I know there are some who didn’t vote in the last election for the reasons Mineral Man stated, but this sarcasm reeks of trying to chill critical discussion of the best tactics to take here. As stated later, if he knows that this doesn't apply to a single cited DU comment, what’s its purpose other than to rally those satisfied with the status quo against those who are not by mocking this borderline straw man. There are arguments for both Schumer and Jeffries position on this matter, but making fun of those that disagree isn’t one of my favorites.

Most of the Schumer/Jeffries bashing here is along the lines of "weak, spineless, Turd Way, blah, blah."

Oh, and Jeffries mentioned God in a tweet last year so there we go.

I'd love to see actual critical discussion.

Here you kind of just prove the point that OP just wanted to rally their troops to conflate any criticism of Schumer and Jeffries with the weakest or unsubstantiated criticisms. Who people vote for isn’t even at the emotional core of this discussion. Critical discussion often involves analysis of situations and their potential effects. Your opinion isn’t invalid just because some who have the same opinion issue it without reason or by derision, so I don’t know why you find offense. All criticism of Schumer and Jeffries is not bashing just because some chose to call them names instead of articulating their criticisms. Schumer and Jeffries are professional politicians that should be able to handle a bit of name calling, especially when they are not direct recipients. Is the best way of defending them making two-dimensional caricatures of fellow DU members? I understand that the “bashers” want Jeffries and Schumer to either change tactics or step aside. What is it you want besides insulating our leaders from criticism? Exactly what we are doing now because anything else would be “ridiculous”, “hysterical”, and cartoon level derision.

at minimum:

get rid of masks
get rid of GI Joe costumes and go back to old school uniforms
get rid of the military grade equipment

follow DUE PROCESS at all times.

Probably a few more items I forget at the moment.

Obama/Biden deported many people but they did not put on a public gestapo display.
Immigration reform is a related but different topic not included in this post.

If they didn't then why is anyone defending them? They keep bending to the whims of republicans, no hiding from that.

OP today.. the one we're on now.

They're still going on daily here in Minneapolis

Thank you 😊

And we have to fight for every little thing, so making large demands are simply not going to work.

and we don't understand how our federal legislature works, how the hell are we going to ever get anything done?

I'm depressed about the level of misunderstanding I see right here. It's shocking to me.

The republicans ground congress completely to a halt when they were out of power. I guess the dems just don’t understand how to use procedural tactics to do the same.

Great Ideas are easy to come by. Effective ideas are somewhat more difficult.

We need to move in a direction. If we don't move at all, we move backwards.

If nothing gets done, nobody gets anything.

Reality. It sucks!

How do you plan to accomplish that?

That's the only thing we need, right? Just "Abolish ICE." How ridiculous, eh?

"Disband the Gestapo" equals "I want a pony?"

Imagine still running the whole pony line after it has been shown to be so clownishly wrong, this many years later.

I first started hearing that in 2008 from right wingers who were mocking Obama and his supporters.

on the head of a pin were running it close to home in several subsequent elections. Their inability to face the actual reality of capitalist fascism is part of the reason why we're here.

I think that’s the core issue. What gets called “realism” too often turns out to be a refusal to face conditions as they actually are. We’ve seen over multiple cycles that minimizing the nature of the threat and narrowing demands hasn’t preserved power or prevented losses. At some point realism has to mean naming reality clearly, not endlessly adjusting around it.

End funding. Fire them. Transfer the equipment to the military where it belongs. Let deportations go back to being handled by the border patrol.

That's what we should be demanding.

The points itemized in a post above (no masks, follow the law etc) are an adequate compromise, but they aren't even standing up to get that.

I'm sick of the store being given away right up front. Apparently they didn't learn anything from Obama's habit of opening with what we really want.

Perhaps that is the actual goal.

When we have a Trifecta we revoke the Homeland Security Act of 2002 or alter it to removed the function of Immigration Customs Enforcement Officers.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/03_0116_hr_5005_enr.pdf

Homeland Security Investigations and Customs and Border Protection stay along with the Customs Modernization Act of 1993. I'm in trade compliance for a US Manufacturer. This ICE thing is slowing down refunds and drawback of all types.

It's not in the Constitution.

It's also why we need to position ICE as a Bureaucratic Paramilitary. It's easier to get rid of than a law enforcement agency.

It's pretty simple. This is a high level of what I've written to Senators Kim and Booker - and Rep Kean Jr asking for.

The GOP doesn’t have 60 votes.

But as you admitted in post 7, some folks don’t know how our Federal legislature works. Welcome to that club.

How about yours?

I've addressed the issue with my Senators. How about yours?

I know exactly how it works. I've been involved with influencing legislators I've helped to get elected for decades.

One is Tom Cotton, and the other John Boosman, who we never see except for when running for re-election, and even then, all he does is hire an agency to run ads for himself. The man rarely makes a public appearance.

I get so confused as to how we are supposed to interact with and talk about our representatives and leaders.

That's no excuse for the Democrats in the Senate to roll-over, however. Those that do are not meeting the moment and need to be primaried and replaced.

That's what I'd be working on

Pleading, blackmail, whatever it takes. And it shouldn't take much

Tear it out of the Homeland Security Act when we have a trifecta. I don't care if a future Senate lifts the filibuster rules to end a deadly, murderous paramilitary that executes US Citizens.

Abolish ICE should be 100% the goal and starting position of any Democratic legislation or negotiation. This idea that somebody might disagree on getting a murderous, unaccountable agency off the streets, and that refusing to accept that disagreement is "purity policing" or "unrealistic" is grade A bullshit.

Get the fascist thugs off the damn street and abolish the auspices under which they are operating. There is no margin for disagreement on that, period, full fucking stop. How you get there, obviously, adults will disagree on, but pretending that we can disagree on Abolish ICE is a fucking deflection masquerading as seriousness and maturity. It is, in fact, the childish position. Abolish ICE. Antifascism is non-negotiable. Abolish ICE. I am not voting for anyone who is not starting from that basic position.

... if we did manage to get Republicans to agree to go along with us and defund or abolish ICE -- we won't -- Trump will simply veto it and/or illegally divert funding from elsewhere like he already has.

If people wanted Democrats to save everyone and wield powers they do not have, they should have voted for them.

WE do what's right, force them to cheat instead of just giving in all the time.

And we do it by repealing and replacing the HSA of 2002.

I look at it like this - I'm a Democratic Party member for one KEY pet issue only - Voting Rights.

If they (the Magapubs) could and did strip the VRA of its teeth -

We can do the same. We don't have to just go along to get along. We can do big things because we've lost our sense of liberty.

will stab us in the back.

That's how it always works.

The GOP will do and say mean things.

Quite an argument not to fight for our values.

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2026, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Trump needs Democratic votes to fund his Gestapo. The Senate has more power than the House because of the filibuster. Presenting Democrats can't exercise that power without a majority is false.

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2026, 10:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Obviously.

Advocating only for what is possible is not advocacy at all.

an Executive Order abolishing it. Say all ICE personnel to be transferred into Border Patrol. Any of the new hires with minimum training have to pass traditional BP training before they can be accepted into that org. If immigration enforcement needs to happen over 50 miles from the border, Feds can work with local law enforcement to apprehend actual bad guys.

Don’t gaslight the issue, please.

I've missed nothing for a very long time. I'm old. I'm even more tired that I used to be about nonfunctional opposition to a Republican majority.

Something's missing, and has been for quite some time. It's called solidarity. A commitment to moving things forward.

If you don't see that happening, I'm afraid I'm out of suggestions for you.

Interesting.

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2026, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Is this you, then, building solidarity? Seems pretty provocative and divisive to me.

Or perhaps "solidarity" for you means "agree with me or I'll accuse you of being disloyal?"

and misrepesenting what they are saying (as some here are doing), building solidarity?

Calling out Schumer/Jeffries for what they are doing or failing to do is not “bashing” unless one assumes leadership is owed deference rather than scrutiny. Solidarity isn’t silence. In democratic politics, especially in moments of crisis, accountability is part of solidarity with the people who are harmed by policy choices.

You are using “solidarity” to mean alignment with leadership for tactical unity. I am using it to mean alignment with the people most affected. Those are not the same thing. When leadership positions diverge from justice or reality, solidarity with leadership can come at the expense of solidarity with the vulnerable.

Solidarity with whom is the real question here. Criticizing party leadership isn’t the same as attacking allies, especially when the criticism is about substance and consequences, not personalities. Movements don’t build power by suspending judgment indefinitely; they build it by being clear about what they stand for and who they stand with. If that clarity makes leadership uncomfortable, that’s not a failure of solidarity — it’s how accountability works.

Implicit in the question is: “Is now really the time?” History shows that this question is almost always asked when pressure is working. If criticism were truly irrelevant or unhelpful, it wouldn’t provoke this response.

This is the DEMOCRATIC underground. Did you miss that point?

I guess it’s easier than fighting, but it isn’t what I joined for in 2001.

Good Lord! They're going to be lecturing us about "realism" while we're being marched to the shooting pits!

I would be cowering.

So, you joined in 2001 and I guess that makes your opinion superior! Poor me. I didn't join until 2003.

Stop bashing Democrats. If I said some of the things about AOC and Bernie that you and your fellow bashers say about our leadership, I would be banned from DU.

I'm not trying to get into a dick matching contest with you.

I am not bashing Democrats. I am simply asking our elected representatives to seek our ideals and not cower.

How dare you accuse me of anything. Either put me on ignore, or fuck off.

shitty republicon policy, we should blindly follow along?

Shouldn't the "opposition party" do any and ALL opposing possible, even if it's eventually overcome?

and stop bashing our leadership.

putting words in anyone's mouth. I'm ASKING if that's what you meant.

Your faux outrage gives me my answer.

And stop with the "bashing" BS. Unless you'd like to acknowledge that thugs literally bashing in the skulls of Americans is OK. I don't think it is, and I don't think enabling it is OK either.

A fighting party. We The People want a fighting party to fight fascism at every turn, not fighting will get a continues tRump cycle.

We're all fighting. But, there are turning points in US political reality. Every last one of those turning points happens on an election day.

If we miss our chances on those days, we're not fighting. We're giving up.

If we're confusing the points where we can make a different, we lose every time.

How’d did MAGA get from January 6 to House wins in 2022 and trifecta 2024? I believe it was by influencing voter thought by hammering certain issues and viewpoints between elections. Political sentiment is often changed by events and actions by the party in power and sometimes even by reaction to events out of the party’s hands. I agree we have to vote to make a difference, but feel it’s simplistic to say political power is only decided on election days. We believe can make a difference everyday not only in influencing coming elections, but also influencing what actions politicians from all parties have to fear voter reprisal.

Pre trumps first term maybe. For me it is laughable going back at least three decades. We had the clues back in the 90s, that is Repubs want complete control, they want to criminalize liberals.

After trumps first term, after Jan 6, after the last year, it is a straight up laughable point.

I’m retired, it would be great to kick back, ignore the shit show, let others deal with it. I don’t have grandkids, but I might, and either way, I’m not going to stop fighting to make this Country better. (More accurately, to stop this Country’s slide into fascism)

So with people being murdered by Feds, a private army for the fascists, there is not a simple solution, a few minor points that need to be incorporated.

Compromising and folding is not an option. I will be god damned if I will support short term bipartisan measures to fund a terrorist organization. Because then a quarter later, after the next foreseeable tragedy, the Repubs will be all over the media stating “we had bipartisan support for the funding.”

Point of reference, we are less than a qtr away from the same arguments being made to stop the shutdown. Trump got what he wanted, millions lost healthcare.

If you don’t want to fight, ok, some of us get it. But it is offensive to point fingers at, to condemn the fighters.

Edit to add after reading up thread request for solutions:

1. Furlough every ICE/DHS hired since Jan 1 2025.

We have mountains of video evidence that they are untrained, under misconception that they are the judge, jury, and executioner.

2. Thorough background checks of all remaining employees.

The actions over the last year lead to the logical observation that existing employees have been at best, incapable of mentoring.

Great ideas

The con and Republicans are underwater on nearly everything. The only thing they could attempt to do to lesson the blow they are likely to face in the midterms is to try to create and then exploit a perceived division in the Democratic Party. And I have seen some social media influencers doing that exact bidding for them.

Worked before, will probably keep elections close in future.

and many other threads on DU prove that dividing Dems is easy and it works.

Posting "Schumer" (among other buzz words) is like ringing a bell for Pavlov's dogs. Works every time.

Stop applying this purity test. Loyalty tests are not a good look for us. People can disagree with leadership and still be loyal Democrats.

Not having majorities in the House and Senate never seems to stop Republicans from advancing their agenda.

We should only advocate for that which is "possible to achieve?'

Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.

For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged, and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that event.

Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live.

Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not.

Robert F. Kennedy

That sure wasn't the case in 2016 or 2024.

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2026, 05:53 PM - Edit history (1)

You shouldn't tar every progressive with the actions of the few.

In any case, beating up on those with whom you disagree with here is extremely unlikely to have any effect on those who failed to vote Democratic in the past. In addition to being morally repugnant - collective guilt accusations - it is also not effective at achieving your purported goal.

Argue policies and positions and philosophy with the people with whom you disagree. Smearing them, applying loyalty tests, and blaming them for past Democratic party failures is illogical and it is bad politics.

People can't claim to be progressive while not supporting/refusing to vote for the only people that would have prevented all this Republican terribleness from happening.

"Democrat party failures" -- your mask slipped.

My mask slipped? That is a snide personal attack.

Can one be progressive while arguing against the expression of progressive ideas? The number DU members that didn’t vote for Democratic Party candidates in the last major election is vanishingly small, so I don’t even know who your comment or this entire discussion is aimed at. I understand the “perfect can be enemy of the good” arguments, but I’m not convinced that this discussion is to convince those who didn’t vote as much as it is to attempt to silence progressives as the battle for the Party’s direction and platform moves towards the next election. We all know not voting D is bad. Do you want those with criticisms of party leadership decisions to not say anything and redirect there attention to belittling those who refused to vote for Democrats in hopes that sarcasm brings them to their senses? Threads like this speciously exalt party unity while mainly succeeding in unifying mainline party voices in trying to silence criticism of party leadership decisions. The same people who say for the sake of unity we should solely focus our ire on Republicans find a lot to say about their fellow Democrats with whom they disagree.

Lets hear your reasoning.

I'll tell you what I heard. I heard a half a dozen people who normally vote for Democrats tell me that they voted third party instead of for Hillary and Kamala. That doesn't sound like so many, but it's a significant number, given the number people I know.

So, that didn't have any impact on the outcome here in Minnesota, but that's irrelevant. Next door, in Wisconsin, it had an impact. In Pennsylvania, it had an impact. All you have to do is look at the number of votes for third party candidates. Truly. That was the difference.

You're fond of making broadish statements, but not so strong in supporting you conclusions. So, tell us why you "question that."

Yes, people not voting for Democrats hurts Democrats. Not exactly news. But blaming people here with whom you happen to disagree has nothing to do with that.

My experience mirrors yours.

People here can easily look through my posting history for themselves. Your malicious and unfounded insinuation proves my point, that you are applying loyalty tests on those with whom you disagree in lieu of making good faith arguments to defend your positions.

Voicing concerns is not the same as demanding perfection. Accusing other Democrats who voice frustration at times of expecting 100% agreement is just as divisive.

never seems to stop Republicans from advancing their agenda.

But MANY centrist Democrats voted with Republicans and for their views over the objections of those on the left who DID voice concerns. And they did it because of lobbyists most of the time.
So what was the use of supporting (and voting for) centrist Democrats who sided with Republicans to cover themselves and the wishes of some over the ignorance and especially apathy of those who chose not to be informed.

RFK was quoting George Bernard Shaw

He is expressing intolerance for any divergent opinion.

I see people on this board, over and over, slam Jeffries because he mentioned God in a tweet a year ago. Is that expressing tolerance for a divergent opinion?

Purity for me but not for thee seems to be the message from some here.

The criticism of Jeffries because he mentioned God was petty and obnoxious. But that kind of unserious sniping isn’t what’s at issue here, and conflating it with substantive criticism of leadership is a mistake. There’s a long American tradition of labeling any serious challenge to power as “divisive,” “intolerant,” or “purity politics” once it stops being convenient. That move has been used against abolitionists, labor organizers, civil rights leaders, and antiwar critics—usually by people urging patience, unity, and respect for existing leadership.

Invoking “purity politics” here misses the point. Criticism of leadership rhetoric or policy is not intolerance, and it isn’t a demand for personal ideological conformity. It’s a response to public signaling by people exercising power. Throughout US history, appeals to unity and tolerance have routinely been used to deflect substantive critique — especially when that critique comes from those pointing to structural harm rather than stylistic disagreement.

We’ve seen this pattern before. Abolitionists were accused of divisiveness for criticizing Lincoln. Labor organizers were accused of intolerance for challenging party-aligned leaders. Civil rights activists were told they were undermining allies by refusing to soften their demands. In retrospect, those critiques weren’t “purity tests”; they were necessary pressure. Accountability for people in power is not hypocrisy, and solidarity that requires silence is not solidarity — it’s discipline.

B. I totally agree that criticizing our leaders isn't intolerant. The problem is, I see little actual criticism, i.e factual discussions of an action/statement/etc. For example, people on social media are screaming that Schumer/Jeffries "caved" on DHS funding - when they haven't.

I see the usual knee-jerk, Dems are weak, spineless, blah - that's not criticism, that's bashing.

I just posted an OP from Meidas Touch showing the Dems demands.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220999017

Is it intolerant of me to ask what is so objectionable in their demands?

Fair enough. It was somewhat tongue in cheek - what's good for the goose...etc. Probably ill advised. Mea culpa.

The attacks on Jeffries reflect a common blind spot: religion in the African American community has not played the same political role as religion in white America. Historically, Black churches have been centers of resistance, mutual aid, organizing, and moral challenge to power, not vehicles for enforcing hierarchy. Conflating all religious language with political reaction is an ahistorical mistake, and white liberals in particular often miss that.

I think we agree more than we disagree on the need for factual criticism. My concern is less about individual votes and more about the strategic and moral lines leadership is willing—or unwilling—to draw. That’s where I think the real disagreement lies.

I think we do agree more than we disagree - I think most of us Dems/Progressives agree more often than not.

I appreciate your response.

Literally yesterday, at a professional wrestling match, historically a very pro Republican audience, they chanted "fuck ice" so long they had to pause the match.

The sentiment is there for real change weather so e believe that or not (by change I don't mean the normal police level of accountability which is no accountability at all)
. Democrats need to hold the line and demand real change or refuse to vote in any package that does not.
What is the harm in that?

Is your answer really to just do nothing at all and let Republicans have their way in all things?

That's the part you're missing here. The day to day legislative and administrative battle is irrelevant, if we allow those things to interfere with our elections.

Twice in recent history, we have lost the highest office in the land because of people who said things like, "Well, I just don't like her, so I'm voting for (name a third-party candidate). We failed to elect Hillary Clinton and we failed to elect Kamala Harris. Instead, we got Donald J. Trump.

How did that work out, do you think? And we're moving in that direction once again. What will we do in 2028? Hell, what will we do in 2026? Will we shun some candidates who are not sufficiently progressive and let yet another Republican win in some race or races? In actual fact, there is a likelihood that we will do exactly that.

We've done it before and we're likely to do it again.

Those next two elections will likely be my last elections. That sucks, but what sucks more is that there's a fair chance we'll lose again by insisting that candidates meet 100% of our demands. They never will. They never do. We vote for them to avoid a far worse situation. Or, we should, anyhow.

But, we haven't done that far too many times, and it has cost us dearly. I hope we don't do that again - ever again.

I'm not convinced, though, that we will not, once again, make the same lame mistake we made those last two times.

VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS! EVERY LAST F-ING TIME! NOTHING LESS WILL DO.

Aim for the stars, shoot for the moon.

I still think cheating has had a lot more to do with us losing than a purity test. I'm going to stop at that because I know I will never win this argument with you MineralMan. I still think if Bernie had been allowed to run he would have won. If you talk to young people, (40 something) and this is their world now, neither D's or R's have taken on the real problems, like climate change, wealth inequality, healthcare ... I disagree with sitting out the vote and people staying home is absolutely wrong. That and cheating is how the plump bump won. I think we are seeing a sea change, kids don't trust the status quo. 🫣

That's where I get frustrated.

I voted for Hillary. I was afraid that Bernie was too outside the norm to get wide appeal. I think I got that completely wrong. Hillary would have been an amazing President, of that I have no doubt, but I think her campaign team failed her and took the Bernie voters for granted. I just don't want to see the Democratic Party do the same thing again.

I will always vote Democrat (unless they change into something unrecognizable, as the GOP has). But I will also voice my concerns. Democratic leadership needs feedback; living in an echo chamber is as bad as expecting perfection.

but it doesn't mean that we should not push our elected leadership
to be 'less cautious and more bold' in the meantime!---


All of the polling I've been reading calls for funding for ICE,
by majorities, to be either 'cut severely' or 'Cut Off'---
and even the position to 'abolish ICE' has much more support
than it did a year or two ago---

Democratic politicians who vote to further enable ICE with continued funding
now are running the risk of alienating many of their own constituents by such votes---

As the minority in the congress, Democrats have little power---
but they need to exercise what little power they have now,
which seems to be on appropriation bills, particularly those concerning ICE---


The party base has made it clear that they want Democrats who will FIGHT! and I agree with that!

If it means another government shutdown for ICE and the 'Homeland Security Department',
I believe that the American people will NOW SUPPORT that decision,
ESPECIALLY Democrats and Independents!---

and that IS 'about the next elections' !