"How do you know that?"

If they were dangerous, they would've been paraded publicly.

Instead, ICE won't even meet standards routinely employed by judges, DAs, and beat cops.

They hide their faces and their badges, because people like you enable them.

" You have any earthly idea how dangerous their jobs are?"

Clearly, not as dangerous as protesting near them, or attempting to help a defenseless victim of theirs.

Zero ICE deaths, and at least a pair of murders.

"I thought that was what was going on in the beginning."

No, that was the "deny Due Process" part.

"Did Trump say "only"?"

He said the worst of the worst. Instead, ICE has gone after the easiest of the easy.

It's behavior you'll be enabling in five months.

" Didn't I already agree ICE is in need of reform."

No need to clutch pearls; we all know you're going to vote to further enable them in November.

"I didn't know they haven't been."

That's because you frequent "news" outlets who believe you can't handle the truth.

For example, did you know that ICE gets a bonus if they arrest somebody, even if it's falsely?

" ICE is out of control, or has been. However, we don't need criminals being out of control, either."

Where were you when Trump promised to go after the worst of the worst?

Instead, ICE has been grabbing janitors, day-laborers, and abuelas.

When will they start arresting gang members?

" Sometimes stupid is stupid and I don't need to be told otherwise."

In this case, however, you clearly need to be told time and again.

Bill has made an extraordinary claim, and now, over 5 1/2 years later, still doesn't have a single piece of proof for it. If his theory were true he'd have hundreds, if not thousands of victims coming forward. To date, ZERO ... even after a closely contested election, and a J6 insurrection

What would, say, a scientist do at this point?

" At some point the math matters"

Why doesn't it ever matter when the issue is newly borrowed money given away in tax cuts to the world's wealthiest?

" And our president didn't compromise national security by selling off the SPR's to leverage midterms."

Biden bought it back at lower prices.

In contrast, Trump didn't max them out before starting a war of choice.

You always seem to skip over those two salient points.

"Beats the hell outta 9.6%"

Which lasted what ... one month?

And what factor are you using to multiply what the current administration is admitting?

If it isn't AT LEAST x1.5, you're carrying water.

"Beats the hell outta 9.6%"

Which lasted what ... one month?

And what factor are you using to multiply what the current administration is admitting?

If it isn't AT LEAST x1.5, you're carrying water.

"Beats the hell outta 9.6%"

Which lasted what ... one month?

And what factor are you using to multiply what the current administration is admitting?

If it isn't AT LEAST x1.5, you're carrying water.

"His Iran deal was a disaster."

Not according to the negotiators. The US got something it had only dreamed of: monitoring supply chains. Not anymore. And Hormuz stayed open.

Trump's "deal" won't be anywhere near as good as the deal he tore up, and the world will be singing The Hormuz Blues by the first day of summer.

"Yet he just won in court."

Trump's DOJ. It's like Kim or Vlad claiming they got 99.9% of the vote.

"It's amazing how foolish you look"

Says the guy who advocates for NO limits, even from mal-information that might kill you.

Tell us, Bellringer: if you were President, how many deaths from overdosing on ivermectin would it take before you intervened?

And will the fact the "You Can't Overdose On Ivermectin!" guy died from an overdose of ivermectin have any effect on your decision?

"You actively support a racist and fascist political party."

Projection Alert!!!

"I wasn't criticizing Biden"

Riiiiiight.

You also weren't admitting inflation would've been WORSE under Trump.

It's widely accepted the third stimulus was unneeded, and in large part the driver of the inflation.

Trump wanted the third stimulus to be 42% higher. Inflation would have been worse under Trump.

Go ahead ... You can say it.

"I'd bet money you got an Obama phone."

Since those are actually Reagan phones ...I'll take that bet.

How much are you willing to lose?

"...folks who are held in lower regard get the fifth-quarter"

That's offal!

"Name them."

It's all the Dems on Committees that matter.

JPW is right: it's Committee assignments where Congresscritters make their bones. Tenure has a lot to do with it, so newbies, and folks who are held in lower regard get the fifth-quarter assignments. The smarter ones get asked to join the more pertinent committees once they've proven themselves.

In an unrelated note, HRC was known to be the best-read, most prepared committee member, regardless the topic.

O'Care barely passed.

Had the folks against single-payer also lined up against, it would've failed, and failed miserably.

Again...the ACA barely passed. And has barely survived over the years.

It's now been purposely crippled, ever since Republicans chopped off the mandate leg.

" It's good for an initial step of a process but trusting it without verifying or curating the result is beyond foolish."

It seems very subject to GIGO.

Another poster pasted a section of my response to him into AI, and obviously gave the prompt "prove him wrong".

What got returned misrepresented what I'd said 180 degrees. I'd claimed under the BBB, the waitress might see $25 a week, while the average billionaire would benefit a million dollars a week.

AI said I was wrong, because the billionaire would benefit more than the waitress.

"Actually it started with Regan (Reganomics)and his trickle down theory that has proven to be the start of the decline."

The fork in the road, however, was when Dick Cheney, Dubya, and the Republicans reset America's fiscal sights from Surplusville to Debtsylvania.

"It's our due!"
~Dick Cheney

Every large group (100+) of Board Members has a "squad". Larger ones might have multiple "squads". It's usually either a "monkey-wrench" group, where they try to eff up the gears by constantly demanding time-consuming recorded votes, or an "advanced idea" group, who are well-meaning, with ideas ahead of their time...

... but clueless regarding the folks in the actual center, and how to use actual politics to bring them onboard.

AOC seems to be in the second group.

"Your lack of self-awareness..."

And if you ask him to name the Dems lobbying for separate drinking fountains, he'll run away.

And if you press him, he'll claim he was employing "hyperbole".

That's his new word for "getting caught purposely lying".

This is something I've been screaming ever since I combed through The Heritage Foundation's website on vote fraud, and realized several things:

1. The plurality of fraud isn't by the voter; it's by canvassers, cullers, and counters ... none of which would be affected by voter ID.

2. When it is a voter, it's almost always ONE extra vote. NEVER any fraud at scale.

3. States average about one conviction per state, per year.

4. Claims of in-person fraud are wildly overstated, and extremely, EXTREMELY rare.

5. Attempting vote fraud is insanely high risk for low reward: obviously, if both sides do it at the same rate, it benefits neither party. What folks don't realize is even if one party did it at a 50% greater rate than the other, it would take 5 incidents of fraud to net ONE vote.