That's the key bit. They don't need to be proven right. They don't even need their story to be consistent.
> “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” > ― Jean-Paul Sartre
"I'm coming to Boston and I'm bringing hell with me." --Homan in February
"Do I expect violence to escalate? Absolutely." -- Tom Homan in March
"I actually thought about getting up and throwing that man a beating right there in the middle of the room" -- Homan in July, referring to a D congressman
But American citizens exercising their constitutional rights? THEY need to tone down the rhetoric.
I will say though that I am also a bit scared. When government officials push a blatantly false narrative, that they know is a lie, and their supporting voters completely accept that version of reality over what they can see with their eyes, it suggests that those same voters would be okay with ANYTHING the administration does.
It's been this way for a while, though. It's just that the stakes of the things they are willing to tell folks to "2+2=5" about seem to have dropped substantially. It used to be about the goodness of US foreign interventions and, say, "imperial capitalism" in general, and they made plenty of fun propaganda to support it: "Red Dawn" or "First Blood"- quality and fun propaganda.
When they started kidnapping folks from our communities who've been peacefully chilling and being community members for decades, it got a lot less abstract, I think.
If it helps, understand that it becomes ever easier to get folks to disbelieve the government when they can see it; it's far harder to get the average brunch-enjoyer to care when they are doing a central american coup... much easier to care when they are shooting yt wmn in the streets.
Famously, there are plenty of stories in the west about eastern-bloc countries and propaganda, where everyone knows that that the papers don't tell the truth but the truth circulates regardless.
So maybe don't worry about the false narratives- worry about the recouperative powers of capital to pull all those radicalized liberals back into the fold instead of using a mass line of organization to force structural changes.
They should augment deployed enforcement with those who have such expertise.
Why is crowd control even needed?
ICE existed for many, many years before now, and them doing their job never caused crowds previously (under both R and D administrations), so what (rhetorically) changed?
Deploying literal hordes of poorly trained, well-armed men onto American streets with explicit guidance that runs directly contrary to the US Constitution's plain text can, will, and SHOULD attract crowds in opposition.
Hope that helps!
Now, when we see ICE grabbing someone, we know that person probably won't have access to legal representation even if they are here legally, even if they're a citizen. We know they might be sent to a concentration camp in a foreign country they aren't from, and we know they might even get murdered in the street. It's a very different dynamic.
Not going to debate with someone who doesn't have the courage to stand behind their convictions. Your account is a throwaway and only exists to launder white supremacist talking points. Best of luck with your new American government, we all know it ended well for the leaders of Italy and Germany.
"They are actively committing a crime against the citizens of the US." What crime? You are confused if you think being an undocumented immigrant is a crime in it of itself. It's not, despite the right's attempts to paint them as "illegal." And, even if it were a crime, that doesn't suddenly make it "evil" or something that victimizes the "citizens of the US." The law is not the arbiter of good and evil, and very often it's on the side of evil. Miscegenation was a crime. Sodomy was a crime. Those acts were no more evil then than they are now.
We have numerous examples of people who have followed all legal procedures and have legal status in the US who were likewise denied basic Constitutional protections.
Here are a few relevant sources:
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2025-04/FIRE%20Ozt...
https://www.cato.org/blog/50-venezuelans-imprisoned-el-salva...
Why?
LOL. Why do you assume you'll get a hearing?
As Timothy Snyder (an historian of Central and Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and the Holocaust) observed last year:
> If you accept that non-citizens have no right to due process, you are accepting that citizens have no right to due process. All the government has to do is claim that you are not a citizen; without due process you have no chance to prove the contrary.
* https://xcancel.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/190429656556234343...
"Well I'll get due process because I just need to say I'm a citizen!"
Bro... to whom do you say that? When? In what forum? That is literally the entire point of contention!
https://www.wcvb.com/article/21-citizenship-oaths-canceled-f...
It also makes it easier for employers to get away with poor working conditions for those workers.
What the statistics actually show is that the United States was a far more attractive destination for immigrants under Biden, but that enforcement policies were largely the same. That makes sense since enforcement policy is mostly set by Congress and not by POTUS.
The increased appeal of the US is entirely explained by the fact that the US economy was excelling far beyond any country in the world, and especially any country in the western hemisphere. At the same time, Central and South America were getting hit by successive political and economic shocks amplified by COVID.
The significant reduction in immigrants towards the tail end of Biden is not because they suddenly decided to "follow the law" and "close the border." It's that they decided NOT to follow the law anymore and to unilaterally ignore the asylum laws that Congress actually sets.
This was later struck down in court: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/district-court-strikes-d...
So really what you're seeing is the difference between the US being a desirable place to come to versus an undesirable one. I'm sympathetic to the argument that there's moral hazard involved in making the US appear to be highly desirable to people who we don't want to accept, but I'm not sympathetic at all to the view that that means the executive can simply ignore whatever laws they want, or they can turn the US into such a dystopian hellhole that only the most desperate immigrants around would bother attempting entry.
Some additional sources:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-deportation-re...
https://www.cato.org/blog/data-show-trump-wouldve-released-m...
At this point after how they've been operating, they shouldn't even be allowed to carry weapons. No guns, no grenades, no pepper spray, no masks to escape accountability. These are supposed to be public servants, they should be accountable to the public. If someone they're trying to apprehend reacts violently then they can escalate the situation to the local police or maybe the FBI after the federal agencies have done the work of regaining the public trust.
They have not been supporting ICE on warrentless invasions, fishing expeditions, assaulting local citizens.
At this point, you just have to assume the truth is exactly the opposite of what the feds are saying. How do you know a fed is lying...their mouth is moving.
And I don't mean this towards you necessarily. I get some people are still entertaining folks who will never participate in a conversation in good faith because it might influence ignorant observers who stumble across the conversation. But does that ever actually play out? How much time is wasted on people of obvious bad faith? How much time has been wasted on the Shapiros, the Kirks, the Tuckers of the world? The random HN commenter who drops obvious bullshit before disappearing to never be heard from again? You cannot out earnest people flooding the zone with bullshit.
https://mn.gov/doc/about/news/combatting-dhs-misinformation/
In addition, they are cooperating where they can: https://mn.gov/doc/about/news/combatting-dhs-misinformation/
Kooky idea, I know.
Kooky idea, I know.
https://www.propublica.org/article/kristi-noem-dhs-ad-campai...
"Firm Tied to Kristi Noem Secretly Got Money From $220 Million DHS Ad Contracts The company is run by the husband of Noem’s chief DHS spokesperson and has personal and business ties to Noem and her aides. DHS invoked the “emergency” at the border to skirt competitive bidding rules for the taxpayer-funded campaign."
and that cherry on top:
"DHS, White House shared white nationalist song in ICE recruitment posts"
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/white-national...
Previously I felt like a hyperbolic nerd, and now I have a whole lot of new friends all working on the same stuff. Wheee. Go team. I hate it.
Fortunately it feels very much the other direction, lately- more folks seeing the dangers, more willingness to take the long bet. Fewer folks at brunch.
That's a bet some of have been taking for a while, though it's oftent felt dumb, and we haven't needed a great shocking occasion to do it.
where was everyone standing when she said to drive? could she see the ICE agent in front of the car? also, you can tell someone to "drive drive", but that does not mean to "drive over whoever is in front of you". reads to me like you are as guilty of reading more into it as you claim they are for not quoting 'drive drive'.
This is the upgraded version of "you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride" -- where that ride may take you halfway across the country and be detained incommunicado for many days before being ejected out of the holding center and on your own to get home.
This is well-documented and a legitimate concern of any legal protester being illegally detained.
> violently extracting her from the car
Isn't that what always happens when someone doesn't comply when told to exit their vehicle? Since when has not complying with an officer on the street resulted them in saying, 'Oh, okay, carry on what you were doing'?
I imagine if I parked perpendicular on a road and danced while honking my horn (timestamp 39 seconds in video below), then not complying when the police told me to exit the vehicle, the police would try to extract me by force as well.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wrlUUPZPpaY
I always thought a protest was chanting with signs, but it seems like times have changed.
I haven't seen videos and of officers going up to people holding signs (who are not trying to be physical with the officers) and initiating physical contact.
I haven't seen video of the officers walk up to Alex Pretti and tackle him for no reason. I have seen a video of him on a prior day kicking and breaking the light off a vehicle:
https://x.com/RyanSaavedra/status/2016611647553413126
Is the constant blaring of whistles at Alex Pretti's shooting, to alert people, or make it more likely for the officers to make a mistake?
I'm not a fan of anything that's going on, and it appears that people are trying to make things worse, not better. Why?
Not complying with a masked men with guns who gave conflicting info (leave now/get out of the car) who were going to mess her up as much as they could? Really? She was trying to leave.
You should watch the video where Alex Pretti tries to protect and aid a women who was pepper sprayed by ICE officials approaching them, and then tackled and shot multiple times, and then more for good measure.
> I'm not a fan of anything that's going on, and it appears that people are trying to make things worse, not better. Why?
If you are a rationalist, you should be taking in all possible information and be prepared to change your mind as compelling evidence is presednted.
Let's work backwards from the situation: Why is ICE in Minnesota in the first place? Ostensibly because of financial fraud (not their area of interest), and more so, as a show of strength and intimidation.
Steven Miller has publicly stated that ICE has zero accountability and freedom to act as they see fit. 1st Amendment and 4th Amendments are doormats to these people. And with Alex Pretti, they now declare that 2A is null and void too.
So your position is kneel and comply regardless of why?
Edit: I didn't downvote you because I wanted to answer with dialog instead. You send some very mixed messages about not liking what's happening but also blaming the victims for their fate.
I don't blame them for getting shot. From what I can tell, they should not have been shot.
Since when is victim-blaming binary?
I can't say that victims should be aware that their actions or choices have consequences?
> masked men with guns
Did they not know they were going to protest ICE? That they were masked? (And that they're masked because people are harassing them and others?)
If I don't want to risk being shot, I don't go around to other people who I know have guns and are being harassed and assaulted. Neither group should be assaulted - the protestors or the officers.
If I assault someone with a gun, I should be prepared that they might use that gun, especially when they can't think straight because I'm yelling in their faces, blowing whistles at them, kicking the lights off their cars, etc.
If I choose to be a part of a group that's doing those things, I should be prepared to be treated as a member of that group.
> be prepared to change your mind
What should I change my mind about? 'They should not have been shot' - do I change that?
> Edit: I didn't downvote you because I wanted to answer with dialog instead.
I upvoted you as a thank you for taking the time to write and be apart of this dialogue.
The situation with ICE is in a sense uncharted territory (even with traditional abuses by police there's ostensibly some accountability, but ICE has been declared by the administration to have carte blanch in their operations -- explicitly told that they can act with impunity).
From the goog ai:
The First Amendment protects the rights to free speech and peaceable assembly, allowing public protest in traditional forums like streets, sidewalks, and parks. While peaceful protest is protected, the government can impose content-neutral "time, place, and manner" restrictions, such as permits for large, disruptive, or traffic-obstructing events.
> If I assault someone with a gun, I should be prepared that they might use that gun, especially when they can't think straight because I'm yelling in their faces, blowing whistles at them, kicking the lights off their cars, etc.
It should also be noted that Pretti was absolutely within his rights and had permits to carry and never brandished it. I'm not a gun nut and think that bringing a gun to a protest is not a good idea, but it's a non issue on the justification of his murder.
ICE's presence and actions are not in good faith -- they are not there to catch "murderers, rapists, and other bad guys". They are hunting for any possible bounty regardless of legality and have detained US citizens.
> If I choose to be a part of a group that's doing those things, I should be prepared to be treated as a member of that group.
It's been shown that "being a part of that group" has been loosely applied where people in the vicinity who are not protesters are also being attacked by ICE.
Note that ICE was enforcing the law and removing "bad guys" in the previous administrations without going to the extremes they are now.
And most importantly, it's clear that the Trump administration wants some sort of violence to occur so that it can "justify" notching up enforcemnt even further -- likely martial law.
If you evaluate whats happening as if the government is acting legally and in good faith you are either misinformed or a supporter of the administration and have no loyalty to the Constitution.
when you're in front of of the car at some distance like the shooting ICE in the video and the car is making a turn in front of you, you clearly see that the car is moving away from you to the side, not moving toward you.
News: holy shit this guy murdered that lady on camera.
You: they are slandering ICE.
Make it make sense.
Are we talking about opinionated gender vs biological sex? Or how others shouldn't offend? Trans women sports?
If it is, I think these are firmly opinions about inclusion. Asking people to ignore biological sex isn't the same thing as saying he said Greenland when he said Iceland. It's weird that you even think them comparable.
I agree, these are completely different things. But what is more or less important for changing political reality, is not obvious. I dont buy such arguments like "it is only language".
Why are you inferring that that comment was downvoted for the 13% of it that you quoted rather than something in the other 87%?
The government cannot send out masked, untrained goon squads to bust down doors without warrants or probable cause. They are forbidden from doing that by the Constitution.
The "inevitable tragedies" are from free people exercising their rights in the face of an administration which obviously has nothing but contempt for them.
Sad for you that you fell for it but not expected. If you don’t see murder in the original cell phone videos, you’ll rationalize this any way you can.
> where everything you don't like is AI
This is projection. You're doing the same thing in reverse -- treating AI output with credulity because you want to believe it.
I'm not sure what you mean. The Gastapo was an organ of the state. Geheime Staatspolize means "Secret State Police."
I suppose Gestapo did have more menacing uniforms.
Everyone within the borders of the United States has rights, even if they're here illegally. That's what it means to be a free country.
Without obscuring how bad is it, I don't believe there was ever a time when officials _didn't_ rush to defend federal officers without waiting for key facts to emerge. The us government has constantly loved to say that no one working for them has done anything wrong.
The way Noem et al. immediately started with the violent domestic terrorist rhetoric / we've done nothing wrong was absolutely unheralded, and the government was never like this. When there's a shooting you say that the situation on the ground is dynamic, evidence is being amassed, the subjects are on leave pending the investigation, etc.
This was completely unlike the historic norm, and clearly it was the marching orders. They were obviously instructed to ape Trump's habit of utter confidence in the face of devastating reality.
And I mean, it just reflects how Trump operates. Reality is secondary to what you claim it is, and if you lie, and everyone knows you lied, just repeat the lie again and again and it breaks many people's brains until some subset of the population will just go "Wow, no one is so shameless or vile they'd lie like this, so he must be telling the truth!". Similarly, immediately pretend that these situations and slam dunk, quick-close cases with over the top rhetoric (terrorism! ICE agent hospitalized in mortal danger, etc) no further consideration needed, is perfectly coherent with the way Trump has managed to con so, so many.
That’s a strange conclusion to make, because the definition of a “fall guy” is someone who takes the blame, while others, who are more culpable, go free. Whereas most critics would say he’s the “kingpin”, and supporters say he’s “the decider”.
You don’t need a very long awareness of political history to find examples of what government was like before to realize the US is in extraordinary times in terms of loyalty to his leadership and presidency. You don’t need to look long before you find repeat examples—from the Congress, the Supreme Court, and his appointees—of individuals making excuses or previously inconceivable accommodations for the president’s conduct, choices, and decisions to then conclude the president is, as they say, “calling the shots”. That is not the characteristic of a “fall guy”, but a “kingpin”.
Personally, I feel we’re lucky that our “dictator-in-chief” is in the pattern of a real estate developer and not, say, a paranoid military general.
But overall, I also disagree. The press has been very easy on Trump, from going easy on the grab then by the pussy tape, to never saying that he lies, to not making an issue out of his mental decline.