385
Trump Secretly Orders Mass Arrests After ICE Disasters
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
385 points (98.7% liked)
politics
30703 readers
2866 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
False equivalence. Palestine was fucked either way, and Harris winning was probably the better outcome of the two. No outcome was going to stop the genocide, so it's not particularly relevant to the choice. Except that the outcome we got was almost certainly the worse one.
Trans people and immigrants did have outcomes that were radically different based on who won. The choice changed the outcome, so it was relevant
So was going around congress twice weapons to ship weapons to Israel. Funny how important it is to hold voters accountable but not politicians.
Get me in a room with the politicians and I'm more than happy to hold them accountable. But I'm not in a room with politicians, I'm in a room with voters.
Spending your time online telling people to vote for politicians who clearly prefer to represent Israeli citizens over American citizens is certainly a choice.
A choice I wouldn't have to make were it not for those who have chosen to spend their time online telling people not to vote against politicians who not only prefer to represent Israeli citizens over American citizens, but also prefer to hunt minorities for sport and erode basic rights.
Everyone makes choices. Sometimes grown-ups are forced to make difficult choices because idealistic children made terrible ones.
Who did you vote for in the 2020 Democratic primaries?
Bernie obviously. Why is that relevant?
Because you sound a lot like the kind of person who would vote for Joe Biden in the primaries.
Because you're not paying attention to what I said, and substituting understanding with a ridiculous strawman where everyone who doesn't agree with you is BlueMAGA.
Primaries are the appropriate time to vote your conscience. The general election is the time to try to secure the best outcome possible between the choices.
In regards to Palestine, there was not a choice to withdraw support for Israel. Vote Republican? Palestine is royally fucked. Vote Democrat? Palestine is also fucked, though potentially to a slightly lesser degree. Vote third party or not at all? A Democrat or Republican wins, Palestine is still fucked. There's very little difference in the outcomes, so it's not a useful criteria for making the choice. Sure, you might feel self-righteous for abstaining, but that in no way unfucks Palestine even a little bit.
Since there's no difference in outcomes for Palestine, the decision should be made based on other criteria: immigration, civil rights, etc. Spending your time online telling voters not to vote for the lesser evil because they're still evil does not prevent evil from filling the office
Imagine it this way: what if there were a major candidate who was resolute about aiding Palestine, withdrawing support for Israel, and even taking action against them? And what if vegans flooded online spaces to try to convince voters not to vote for them because they aren't committed to ending meat consumption? Assume that neither candidate is committed to ending meat consumption.
How would you feel about those people taking actions that jeopardize Palestine because the pro-Palestine candidate isn't vegan? Even if you're vegan yourself and agree that meat consumption should end, not voting for the pro-Palestine candidate isn't going to accomplish that. No option is going to accomplish that. They're just sacrificing Palestine to make a stand on an issue that will turn out the same either way.
Okay.
... that's exactly what every BlueMAGA says bud.
That's exactly my point bud. Instead of trying to consider my point, it disagrees with you so you put it in the BlueMAGA box so you don't have to think about it.
And no, every BlueMAGA doesn't say that. They say to vote for their current neoliberal darling. They're not encouraging you to vote for socialists in the primary.
It's something rational leftists say to try to convince stalwart ideologues to act in a way that will actually help in some way.
I notice you didn't even try to address my actual point. How would you feel about vegans trying to sabotage a non-vegan, Pro-Palestine candidate? Are you willing to sacrifice Palestine for a stand on something the other guy wasn't going to do either? What's the point? Cui bono?
If you can't answer that question honestly then you need to rexamine your approach.
... That's what you're doing.
You're trying to tell me that your motives make all the difference. I'm telling you on the internet if you walk like BlueMAGA and quack like BlueMAGA you're BlueMAGA.
If we need their votes to win in the general election we need to consider who they would want in the primary.
BlueMAGA treats primaries like winner take all contests which is precisely how you described it. How many more general elections do you want to lose so you can continue living in that fantasy?
Answer the question. Sabotage a pro-Palestine candidate because they aren't vegan yes or no.
Define "sabotage" in this context for me. People refusing to vote for a candidate they do not feel represents them?
Encourage others to refuse to vote for them on moral grounds because they're evil
So... campaigning? I support it. That's a part of a functioning democracy.
Discouraging people online from voting isn't campaigning.
Just to be clear, you support campaigning against a pro-Palestine candidate in a race against a pro-Israel candidate, on the grounds of promoting a change that neither one will implement. So you're saying Palestinians are an acceptable sacrifice in order to make a moral stance which will not actually lead to any change.
Says you. 🤷
You're trying to turn this into some kind of gotcha for me but it won't work because I believe in a functional democracy voters don't owe politicians or other voters their votes. All you're doing is making an argument against democracy.
At the end of the day Biden/Harris didn't win the election. If you wanted a different outcome you should be angry at them for failing to do their jobs as politicians and find a way to represent the people they were depending on to get reelected. Biden didn't have to go around congress twice to ship weapons to Israel. Biden didn't have to side with rail corporations and block the rail strike. But these are the decisions he made and Trump won again. If you want a better outcome then work to get better candidates through the primaries.
I see you didn't try to deny anything I said about you using Palestinians as disposable pawns for impotent grandstanding. Thank you, that's really the only thing I needed to know.
I see you're not acknowledging you can make that argument for any number of circumstances which would eradicate the sole benefit of democracy. If voters are morally obligated to vote for a particular candidate you might as well not have voting at all.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to justify genocide. That's exactly what a secret MAGA would say.
You're literally justifying Palestinians as collateral damage. You don't have the moral high ground here. You're perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of others
My guy, you're the one telling people they're morally obligated to vote for genocide supporters.