If the position of the tweet you posted was fully irrelevant to your point, fine, OK, then thats just a really weird choice of tweet. We can move on. But you can hardly complain that I asked about the literal subject of the tweet in your post.
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
...are you even reading my posts?
Other people here, am I somehow not being as clear and coherent as I think I am being? Because I feel like I've spelled everything out as clearly as humanly possible. I literally have no idea how much clearer I can make my point so if anyone has any suggestions, let me know.
Dude, for fuck sake.
You've been perfectly clear after the second or so post, explaining that your point is not related to whats actually in the tweet.
That would be absolutely fine. But rather than just say that, you went hyper-aggressive, blaming me for even considering that the tweet might have been relevant, insulting me for asking about it, and making bizarre off-target assumptions about whether I get involved in protests (!?)
You could have just said. Then I'd say ok, and on we go. But instead we have this furious hostility towards even the question of whether the tweet in your post was relevant to what you were saying. And so I have to defend myself. It was a reasonable question.
Calm the fuck down and respond without the zero-to-ten-thousand aggression, and we wouldn't end up here.
Which is not what that tweet says. At all.
It is pretty clear. You built a strawman to be able to demonize the Democrats some more. You disregard the actual content of the tweet you yourself brought up to extrapolate from it agreement to the implied continuing existence of ICE.
Last edited:
"when we’re in the majority, ICE masks coming off"
The exact quote of the Tweet
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said Democrats are discussing ways to prohibit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers from covering their faces when carrying out enforcement operations — should the party retake the majority in the 2026 midterm elections.
“When we are in the majority, the masks are coming off,” the California Democrat told The New Republic’s Greg Sargent, in a report published Wednesday.
Swalwell said Democrats are exploring ways to tie funding for ICE to legislation that would bar officers from wearing masks — an issue that has galvanized Democrats amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration in U.S. cities.
Senate Democrats recently introduced legislation that would require Homeland Security officials to wear visible ID cards and to prevent them from wearing face coverings that obscure their faces.
But Swalwell said the ongoing discussions he’s having with other Democrats would go further than that, making ICE funding contingent on first prohibiting masks.
“We cannot have a budget that allows them to wear masks,” Swalwell told Sargent. “We’re not going to fund a department that does that.”
and from the story
Again, seems pretty clear they want to keep ICE, they just don't want ICE to wear masks. Again, they want to keep the powers and abuses Trump uses as long as they get to be the ones in charge of it.
Because nobody cares dude, go build strawman arguments elsewhere.
K. May I suggest that if you don't care about a position, and will aggressively refuse to answer any questions about that position, it might not be a good idea to post a tweet expressing exactly that position. Sort of invites discussion about it.
You asked a question, got an answer you didn't like, and kept pushing it like you were saying something anyone cared about. Don't get surprised when people start to tell you off for not listening.
No: I asked a question literally about the topic someone posted about, and received a response of hyper-hostility about the fact i asked about that topic. Which obviously prompted defence.
Last edited:
Actually you got a calm and rational response about their thoughts on the subject, and then kept asking the same question that he clearly didn't care about. You picked a fight.
Lol sure.
"Its a stupid fucking question"
"Y'all will go to brunch and ignore it"
"You latch onto some random thing about the post that has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I AM SAYING."
Very calm and rational. And note that until the "stupid fucking question" post, I had not received an actual answer to what I asked.
His first actual response to your question. Don't try to lie to people.
This post does not answer the question of whether ICE should be allowed to wear masks and conceal their IDs. That was answered after. In the "stupid fucking question" post.
Had we had an "no, but that wasn't my point in bringing it up", we'd have had full agreement and moved on.
Demolition begins on East Wing of White House for Trump’s new $250 million ballroom
WASHINGTON — Demolition began Monday on the East Wing of the White House to make way for President Trump’s massive new $250 million ballroom.
nypost.com
Because it's a stupid question in the face of his answer.
I think in this case, the "no" was implied by saying that ICE shouldn't exist period. I mean, otherwise, he'd be saying "ICE shouldn't exist, but I'm fine if they wear masks and conceal their IDs while not existing."
Thanks for your opinion. Perhaps just answering it, without flipping the fuck out and hurling insults, might have skipped all this.
All this can be inferred, yes, but not safely. For one thing, there are legitimate accelerationists, who believe things should be made worse in order to provoke a more radical response. We've seen responses on this board before that border on accelerationism-- "well maybe more Trump will force people to stand up for leftism" etc.
Secondly, the question was also intended to be about whether we want ICE's power to be restricted in the absence of abolition. We all know restriction is more easily achievable than abolition. And there are plenty of people who would actively reject any restriction on ICE's power because they see it as an unacceptable compromise with the organisation existing at all.
These are all positions some leftists hold. You may think its straightforward that leftists would want abolition, but failing that, would prefer restriction to running wild. But that's not where a lot of leftists stand.