General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSchumer & Jefferies already caving on "No Masks"
That didn't take long.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MineralMan
(150,838 posts)Link to them, please.
mr715
(3,225 posts)I'll admit it is not a full retreat yet.
MineralMan
(150,838 posts)OK, I get it. Good luck with all that...
mr715
(3,225 posts)
Cha
(317,686 posts)Not Even Close...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=greatest_threads
Cirsium
(3,644 posts)“I think there’s agreement that no masks should be deployed in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, as has been the case, horrifying the American people,” Jeffries said.
I am opposed to arbitrary and capricious fashion myself so I am glad to see we are getting tough on that. 
How about getting tough on warrantless arrests, random stops, racial profiling, beatings, extrajudicial detention, executions, cruel and unusual punishment, violations of Habeas Corpus, horrific conditions in privatized holding facilities, lack of access to medical treatment and legal assistance, and denial of due process?
Of course maybe I am letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?
leftstreet
(39,469 posts)
Cattledog
(6,646 posts)they have changed to "No masks, except in extreme situations".
leftstreet
(39,469 posts)Cirsium
(3,644 posts)No masks should be deployed in an arbitrary and capricious fashion.
bigtree
(93,714 posts)Leader Schumer:
Senate Democrats. We're united from one end of our party to the other and we put together some simple common sense proposals that are done every day that are used by police forces and local sheriffs everywhere.
They have three basic objectives. One is to end these roving patrols. You can't just pick someone up on the street, not uh and put them in a dark prison without any kind of warrant. You can't bust someone's door down without any kind of warrant. That's the Constitution. Yet, that's what's going on despicably on the streets of Minnesota and other places.
We're also saying in terms of the roving patrols, some places are off limits, schools, houses of worship, election places. We're saying there shouldn't be racial profiling when they pick people up. And we're saying they can't take an American citizen and lock them up without a warrant, without due process.
The second area we're talking about is accountability and enforcement. These we need a code of force, a force code that's used by states, by police officers all over the states. When you use force and when you don't. We need real training for these people. When you watch the videos, you see they're totally untrained. They're brutal. They're nasty.
We also need to have enforcement that you can go to court and stop this ICE force from doing things. And we need the local and uh uh state governments to be able to force them to do certain things they can't do.
And finally, and maybe most important, no secret police. These guys go around, these people go around with masks. It makes them more brutal. They're never accountable. No one even knows who they are.
There should be cameras. Everyone should have cameras and there should be rules on how they use them. And they have to have regular uniforms, not all the stuff they're wearing. But we cannot have secret police...
There should be no masks except in the most of unusual circumstances. You know, if some guy's picture was put up by a terrorist group or something... but there should be no masks.
...Johnson, the speaker has said he wants to keep the mask. Well, I guarantee you when you go down to his district in Louisiana, the sheriffs and police are identified, fully identified with their name and uh, their number.
That has to happen across America to prevent these rogue forces from terrorizing cities. No secret police. No, no, no, no secret police. I can't even believe we're saying that in America. It's so unamerican. I understand the the administration has expressed concerns about doxing and things like that. I I I want you to like me uh no masks, no secret police - and also an understanding that that that we'll do whatever everyone will do whatever we can to protect them from doxing and from from other things if there are activists that try to to bring harm to them.
But but police officers don't wear masks. Sheriffs don't wear masks. They shouldn't wear masks. And they face the the local police, the local sheriffs face the same problems that these guys have in terms of the potential of doxing and they're able to deal with it but not mask up.
This is just incredible. The American people are asking the Republicans and asking Johnson, why are you against ident police having identities? Why are you against Why are you still saying they should wear masks? They don't have a good answer. They've had no good answers to any of these questions.
And as you said, even President Trump is realizing that they're on the wrong side of this issue. They're on the wrong side morally. They're on the wrong side in in terms of just being an American because we in America have always had these values, have always had this and these rogue this rogue uh ICE group is just terrorizing our cities and violating the constitution every minute they're on the streets and it's showing up in the polling as you say...
watch:
...this isn't about what Democrats are demanding, as much as it is about what republicans are resisting.
That should be the focus of opposition, not on the Democratic legislators' stance that demands the same standards that local police and sheriffs follow.
The demagoguery on this is only slightly more stunning than the people who have fallen for it.
Cirsium
(3,644 posts)Gestapo following some rules is still Gestapo. Policing in the US is not a good model to emulate in any case. ICE has nothing to do with immigration. It is a white nationalist paramilitary strike force going back long before Trump was elected. There is no "immigration problem." People are being grabbed and abused because of their pigmentation or ethnicity. not because of their immigration status.
Poor people should have the same freedom to cross borders that wealthy people do. Poor people are desperately trying to save their families and their very lives. Wealthy people cross borders to exploit and oppress people, setting up sweat shops, plantations, and extraction operations, the very people in the countries from which people are fleeing. Coincidence? No.
If we can't draw a hard line here and now, where and when will we ever? If we can't demand that our representatives do likewise in this crisis, then why talk about politics at all? Why claim to have any sort of principles?
Badges, and ID and cameras and no masks has never stopped police in the US from being rogue forces terrorizing people.
Of course the right wing is the focus of our opposition. Likewise, we should oppose arsonists. That does not mean we cannot criticize the fire fighters we hired. "Yeah, but what about the arsonists?" is no excuse.
bigtree
(93,714 posts)...what you're proposing may well be good for a Democratic majority with the numbers that allow them to decide with their own votes what goes into legislation.
This effort to change the DHS bill isn't about closing the agency. That isn't something Democrats can achieve on their own votes and initiative, and there certainly isn't any legislative avenue in this Congress to close ICE or DHS, so it's just something people talk about while they brush past the legislators actually legislating.
This effort is about what may be achievable in getting a sufficient number of republicans to agree; and then on to the WH.
We can certainly set up the ideal, something that you'd definitely see in a Democratic majority, or just accept that achieving even these demands may save lives - reforms that no republican is independently proposing, and few are really inclined to accept.
When people talk about political leverage, they should realize that Democrats have no actual legislative vehicle to impose anything, and that it's the republicans who are key to ANY reforms in this bill, not just the majority of Democrats who are behind this proposal that Jeffries and Schumer have presented on behalf of the 'united' Democratic membership who have already agreed to stand behind these principles.
This 'line' you're talking about isn't governing, it's just opposition, no matter how correct or valid.
As Bayard Rustin, one of the organizers of the March on Washington said in his book 'Strategies for Freedom,' for any movement or opposition endeavor to succeed, it must have a legislative demand at the head of it's concerns.
Also, as he wrote, unity among those of us who agree is less consequential in that effort than in getting others to agree with us.
It's a pragmatic choice between agitation and action, which is what this period in between elections (contests in which our ideals compete) is supposed to be about as our elected leaders work to reconcile diverse and often disparate interests and concerns into action or law.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
I don’t disagree with your arithmetic, or with the description of what is procedurally achievable in this Congress. Where I disagree is with the premise that legitimacy should be granted or reinforced simply because an institution is currently unavoidable. Some lines are not drawn because they can be enacted today, but because failing to draw them normalizes what should never be treated as acceptable. Reform can save lives in the short term, yes — but it can also entrench structures that are abusive by design and make deeper change harder, not easier, over time.
Rustin was right that movements need concrete demands, but he was writing in a period when institutions were expanding rights, not contracting them, and when legitimacy itself was not the central question. In moments like this, opposition is not a substitute for governing — it is a necessary precursor to any governing worth defending. I’m not confusing agitation with action; I’m arguing that without moral boundary-setting, action collapses into management of harm. What we choose to legitimize now shapes what becomes thinkable later, regardless of what passes this session.
History is full of moments where "what was achievable" preserved institutions that later proved catastrophic. The question isn’t whether reforms might save some lives now — it’s whether they entrench a structure that will take many more later. That’s the risk I’m naming.
MorbidButterflyTat
(4,289 posts)That didn't take long.
leftstreet
(39,469 posts)Believing they're failing to prove they're up to meeting the moment on ICE negotiations is not a reflection of members here
Here's Jeffries from yesterday:
- judicial warrants for entering homes
- no masks "in an arbitrary and capricious fashion"
- no detaining or deporting American citizens
Who will start a DU thread:
YES! Dem Leadership is fighting CAPRICIOUSNESS!!
Cirsium
(3,644 posts)I'm agin it. Always have been.
Capriciousness: governed or characterized by sudden irrational and unpredictable impulses or whims.
It is much better when fascist thugs are organized and their actions are carefully planned, coordinated and premeditated. Enough of this chaotic assault on the American people! It is inefficient.
betsuni
(28,886 posts)
Just_Vote_Dem
(3,568 posts)People complain that they're not doing anything, then when they come out with an announcement, it's not good enough. I dunno...
betsuni
(28,886 posts)Worst case scenario and bad intentions always assumed first. Then the facts come out proving the hysteria wrong. Repeat.
mr715
(3,225 posts)betsuni
(28,886 posts)bigtree
(93,714 posts)...a declaration of their personal principle, perhaps?
Nothing appears defensible in the sophistry in the supposition that Schumer and Jeffries caved on masks by saying they would expect standards that "local police and local sheriffs" follow, with exceptions for concealing identities that they follow for things like anti-terrorism, and undercover work, for example.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D‑Conn.) said the party’s position had not changed in substance. “Common sense dictates that there are sometimes safety reasons why you may need a mask,” Murphy told HuffPost. “But if you’re using a mask to obscure your identity in everyday law enforcement, that should be prohibited by law.”
https://slingshot.news/schumer-jeffries-outline-limits-on-ice-mask-use-as-dhs-funding-deadline-nears/
EarlG
(23,474 posts)Should law enforcement wear masks when on duty if there’s another pandemic?
mr715
(3,225 posts)To the question of masks, medical? Maybe. If law enforcement is operating in a place contaminated with asbestos, yeah.
But I am not in favor of unidentified people wielding executive authority.
EarlG
(23,474 posts)you are saying that you are okay with reasonable exceptions to the no-mask requirement, provided that unidentified people are not wielding executive authority.
What’s the difference between what you are saying and what Schumer and Jeffries are saying?
mr715
(3,225 posts)I am not at the negotiating table.
and I don’t disagree with you on that part. They are legislators, which means they can’t just write a law that says “NO MASKS” because of all the necessary legitimate exceptions that are going to crop up — and also because they’re not in charge of Congress so they can’t write a law on this anyway. As you say, they’re in a negotiation.
So as usual this is a case of Democratic leaders being bad at politics. Instead of focusing on masks, they should be going much harder on the bigger picture — completely unaccountable, violent, untrained, unidentifiable federal agents roaming the streets injuring people, killing people, and violating people’s Constitutional rights on a daily basis. Really, that should be the only message. Everything else is just details.
At the same time though, were they focusing on masks? That perception has been reinforced by the Huff Post’s negative framing and clickbait headline. I’m pretty sure that Schumer and Jeffries didn’t plan to make this all about masks — they have a lot of other items on the agenda, and all of them are in strong opposition to the current regime’s policies. For example, one of the items is that law enforcement should have to show identification. But people have leaned into the spin and used it to bash Schumer and Jeffries as weak, spineless, cowards, carrying water for Republicans, etc., which I think is unfair.
I guess ultimately I see a difference between someone being a bad politician and someone being a bad person. I think Schumer and Jeffries are as disgusted as we are at the current situation, and I think they are serious about wanting to do something about it — they’re not up there blowing us off and saying that no reforms are necessary.
Unfortunately, their political skills are not up to scratch, which lets us all down — especially with an assist from Huff Post. But if that’s the case, I’m not sure that tearing them down further — for this at least — is helpful.
I hope that makes sense. Thanks for your thoughts.
mr715
(3,225 posts)There is absolutely a distinction between being bad at politics and being a bad person, and I certainly do not believe Schumer nor Jeffries are bad people.
I think that people that hold Democratic party policies tend to be good people because we believe in equality, justice, and truth.
My vehement criticism of my leadership in Congress is that they are fighting either the last battle, telling us what are distractions, or failing to identify issues that are morally clear.
Is it helpful? For me it is. It allows me to think more clearly about an issue that breaks my heart. For the larger mission of our party? I suspect that, as I've said elsewhere, people are looking for righteous anger and that might expand the electorate.
It isn't easy being in the minority.
PS - Thank you for the thoughtful question in re: masks and viruses. Again, my issue is with political leadership, I am cognizant that practical exceptions will always apply, but that isn't our argument to make.
There have been a ton of really strong and positive political messages coming out of many Dems lately, but there have been times I’ve found myself cringing at leadership. To me it’s usually not the content of their message, but the lack of fire in the political performance, which is so vital to selling the message. This masks thing probably wouldn’t have been an issue if they’d given a barnstorming performance and wowed everybody with their passion — which unfortunately is how politicians have to behave these days if they want to get attention. Otherwise they leave a vacuum that other people can fill with negative attention (Huff Post).
The public is clearly with us, and Dems generally are putting up a fight — especially given the unreal circumstances — but I won’t deny that it can be frustrating to see leadership failing to close the deal.
Cha
(317,686 posts)is doing with their Negative Spin on Dems.. and so many ..
I have to say this whole thing is making me crazier. So much Negativity about Dems... and I think Unfairly, too.
I Don't Want the Fascists to Keep the House or the Senate in November.
bigtree
(93,714 posts)"Instead of focusing on masks, they should be going much harder on the bigger picture — completely unaccountable, violent, untrained, unidentifiable federal agents roaming the streets injuring people, killing people, and violating people’s Constitutional rights on a daily basis."
Both leaders have presented a comprehensive set of concerns with as much emphasis on the dangers and expectations of constitutionality as anyone - more so, in fact, because they are out there everyday repeating these things.
To be fair to them, like you said, they didn't make masks the centerpiece of their objections, didn't lead with it, and have basically just made the effort to respond to what they recognize as the republicans' disingenuous complaints they're trying to draw a line on, and making clear the things their demands are being demagogued about.
They have presented a broad set of demands that have said volumes about "completely unaccountable, violent, untrained, unidentifiable federal agents roaming the streets injuring people, killing people, and violating people’s Constitutional rights on a daily basis."
Are we really supposed to judge their 'political skills,' say, on whether they're able to prevent people from demagoguing their efforts, and getting people to parrot that sophistry?
I mean, what is the value of the efforts they make on their own initiative? Efforts that people opportunistically ignore in their rush to dump on them?
The both communicate regularly to the press, even today, and they couldn't have been more clear and comprehensive.
here:
and, here:
...we complain all of the time about their politics, but what is the actual value to anything to present what they've proposed as caving to anything?
What do critics achieve by representing reasonable reforms, presented in a clear, comprehensive fashion by a minority party to the republican majority (inherently a compromise action) so falsely, and without regard for any of the other provisions discussed at length by both leaders?
What is the actual political value in that to anything other than disrupting their effort? Where's the political genius in all of that? What's the end game?
What do we get out of that effort, because I'm here wondering a few things:
Who do people believe is influenced by the Democratic leaders?
Is the expectation that they spark republican voters or republican legislators, because we've seen actual movement away from republicans, and it's really something to imagine Schumer or Jeffries is going to persuade republicans to do something they've already told Dem leaders they agree to in private, but are too afraid to cross Trump or their own republican leadership.
As far as their political chops, lets remind ourselves of their actual role. They are there at the pleasure of the Democratic membership that voted for them as leaders. 99.9% of the time they represent the collective will of those elected Democrats.
When they don't agree with the majority of Democrats we know about it, like on the first shutdown vote. But both leaders have actually been batting 100%, as they have here in getting unified Democratic support for this set of important demands that will save lives, not just make a political point made moot by the republican majority.
The impetus behind all of the derision looks to assume the leaders are either dictators; adverse to the majority of Democrats; control the trolls and clickbaiters like HuffPo, or are presenting unreasonable demands.
None of that applies here. Both leaders have presented a comprehensive set of demands and have exceeded in their efforts to communicate those. In that light, you have to wonder about the efforts to muddle all of their correct and responsible advocacy being represented as 'holding someone accountable.'
For what? People's own projections? Hell, the saving grace for me here is that you normally can't find this internet nonsense anywhere among the adults are actually working to advance our ideals and initiatives.
And where is the evidence that they can't communicate our values? It's not in the polling which shows continued decline in republican support, and increasing support for Democratic candidates. It's not in the polling on the issues.
Are we to assume all of that support happened in some vacuum, and that our leaders have nothing to do with it? We're actually having this debate because THEY engaged everyone in it, along with the rest of the party - and no one can credibly argue the public hasn't gotten the message.
Makes no sense to me for that not to be attributed to their efforts, especially if there's an effort to denigrate them for something or the other.
We're in very good political shape, and all we need is an election to transform that into a party that operates as Democrats always do in the majority. This isn't about their communication skills, which have been on point and have moved the political debate toward our positions on this, and on other issues like health care and affordability.
This is about their ability to attract enough republican votes to achieve something. In this case, we should all agree that legislative effort is vital, and that not achieving changes to the ICE and DHS bill - not getting any agreements on their conduct and activity - would represent a failure on the behalf of those who would potentially benefit from those with their very lives and livelihoods.
Instead some want to continue this disingenuous debate over what is essentially misinformation about masks - from one goddamn reporter who got it wrong. The fact that anyone thinks this is the point they were making isn't their fault at all.
If people really wanted to explore the details of what they've said, those are as readily available as these clickbait reports that seek to divide the party from what our leaders are actually doing and saying.
I mean, here we have the momentum, and a comprehensive set of demands of the republican majority, and the best some can do is promote their own antipathies to the Dem leaders who organized it all; not the republicans who are the actual obstacles; but against Democrats who are correct in their urgent demands.
The politics directed against our own party here is pathetic. Is this really how to advance minority demands against a republican majority - by denigrating the party with the correct and vital proposals based on sophistry from a clickbait article?
What are we doing here? Where is the actual support for what the party has decided to demand, and why does it need to come with this dragging on our leaders?
Where's the political sense in that?
All of this space and air about Democrats, and virtually zero opposition or demands on republicans defending the indefensible.
EarlG
(23,474 posts)When it comes to holding their caucuses together, I agree with you that they’ve done an excellent job. But my issue is that there is an important public-facing, performative aspect to their job, and it’s hard to deny that there comes a point when perception becomes reality. We just saw this with Joe Biden and the 2024 election. Once the public perceived that he was too old for the job, it was impossible to shake. Not only that but everything he did, people began to filter through the lens of that perception. That’s why it didn’t matter that Trump was saying absoutely batshit things about sharks and electricity, but it mattered that Biden stumbled over a word in the middle of a complex foreign policy speech. This goes all the way back through Dukakis in a tank to Nixon sweating in the 1960 debate.
The reason I say they’re bad at politics is because my perception is that they’re bad at politics, and part of that is because I get my news filtered through the vast array of sources posted here. Don’t get me wrong: I’ll put a positive story about Schumer or Jeffries on the DU home page whenever I come across one. But when I hear about a story involving Schumer and Jeffries, it often seems to be, “Schumer and Jeffries screw up,” and not, “Schumer and Jeffries blew everyone out of the water.” Sometimes it seems they really did screw up; other times (like with this masks story) I think the criticism is overblown. But that’s not the vibe I tend to get from other serious Democrats like Jamie Raskin, Chris Murphy, etc., who seem to be in tune with both the public and with the party base. (Although of course, they don’t have the burden of leadership.)
You can say that this is intellectually lazy of me, and you would be right. But most people aren’t going to be looking much beyond the headlines — you see it all the time even on DU, let alone among the general public — and I think we sometimes need to consider not just the words they’re saying, but how they’re getting their ideas across, because we live in an era when politicians need to be able to perform.
As noted, once people have the perception that a politician is bad at politics, it can become hard to shake, even by simply getting better at politics. Once people start making up their minds, you have to work twice as hard at it, and even then you might not be able to counter it. Again, it didn’t matter how many bike rides Joe Biden went on while Trump sat on a couch and stuffed his face with Big Macs — once the public decided that Biden was past it, Trump was somehow perceived as the healthier candidate.
I’m not saying this is right — you know that in 2024 I stuck to DU’s principles of supporting the nominee right up to the end. I’m just saying it’s the way things are. If Trump has taught us anything, it’s that people need to feel emotionally invested in politics. It’s why you and I both know that this is not going anywhere:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220998984
…but I don’t think it was pointless, because sometimes you just need to do something to fire people up. So props to Schumer for that.
I guess my last thought on this is that I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to be discussing the overall performance of Democratic leadership on DU at this time. My preference of course is that people do what they can to stay within the rules if they want to have that discussion.
As for attracting Republican votes, my feeling is that Republicans need to get the stick at this point, not the carrot. Democrats are riding a huge wave of public support and Republicans know it. Rather than trying to reason with them, I think it would be more effective to start squeezing those Republicans who once thought they were in safe seats but are now looking at some very scary indicators of massive voter backlash. Maybe start running ads in their districts asking if they stand with Trump or with the Constitution.
Cha
(317,686 posts)
Duncan Grant
(8,900 posts)If one wants masked criminals body slamming and killing their neighbors, by all means defend this sort of leadership.
orangecrush
(29,295 posts)
justaprogressive
(6,562 posts) mr715
(3,225 posts)bigtree
(93,714 posts)...they cherrypick a couple quotes out of context and then jump to the supposition:
In what “extraordinary and unusual circumstances” would these masked militiamen be justified in hiding their identities?
That's been answered several times, and appears apparent to the author of the article who chose to be dense and specious about the caveat that Democrats' demand that ICE and DHS adhere to normal police standards employed all around the country, which, have expected carve-outs for officers and agents engaged in things like anti-terrorism or undercover activities that have always been afforded the ability to conceal identities.
They're not talking about the agents we see terrorizing people. They're just not.
read what Sen. Schumer said today, not what someone else is trying to stir up:
Leader Schumer:
Senate Democrats. We're united from one end of our party to the other and we put together some simple common sense proposals that are done every day that are used by police forces and local sheriffs everywhere.
They have three basic objectives. One is to end these roving patrols. You can't just pick someone up on the street, not uh and put them in a dark prison without any kind of warrant. You can't bust someone's door down without any kind of warrant. That's the Constitution. Yet, that's what's going on despicably on the streets of Minnesota and other places.
We're also saying in terms of the roving patrols, some places are off limits, schools, houses of worship, election places. We're saying there shouldn't be racial profiling when they pick people up. And we're saying they can't take an American citizen and lock them up without a warrant, without due process.
The second area we're talking about is accountability and enforcement. These we need a code of force, a force code that's used by states, by police officers all over the states. When you use force and when you don't. We need real training for these people. When you watch the videos, you see they're totally untrained. They're brutal. They're nasty.
We also need to have enforcement that you can go to court and stop this ICE force from doing things. And we need the local and uh uh state governments to be able to force them to do certain things they can't do.
And finally, and maybe most important, no secret police. These guys go around, these people go around with masks. It makes them more brutal. They're never accountable. No one even knows who they are.
There should be cameras. Everyone should have cameras and there should be rules on how they use them. And they have to have regular uniforms, not all the stuff they're wearing. But we cannot have secret police...
There should be no masks except in the most of unusual circumstances. You know, if some guy's picture was put up by a terrorist group or something... but there should be no masks.
...Johnson, the speaker has said he wants to keep the mask. Well, I guarantee you when you go down to his district in Louisiana, the sheriffs and police are identified, fully identified with their name and uh, their number.
That has to happen across America to prevent these rogue forces from terrorizing cities. No secret police. No, no, no, no secret police. I can't even believe we're saying that in America. It's so unamerican. I understand the the administration has expressed concerns about doxing and things like that. I I I want you to like me uh no masks, no secret police - and also an understanding that that that we'll do whatever everyone will do whatever we can to protect them from doxing and from from other things if there are activists that try to to bring harm to them.
But but police officers don't wear masks. Sheriffs don't wear masks. They shouldn't wear masks. And they face the the local police, the local sheriffs face the same problems that these guys have in terms of the potential of doxing and they're able to deal with it but not mask up.
This is just incredible. The American people are asking the Republicans and asking Johnson, why are you against ident police having identities? Why are you against Why are you still saying they should wear masks? They don't have a good answer. They've had no good answers to any of these questions.
And as you said, even President Trump is realizing that they're on the wrong side of this issue. They're on the wrong side morally. They're on the wrong side in in terms of just being an American because we in America have always had these values, have always had this and these rogue this rogue uh ICE group is just terrorizing our cities and violating the constitution every minute they're on the streets and it's showing up in the polling as you say...
watch:
Bobstandard
(2,204 posts)That will fix the problem!
Unless, of course, you think ICE will use all that money to come after any and all Democrats eventually. Let’s remember that Trump and Vance have said all democrats are terrorists or traitors and ought to be in jail. Eventually they’re going to start calling folks who protest on line—like here on DU—to come down to the new ICE facilities and ‘answer a few questions.”
If you think anything like that is possible, then Schumer and Jeffries aren’t going hard enough. I think it’s eminently possible.
EdmondDantes_
(1,516 posts)Police can wear masks in some specific scenarios. SWAT teams because they use flashbangs. Some undercover agents will wear masks if they are in a public arrest to let them remain undercover. Same for special forces. Those instances are strictly limited.
If the limits of ICE wearing are the same as regular police and law enforcement, is that unacceptable? If not, why not?
Duncan Grant
(8,900 posts)Citizens should not be forced to comply to illegal abuse, searches and seizures by masked sociopaths (goons) who earned merit badges in the proud boys, oath keepers and lll%ers. ICE hunts humans. ICE maintains a database of its enemies; an enemies list.
ICE doesn’t value the law or deescalation techniques or public safety. They physically and mentally abuse (torture) law-abiding citizens — even children! And sometimes, ICE kills citizens for no legitimate reason. Imagine that. We know who ICE is — they are every right-wing white supremacist trump ever pandered to. They are inconsequential men whose only access to self-esteem and personal power is found precisely because they wear a mask. To equate them with any legitimate law enforcement operation is a false equivalency.
So the question is, do masks enable ICE’s brutality and lawlessness? I say yes, because the good guys don’t wear them to commit atrocities.
Response to Cattledog (Original post)
Post removed
AltairIV
(1,010 posts)Schumer has repeatily shown and clearly demonstrated that he will not stand up to these lawless dicks. He has got to go.
bigtree
(93,714 posts)...claims demanding that ICE and DHS do what all other police departments practice is 'caving.'
Making derisive posts about Democratic leaders based on pure bullshit seems to be the standard these days for their critics. But this is demonstratably over the top.
Read what he said today. What in actual fuckville is wrong with it?
Leader Schumer today:
Senate Democrats. We're united from one end of our party to the other and we put together some simple common sense proposals that are done every day that are used by police forces and local sheriffs everywhere.
They have three basic objectives. One is to end these roving patrols. You can't just pick someone up on the street, not uh and put them in a dark prison without any kind of warrant. You can't bust someone's door down without any kind of warrant. That's the Constitution. Yet, that's what's going on despicably on the streets of Minnesota and other places.
We're also saying in terms of the roving patrols, some places are off limits, schools, houses of worship, election places. We're saying there shouldn't be racial profiling when they pick people up. And we're saying they can't take an American citizen and lock them up without a warrant, without due process.
The second area we're talking about is accountability and enforcement. These we need a code of force, a force code that's used by states, by police officers all over the states. When you use force and when you don't. We need real training for these people. When you watch the videos, you see they're totally untrained. They're brutal. They're nasty.
We also need to have enforcement that you can go to court and stop this ICE force from doing things. And we need the local and uh uh state governments to be able to force them to do certain things they can't do.
And finally, and maybe most important, no secret police. These guys go around, these people go around with masks. It makes them more brutal. They're never accountable. No one even knows who they are.
There should be cameras. Everyone should have cameras and there should be rules on how they use them. And they have to have regular uniforms, not all the stuff they're wearing. But we cannot have secret police...
There should be no masks except in the most of unusual circumstances. You know, if some guy's picture was put up by a terrorist group or something... but there should be no masks.
...Johnson, the speaker has said he wants to keep the mask. Well, I guarantee you when you go down to his district in Louisiana, the sheriffs and police are identified, fully identified with their name and uh, their number.
That has to happen across America to prevent these rogue forces from terrorizing cities. No secret police. No, no, no, no secret police. I can't even believe we're saying that in America. It's so unamerican. I understand the the administration has expressed concerns about doxing and things like that. I I I want you to like me uh no masks, no secret police - and also an understanding that that that we'll do whatever everyone will do whatever we can to protect them from doxing and from from other things if there are activists that try to to bring harm to them.
But but police officers don't wear masks. Sheriffs don't wear masks. They shouldn't wear masks. And they face the the local police, the local sheriffs face the same problems that these guys have in terms of the potential of doxing and they're able to deal with it but not mask up.
This is just incredible. The American people are asking the Republicans and asking Johnson, why are you against ident police having identities? Why are you against Why are you still saying they should wear masks? They don't have a good answer. They've had no good answers to any of these questions.
And as you said, even President Trump is realizing that they're on the wrong side of this issue. They're on the wrong side morally. They're on the wrong side in in terms of just being an American because we in America have always had these values, have always had this and these rogue this rogue uh ICE group is just terrorizing our cities and violating the constitution every minute they're on the streets and it's showing up in the polling as you say...
watch:
Cha
(317,686 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=greatest_threads
So many seem to be Ignoring his statement.
