this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
552 points (90.0% liked)
196
5509 readers
918 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Citation?
The American Immigration Council:
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/report/still-no-action-taken-complaints-against-border-patrol-agents-continue-go-unanswered/
Behind The Bastards episodes on Border Patrol (including the complaint it has no one overseeing or restricting it):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdStIvC8WeE
What does Liberals complaining about how unconstitutional the actions of the ICE are have to do with my request for citations of the claim that Liberals were fighting to keep them around?
It doesn't. That's the whole point of satirizing the OP by simply reposting their BS whinge.
Because most liberals fell for the border control issue, and would push back against the more progressive "we didn't cross the bkrder, the border crossed us" ethos (in favour of "systems need rules based order for nations to have money/sovereignty"...
The backside of border control is immigration and deportation.
...so the ideas of the Neo-Liberal strands of liberalism (the kinds you get in establishment dems) aren't fully coherent, thought through, or compatible with progressive "respect the people, not the nation" ethics...
But the Neo-Liberal view of borders being a necessary evil for nations, citizenships, laws, and rights - does remain compatible with fascism... Which is what the post is pointing out.
Before demanding sources, please provide you own. What research have you done so far, so others can help you find what you're struggling with?
You want me to backup a counterclaim, with magical evidence of subject nonexistence, to a claim with no sources? Why would I do that?
My point is, you never even bothered to google Kamala ICE policy. If you did, you would have found this article:
https://www.wvtm13.com/article/fact-checking-kamala-harris-border-security/61780748
From 2024.
This is a casual forum, not an academic debate. If you want to start demanding sources for things, show that you've put some good faith effort into disproving the claim. If you just want to reply casually, that's fine. That's what most discussion here is. But when you start demanding a higher level of rigor, it's only polite to demonstrate that level of rigor yourself first.
See that would have been a good response like 4 comments up the chain instead of throwing random insults and an illogical tantrum. But with that in mind, Harris was trying to represent the entire US and not Liberals with those statements, polls places Immigration as a top concern for 61% of Americans, but with a large gap between Republicans and Democrats in the poll and with the months prior sparking discussion of potential civil war over Texas' national guard's interference with federal immigration processing and deployment of razorwire in rivers where crossings were common.
Yeah, not sure what "liberals", hell anyone on the left, would've been able to do to stop this fascism, besides voting, which posts like this seem hell bent on getting us to disagree with each other about.
Let's just pretend Biden didn't have 2 years of near congressional control to prevent the fascist takeover I guess. Or at the very least impede its effect. Never forget Biden never shut down the whole kids in cages shit, or ended the border wall construction outright.
DNC haven't had more than 50 senators in over a decade but he still managed to pass lots of good shit like the IRA and some protections for gay marriage.
They had 51 for 4 years before this current congress. So I'm not really sure you're right.
Incorrect, the last 7 congresses had the following party divisions:
113th 2013-2015 : 53 D - 45 R - 2 I
114th 2015-2017 : 44 D - 54 R - 2 I
115th 2017-2019 : 46/47 D - 50/52 R - 2 I
116th 2019-2021 : 45/46 D - 53/52 R - 2 I
117th 2021-2023 : 46/48 D - 51/50 R - 2/3 I
118th 2023-2025 : 47/48 D - 49 R - 3/4 I
119th 2025-2027 : 45 D - 53/52 R - 2 I - 1 Vacancy
We literally have not had more than 48 D since 2015. The most independents we've ever had since the 1940s was also coincidentally in just before Republicans swept the 2024 election. Every DNC "majority" we've had in the last decade was only with caucusing independents and also VP tiebreaker.
We ALSO never had a DNC supermajority, which is why we had to water down the Public Option healthcare in 2011-2012 due to Independent Joe Lieberman holding out and Republican filibuster, the most we've had since 1979 was only 58.
What I'm getting out of this is that Americans haven't been craving the D in 10 years.
And yet despite everything continuously getting worse they can't figure out what to do differently.
I guess that's fair. Even though the 2 independents caucus with the Dems.
Baseless claims don't fly far with an audience that reads like it's second nature. 🤷🏼♂️
What is "near congressional control"? That just sounds like a disingenuous way to say "didn't have congressional control".
You don’t need congress to send felons to prison.
That's not an answer to my question, but in any case you do still need a trial and conviction. Did you forget about the multiple trials he was facing that were only dropped because he was inaugurated?
Why were all those trials slow-walked?
Were they? It seemed to me more like Trump doing the one thing he's actually good at: dragging out trials.
They didn't even start the process until two years in to the Biden administration. Biden sent the nation to Hell through the oldest liberal failing - seeking to compromise with Republicans. He appointed a Republican as his attorney general. Did you forget that? And then Garland proceeded to slow-walk the Trump prosecution. They only moved forward at all after the House investigatory committees forced their hand.
Are you familiar with the typical timeframes involved in high profile federal cases? Going fast is how you get cases thrown out for minor oversights.
Biden was in the Senate for 50 years. he layed the groundwork for Trump.
lol the twisted logic
it's pretty straightforward logic
They could have EASILY put Trump in prison. There are SO MANY documented crimes he has committed. They actively chose not to because they are controlled opposition owned by the rich.
Not funded ICE, at all.
Here you go
So basically liberals supported if not spearheaded the movement.
No
Liberals where the pearl-clutchers.
Sorting political affiliations into liberals/conservatives is a false dichotomy that basically only happens in the US (due to the two party system). There are other political movements, though. Otherwise, Occupy, BLM, Stop Cop City, Defund the police, etc. would be considered liberal movements, even if they oppose liberal (DNC) politicians.
OOP (the person posting the tweet/toot/notlearningtheblueskylingo) is an explicit leftist, so he makes that distinction.
Any movement that promotes human rights is by definition a Liberal Movement.
Maybe with the philosophical definition. Not with the political definition, though.
OP means the political definition.
The literal definition of Liberal, now and forever, yes. It often gets misused in this social circle because 1) Tankie Propoganda who oppose human rights and social progress in the west and 2) it's often misused by political parties with the word in their name, but if you search the definition you find exactly what I said it is.
Word of advice: The dictionary is a horrible source of authority when it comes to political discussions. You're gonna have a bad time using it, since it ignores political and historical context.
Nevertheless: OOP is correct.
Have fun never having any fruitful political discussions with that attitude. /s
Maybe the person might be from Europe where liberals is used to refer to people on the right (liberal in terms of letting companies do what they want, no regulations etc)
surprising to see people on Lemmy who still.don't know the word 'liberal'
No, that's Daniel Baryon a.k.a "Anark". He's in the so-called US.
That's still what he means, though.
I feel like that would work in reference to a Liberal Party like you find in parts of Europe and Australia, but the word Liberal alone just doesn't work here.
https://www.amazon.com/Apprentices-Sorcerer-Tradition-Critical-Sciences/dp/1608462021