and prisons identify illegals when they're apprehended, and they inform ICE that they've done so. Local LEOs then hold that illegal (often after they serve time for their crimes) for ICE. ICE shows up and takes custody of the person, processes, and deports them. That's how it works in most of the US, and it works smoothly and without any serious issues.

ICE rarely engages in efforts to find and capture illegals on their own. It's pretty much only large-scale criminal enterprises where ICE works with DEA or other agencies. Rarely it's cases where there's been a legitimate report of an employer using illegals en masse.

The difference here is that these sanctuary cities have decided that they *will not* recognize federal law. They *will not* inform ICE when a criminal they've apprehended is here illegally. And even if there's a pre-existing deportation order for the criminal, they *will not* hold them for ICE. They turn them loose back into the populace.

What's particularly interesting is that these sanctuary cities *did* cooperate with Biden and Obama, the *did* hold criminals for ICE custody and deportation. But as soon as Trump was in office, those cities turned immigration into the hill they're happy to have their own citizens die on. Not because the actually genuinely care about protecting criminals who are here illegally (seeing as they didn't do so under other administrations), but because they're using their own citizens in a partisan ploy to gain power. It's not compassion, it's intentional reckless endangerment of their own citizens while trying to incite a rebellion.

If you think that using citizens to instigate unrest for political gain is a "good" thing, I don't think you and I agree on what is good, nor what is compassionate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But still peaceful, so I don't see why that's a good reason to ignore the 1st Amendment.

...

Again that description seems like protected speech to me.

Vandalism, property damage, harassment, and threats are neither peaceful nor are they protected speech. They're crimes in every location in the US.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

As evidenced by there being no change at all in EU and UK expenditures for their country defenses, and to defend Ukraine, when Trump *said* they were going to stop footing the bill against Russia?

All of the US's allies rely on US military might to protect them from aggressors. None of them can stand on their own against an attacker right now. I'm not even sure if the entirety of EU and English speaking nations combined could stand against Russia if Putin went all-in. And Russia's military is demonstrably dog ◊◊◊◊. While the prevailing opinion is that China and NK are paper tigers whose military is largely an illusion, there's a lot more uncertainty about how much damage they could do if they got aggressive.

Yes, it distracts from domestic issues sometimes. I don't disagree with that at all. But the reality is that the rest of the world absolutely relies on the US military to keep them safe. And because of that reliance, they don't spend their GDP on defense. I would quite happily say that the US should spend less on maintaining a "world" military, and more on our own domestic issues and systems... but turns out EU gets pretty anxious whenever we announce a reduction in our spending.

completely uninformed regurgitation of right-wing talking point.

The EU could kick Russia out of Ukraine, no problem, using its vastly superior air power and number of modern MBTs. And Russia's critical cities are right at the border to the EU, whereas the economic heart of the EU is completely out of reach of Russian ground troops.
It's just cheaper and more strategic to let Russia bleed out and wait for Putin to fall out of a window. If the EU was actually to spend what it told Trump it would, it would soon eclipse the US in military power.

As many top US military leaders have said, the US has no chance whatsoever to prevent China from taking Taiwan whenever it wants. China builds 10 naval ships for every 1 the US is. In most wargames, China sinks every US carrier group that gets within range in a matter of hours. The US has no power to militarily coerce China in any way.

As with every time the US got a bloody nose when fighting abroad, it turns its focus to Central and South America, where it can be sure of easy victories.

What the US does better than anyone, and will probably continue to keep the lead in, is power projection: it can move huge amounts of personell and material around the world very quickly. But as everyone has learned by now: America doesn't have the will to stay long enough with enough troops and a coherent plan to affect permanent change.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This was 6 months ago, so maybe, there's a good reason why people are protesting about governmental overreach.

I'm all for protesting government overreach. I'm not for creating a false narrative and inciting rebellion and violence for political points.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Vandalism, property damage, harassment, and threats are neither peaceful nor are they protected speech. They're crimes in every location in the US.

except for the United States Capitol, right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Gee, it's almost as if they did not believe in those "open borders" the trumpies are always going on about.

Gee, it's almost as if in 1995 they didn't have ESP and didn't anticipate the views their party would put forth 25 years later...

 

[Emily's Cat]

which, by the way, it would be on pace to beat

Indeed. Let's be generous and say 6 months. 8 ICE killings in four months means 16 per year, times 8 years equals... anyone?

That's correct. 128. Whoever got 128 can stay after class and clean the blackboard erasers.

4.5 years of Trump vs 8 years of Obama

8 in 4.5 years works out to 14.2 in 8 years.

 

[Emily's Cat]

except for the United States Capitol, right?

No, property damage and vandalism committed at the capitol were also crimes.

Unlike some people, I use consistent standards.

 

[Segnosaur]

4.5 years of Trump vs 8 years of Obama

8 in 4.5 years works out to 14.2 in 8 years.

If you want to play the "trump has actually been in power for 4.5 years" then you have to include the ~40 deaths that occurred of people in ICE custody between 2017 and 2020 in his first term. (Don't havre exact numbers since i couldn't find if some died before or after trump took office) . So it's closer to 50 in 4.5 years, or on scale for 90 deaths by the end of trumps second term.

So, still more deaths than under obama.

 

[jimbob]

Vandalism, property damage, harassment, and threats are neither peaceful nor are they protected speech. They're crimes in every location in the US.

So point out the vandalism.

And charge people who have been breaking the law.

It doesn't excuse the clear overreach, and violation of due process and abuse both non citizens and citizens.

 

[jimbob]

No, property damage and vandalism committed at the capitol were also crimes.

Unlike some people, I use consistent standards.

Ah. Glad you have changed your mind.

Sure... one 'side' wandered through the Capitol and did no material property damage and caused no actual harm. But you're not