Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

I would arrest ICE

5

Anonymous OP 2w

Meaning what? You direct police to try to put ice folks in cuffs? If so, do you think that would do more to help the situation than hurt? As in they arrest large chunks of federal agents and hold them somewhere for a useful amount of time and do all of this without martial law being declared?

4

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

I just don’t see how this would work that wouldn’t result in combat breaking out. Ice agents don’t seem like the kind of people to accept being put in handcuffs if they have guns on them and have been told by their leader that the arrests are unlawful.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

Dude, the civil war is already started. The national guard being used for its purpose, to defend against domestic attacks (which this is, it’s a literal coup) is not triggering a civil war. We need to be specific w our language because they want the burden to be on us. They want the blame to go onto the people resisting, especially anyone in power engaging in meaningful resistance. Every single governor should be activating their guard in unison, it will be a bloodshed either way.

3

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

Like peaceful resistance is important, but we need to remember the limitations; it’s not an end all be all.

6

Anonymous #3 2w

An attack is not the same thing as a war. Being vague with language is unhelpful. The federal government is attacking us, they’re executing us in the streets. There has been no return of force which is why we are not currently at war.

0

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

Trump doesn’t give a fuck if governors are warranted or not in their use of state guards to push back against ice. If they do that then an actual war will start. If we’re at the point of starting a war (personally I think we may be, I’m not sure) then the first move needs to be very coordinated

4

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

I think directing the police to arrest ICE would greatly benefit the community that is currently being slaughtered by ICE

11

Anonymous OP 2w

Dude I want ice officers in cuffs or boxes just as much as you do but what we WANT doesn’t matter. What do you think will happen if police try to do that

-2

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

The alternative to not doing that is citizens will take matters into their own hands.

5

Anonymous OP 2w

I’m not saying they shouldn’t. I’m saying if you are sitting where walz is how do you act differently to save lives or stop this? I don’t think we have to be purely non violent at all, but beginning violent opposition is a big step and we need to be intentional about how we do it. I just don’t think that trying to get the police to arrest ice agents is the best strategy

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

Walz is now deploying the national guard on his citizens and not ICE. Don’t run defense for politicians that don’t care about their people

4

Anonymous OP 2w

I’m not defending Walz at all, sorry if I came off like I was. I tried to be specific with my original question to avoid that. Yes Walz should do more, yes all democrats should’ve been doing more for a long time. I’m saying strategically what would the best move be? I don’t have a good answer to that question if my goal is to stop people from being killed

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

My thing is, people are already being killed. I’d much rather the ICE terrorists who are doing the killing be resisted with the assistance of politicians and law enforcement than having to resist on their own

1

Anonymous OP 2w

I’d rather that too, but any method of doing that will start a war. Death tolls climb quickly when war breaks out, it’s understandable to want to avoid that or be hesitant to be the single person responsible for starting that.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

Again I’m not defending Walz personally, I think he’s likely somewhat of a shill like the rest of the party. Still I can’t say if I was sitting in the governors mansion rn that I’d start a war today

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

But the alternative to that is doing nothing and am repulsing at that idea. Like I cannot imagine letting my people be killed, I would rather fight

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Because I know that people in Minnesota are going to fight whether or not Walz has their back

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

Shit maybe I would, I really don’t know. Something has to happen at some point but I think the debate is whether or not we’re at that point. It’s like choosing a day to put down a dog, there’s no good answer and suffering increases regardless

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

I mean this sounds harsh but 2 people getting executed in your city is different than 2,000 dying in the first day of a bloody armed conflict. If he thinks there’s any way to walk away from this without starting a war that’s likely the path he’s taking

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

2 people so far

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Yes, 2 people so far. Again I don’t want to come off as harsh but the fact that our federal government is out of control and murdering Americans doesn’t change the fact that trying to save the most lives possible is still a useful goal. It’s not obvious to me that starting a war today is the best way to save lives

1