am not surprised.

the least bit surprised. I’m so over it.

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2026, 01:40 AM - Edit history (1)

NT

HuffPost isn't a conservative publication. Their headline is articulating exactly what happened - leadership is waffling on bedrock principles.

And they are using Sen. Murphy as a human shield.

And there is no need to throw every person to the ground. Put suits back on and knock on doors. Over reacting like every arrest is a swat team operation is bullshit.

that they blew the money the wife worked 2 jobs to save up for their kid's trade school on!

You take THAT away, hardly anybody will sign up to murder US citizens in the streets and drag away 70 year Latina women selling churros in the Home Depot parking lot.

The wives need paying back so these shmoes can quit sleeping on the couch, so the cosplay costumes must stay!

to protect their tiny, tiny balls?

and retreat from that.

So, by the end, they'll give ICE a bunch of new powers, in the name of "good faith negotiation".

Yes, I am frustrated by this. It seems as if the people in charge of our party are unwilling to play softball, much less hardball.

To me, there is never a case so extraordinary that it requires surrendering bedrock principles of rule of law.

When I was younger, I waffled on the death penalty. Now I'm opposed for the simple reason that I cannot accept 1 innocent dying because of a failure of our justice system. There is no calculation, or consideration. I don't think the state should be empowered to kill.

I wonder what extraordinary cases Sen. Schumer is thinking of. Perhaps if someone has covid? I just don't understand. And so disappointed it hurts.

Stop helping the other side! 🤬

Last edited Wed Feb 4, 2026, 09:16 PM - Edit history (1)

I reacted. I have to admit that I don't hate our leadership but sometimes I'm disappointed by them.

Who is doing the leading, and who the following.

“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.

Pretty clear.

What about warrantless arrests, random stops, racial profiling, beatings, extrajudicial detention, executions, denial of due process "deployed in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, as has been the case, horrifying the American people?"

May the November Blue Tsunami elect a majority of Democrats with the courage to address the ICE crisis unflinchingly, regardless of what the “leadership” doesn’t have the stomach for.

As I saw here, dropping masks could cause an 80% dropoff of agents. They can’t do that, they have a buttload of money to spend.

They must not be given deadly weapons.

The fact that 80% would resign tells us something. To my nose, it smells of guilt.

It was based on a Threads post that started off with "According to reports ...". The same basic post is all over Facebook and Twitter (some posts say 75%), but without a source for these supposed reports, it's a meaningless statement. It's like starting a claim with "Some people say ..." or "Rumor has it ...".

I searched and can find no credible sources to back up the claim. Do you know of any?

LOL, okay Chuck. So when ICE says that kicking in doors, shooting citizens in the face/back/all over and general terrorism is "extraordinary and unusual" (because frankly it should be unfuckingusual, but here we are anyway) what then?

Not a damn thing, as usual. But, it absolves you when you vote for whatever shit they put in front of you and we can "but they promised" and "didn't see them lying about that" all the way to the gas chamber*.

At least the powder is dry.

*As usual, I'll be happy to eat my words slathered in dijon if/when they prove me wrong. I'll be standing front and center with The Spine of the Year Award.

No secret police.

Putting in that little morsel of "well, maybe in some extraordinary cases..." is feckless. It weakens us as a party.

an oxymoron

The rest of the government is funded, ICE and DHS is widely reviled by the electorate.

So, the decisions they make will tell us whether they're on our side or the side of the fascist thugs.

"Masks acceptable in some cases" is not a good start.

Renee Good and Alex Pretti were killed by agents hiding behind face masks. This should not be. We cannot, cannot, normalize this. There are no extraordinary cases(*).

*From a negotiating legislative position


I am so sad that we so quickly sell our soul by inches.

I don't need to say more here!!

I know of no other branch of law enforcement that wears masks. All others that I know of, at least, wear a badge prominently displayed with their name and a number on that badge. FBI agents that I've known do not have a badge readily visible, but they have one in their pocket that they produce if asked.

If the Democratic leadership gives in to allowing ICE agents to remain masked, I will view it as an unacceptable concession.

It is a line in the sand that isn't even asking much. Just law and order.

at the military surplus store....no name tags, often not even designation of what agency they are from, just a Velcro patch that says "Police" which they aren't.

Oh, and they love those skull masks...so professional!

And that should be the argument right there that Democrats use.

Because any Tom, Dick, Harry or kidnapper, estranged husband, upset boyfriend, etc. can go to the army surplus store and buy the exact same gear and PRETEND to be law enforcement.

They need to be easily and readily identifiable. And if they are too damned ashamed to show their faces when they are doing their jobs, then they shouldn't be allowed to hide.

those that are ready to make a " Deal' with Don.

Last edited Wed Feb 4, 2026, 09:23 PM - Edit history (1)

If one cuts their decency in half, are they half as decent? Or are they just indecent, full stop.

If one is willing to capitulate on irreducible matters of truth and justice, they never were righteous.

that we are negotiating against ourselves?

Why are we broadcasting "narrow exceptions may apply".

It is bad leadership.

I can tell that some folks have watched too much television when they opine about what THEY think are the finer points of political negotiations.

Just be real with the public because thats who they are communicating with.

I have no time for fantastical bullshit involving some imaginary 3 dimensional chess nonsense.

I don't think 'no masks for ICE' is a difficult position to articulate, so I don't know how much 3D chess is involved.

I think our leadership is being completely honest and they are of the opinion that exceptions may apply. I disagree.

These are rare things. Sometimes, in law enforcement, its because they may be going into a situation where they need to protect themselves against breathing in contaminates or, like the one Congresswoman said, they may be dealing with an actual situation where they are interacting with assets related to organized crime. And you know, we could always have another pandemic.

Might as well get ahead of the ridiculous reasons Republicans will use to shoot down any restrictions on masks whatsoever.

"Well, Democrats are trying to get them all killed when the next pandemic hits"

"Democrats want make sure the cartels know who's family to target whenever we have agents communicating with informants"

Just take those talking points away from them now instead of having to explain themselves later. Put an iron clad proposal on the table that refutes as many of their disingenuous arguments as possible.

The goal is for it to be held to the same standards as regular police officers as far as identifying oneself. Lets make sure that happens.

in the foot, the discussion is not about that, but rather the finer points of mask wearing.

No, it's not three dimensional chess. It's the lowest level of common sense not to concede anything before the negotiations even begin.

absolutely most basic concepts of them.

I was a proud union leader for the UFT for 9 years. In that capacity I learned you don't negotiate on fundamental rights because once you lose your rights, you will never get them back.

My boss, a principal with the best heart and best brain, always supported her UFT teachers. When she retired, education lost one of its greatest leaders.

When I had vote on contract negotiations and stuff, my delegate was more progressive than I. I made a point of never voting against her (solidarity for my team) even if I disagreed. I simply voted present.

I believe I was an effective leader. I saved a lot of people's jobs.

and cooperative deals. That industry went from 40 companies to 2 in the time I worked in it. It was ugly and that's part of the reason I switched careers, but my company was one of the two that survived the bloodbath.

They have articulated a position that shouldn't be dismissed as "watched too many movies".

Perhaps, as they suggest, they were actually in a position of authority to do what our leadership has been unable to do.

That's not surrender or capitulation, it's simple recognition of reality.

Are there circumstances where an ICE agent might reasonably need to wear a mask? Yes, if they're, for example, enforcing an immigration order on a known violent gang member whose associates may retaliate against the officers or their family members if they can identify the ICE agents. Some state and local officers wear masks for precisely this reason.

That's the most likely reason they might need to wear masks and it's not unreasonable. The circumstances in which they're permitted to wear masks need to be clearly delineated. Any ICE agent in breach of the regulations gets disciplined, end of story. Voila, the problem is solved.

Making sensible rules isn't hard but making rules that flatly ignore reality is even easier, though sadly less than effective.

mitigate the leaders' gaffe.

Squash Sen. Murphy's ambitions by getting the stink of complicity in his vicinity.

I agree the headline is misleading, but I worry about the weasel words in terms of being actually limiting.

Because then these guys wondering around cities, just fucking with people, will be on camera, they'll be identified... we will know who the Proud Boys are that were allowed in, we will know if Jan 6ers were allowed in, we will see if the white nationalist militia folks were allowed in... either that, or they'll all quit because they can't go around in public just harassing everyone with no fear of being found out.

But the Trump administration isn't exactly known for being truthful or adhering to agreements. The devil is in the details and enforcement.

They don't really have their own police to go around enforcing laws they pass.

They can humiliate.

They can pass laws and regulations.

They can limit the jurisdiction of certain courts.

They can set the legislative agenda and let nothing move until preeminent issues are addressed first.

In theory anyway. An empowered Congress can do that, not the neutered Congress of Speaker Johnson.

and a republican says, "Masks are needed," THEN you say, "OK. When the protestors are throwing tear gas at the agents." You don't identify the areas where you'll give in BEFORE the negotiation starts.

And what have republicans conceded BEFORE the negotiation starts? That the first, second, fourth and I don't know how many more Amendments will not be trashed by a rogue militia on a daily basis? That the agents won't murder Americans in the street and beat up people with autism and kidnap children? I haven't heard anything like that, have you?

WHY are WE conceding ANYTHING now?

1st order of business,
Dismantle ICE/DHS.

Then.
* Invest in DOJ/IRS
* Laws to mitigate future Presidential power.

Enshrine abortion rights.

Overturn citizens united.

Then, if we're feeling ambitious, Supreme Court changes.

Cannot trust this administration. They manufacture crises like I change my socks.

If you've got something to hide you shouldn't be an agent.

and not just complaining here.

If these agents are gonna be undercover or engaging in drug trafficking and need identity hidden, then a mask is part of the uniform. I get the importance of special protection but these demands are results of what’s going on in our neighborhoods and we have no evidence that this mission has produced dangerous cartels

“Sometimes they can wear a mask” might be misconstrued, though technically he’s still correct. We need those situations defined, however. There is no current definition of when a mask is acceptable (from the untrained eye), and, that means it’s always acceptable. It shouldn’t be.

Just call them the the Weimar Democrats.

Or kidnapping children or illegally invading people's houses with no warrant. THAT would be common sense.

Why are we making ANY concessions in the media before we are asked to?

It's just ridiculous.

Has the whole world gone fucking crazy? WTF!

No masks.

There is no more playbook. They need to adapt or fail. Also, they lead from behind and hide behind the aegis of consensus. Ultimately it wins us nothing because the American public has no appetite for politicians that "seem" political.

Not now. Not ever.

FUCK this.

A street gang could set up a coordinated set of Ring cameras or similar around a neighborhood or town. Central servers could be used to scan the video from the cameras, collecting license plates of residents and doing real-time tracking of residents and police. Hopefully, I don't have to flesh this story out.

Things aren't like what they were. No one knows who is in these organized groups. Even they don't know who's in them. They are routinely infiltrated as we've seen in the news.

I don't like masks, but folks, Mayberry was a long time ago.

Not the gestapo? Bruh.

larger than most countries' military budgets, they can't take down those bad, bad Minneapolis street gangs?

If they can't do that without masks that protect them when they murder innocent American observers, then they shouldn't exist.

We are going to lose the midterms because of shit like this. No compromise with these animals.