S12E04: ICE Detention

[Lantern7]

Another week, another episode with John going through the horrifying actions of a Trump administration. Also: Steve Austin and his “solid-ass” cats. Hey, at least he didn’t insist on “stone-cold.”

There’s really not much to add, is there? People who weren’t born in this country can be placed into a black hole for the flimsiest legal reasons, and there’s precious little they can do about it. Seems to be a recurrent theme these days. A guy can be put into a detention center for a drug offense from over a decade ago, fall violently ill from withdrawal, get denied treatment because administrators wanted to get a good deal, die, and then his daughter doesn’t find out until business hours resume. It just feels so numbing at this point. John feels the need to poke us to make sure we’re still watching, like talking about a stories-tall basket, or displaying erotica of the Cheerios bee mascot.

(NOTE FROM MARCH 16: I got cases mixed up. The "find a good deal" thing was about another prisoner. Apologies for the mistake.)

The stuff preceding that was also depressing.

Edited March 17 by Lantern7

[Annber03]

For places that are supposed to be "non-punitive", these detention centers sure look and feel and sound an awful lot like a fucking prison. I was already making the "solitary confinement" comparison the moment John talked about how these centers are often located in a super rural area that makes it that much harder to access any kind of outside help or connection. 

The CEOs cheering the profits from these private prisons being expanded is so incredibly gross on every possible level. Especially after hearing the horrific stories of the people who've died at these centers. How do those psychopaths sleep at night? 

And then the press secretary being like, "I know it's a big culture shift to see these people being treated like criminals" -  you have actual violent criminals in your damn adminsitration, for god's sakes. You want to worry about criminals who aren't being treated as such, go look at the people you're working for, you obnoxious little snot. 

That's the part that's perhaps most infuriating to me about the Trump administration's posturing and "cracking down" on these immigrants for their supposed illegal behavior. Considering all the criminal shit they've been able to get by with, it's really, REALLY rich for them to sit here and act like they're the aribtrators of law and order, anf for their supporters to cheer them on because they're...I'll be polite and say gullible...enough to think that Trump is "getting tough" on these immigrants (read: he's kicking out all the brown people that make Trump supporters uncomfortable). I don't know how likely it'd be to work or whatever, but god, what i would not give to have any lawyers for these immigrants, when their case comes before a judge*, to be like, "Tell you what, my client will be held accountable for their supposed crimes when Trump and his buddies get held accountable for their actual crimes." 

*On the note of judges, good on that one judge for calling out the idiot who was going on about how these immigrants had a "choice". 

Also worth cheering? All the people at the town halls who aren't having it with the GOP's attempts to defend Musk and Trump's continual firing of federal employees. The GOP whining about how these people must be paid actors is hilarious...talk about projection. We know the GOP has done that plenty enough times, after all, John's done multiple stories on that sort of thing. 

But of course they're going to cut down on the in person town halls. God forbid they actually have to face the fact that their policies are deeply unpopular with a good portion of the country and people are beyond fed up with Trump and Musk and their insanity. Those clips of people calling them out did give me a small bit of comfort, though - it's nice to be reminded that not everyone in this country has lost their minds or is on board with this BS. 

And we're not even going to get into the "God has a plan" respsones. WOW. Read the damn room, dude. 

[DoctorAtomic]

13 hours ago, Annber03 said:

The GOP whining about how these people must be paid actors is hilarious...talk about projection.

I only saw the piece here, but did the reporter ask the Speaker if he had any tangible evidence that the DNC paid agitators to attend those meetings? That's got to be challenged. And this is where the DNC needs to play hardball. Sue him for slander and demand evidence. I know that it's actually really hard to get a ruling in favor, but that's not the point. You're ripping the narrative back and shining a light on dissatisfied republican voters. And the case would be in the news every night. "Which is it, Mr. Speaker? Are there paid protesters? Show evidence. Or, are republican voters not happy that you've failed to address their issues. You tell me." Grow a spine. tbh, I feel like asking these voters what they actually expected, when during the campaign, a 900 page document was released detailing how they were going to wreck the government. 

John was way way off on the Slotkin speech too. Yes, everything said about Reagan is accurate, but it is fair to say that he and Thatcher ended and won the Cold War. Slotkin was speaking directly to the right of center, generally conservative voters who remembered that era, when politics ended at the water's edge. Yes, you can debate how to deal with Ukraine and Russia, but Reagan clearly would be supporting Ukraine and galvanizing NATO; basically what Biden was doing. 

She was sowing doubt and offering an out to those voters. And she was former CIA, so it's not like she's some hippie. "Hey, listen, you know this isn't how we do. I'm with you on this. Let's think about what our priorities should be." So, in that sense, I would say the speech is successful. 

You've got to be hammering the narrative for 2026. "This really isn't going well for anyone. Not your fault. Give us the House back in 2026. We'll work together on fixing it."

[peeayebee]

14 hours ago, Annber03 said:

I was already making the "solitary confinement" comparison the moment John talked about how these centers are often located in a super rural area that makes it that much harder to access any kind of outside help or connection. 

When John showed that clip of the lawyer talking about how far he had to drive to get to the two prisons, it was news to me.

 

34 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I only saw the piece here, but did the reporter ask the Speaker if he had any tangible evidence that the DNC paid agitators to attend those meetings? That's got to be challenged.

I was thinking the same thing. It's so easy for them to throw out these statements. They need to back them up. Of course the worst offender is Trump. He constantly makes these absolute statements that are eaten up by his fans. Like you said, it all needs to be challenged.

[DoctorAtomic]

The media is doing better, but there's invariably going to be a time lag. PBS covered the town halls already, and it's obvious that the people are actual voters in the district. 

But it's the DNC that has to get everyone in lock step. I mean, you're saying that the people in the town halls aren't your voters? You don't think they're concerns are real? They're real to us, and we'd be pleased to earn their votes. This isn't hard. 

Just expecting people to be fed up in 2026 to not vote red isn't a winning strategy either. Really, they need to follow what Slotkin was doing and focus on your everyday conservative. Forget about stupid, undecided voters. Get them, and get at the people who didn't vote in 2024. 

[ebk57]

It's all so bleak, but I'd definitely pay to see Bernadette Peters in "There's No Business Like Jail Business."

And that's what my overloaded brain will remember from this episode.

[Annber03]

16 minutes ago, ebk57 said:

It's all so bleak, but I'd definitely pay to see Bernadette Peters in "There's No Business Like Jail Business."

And that's what my overloaded brain will remember from this episode.

LOL, I thought the same thing :D. 

[MicheleinPhilly]

Obviously the whole "paid agitators" thing is absolute bullshit, but when they kept referring to the protestors as Democrats I was confused. Even if every single person in that room was a registered Democrat, they're still your constituents and have every right to attend a town hall. You don't only represent your voters or your party. Are you going to start carding people that show up at town halls to ensure only members of your party are in attendance? 

[Shrek]

43 minutes ago, MicheleinPhilly said:

Obviously the whole "paid agitators" thing is absolute bullshit, but when they kept referring to the protestors as Democrats I was confused. Even if every single person in that room was a registered Democrat, they're still your constituents and have every right to attend a town hall. You don't only represent your voters or your party. Are you going to start carding people that show up at town halls to ensure only members of your party are in attendance? 

But that is the way Trump has them (Rs) thinking & acting because it's how he thinks & very loudly tells everyone with his not wanting blue states (California) to get any disaster assistance for not voting for him while red states can get all the help they need. This is despite the fact that California has more Republican voters than the majority of red states, but they can suffer because the state voted blue.

[MicheleinPhilly]

I know. I probably should have said exasperated rather than confused. These are not new tactics for these people. 

I think I may need to bow out of this season for a bit. I just had a stomachache the entire time I was watching. 

[Annber03]

9 hours ago, MicheleinPhilly said:

Obviously the whole "paid agitators" thing is absolute bullshit, but when they kept referring to the protestors as Democrats I was confused. Even if every single person in that room was a registered Democrat, they're still your constituents and have every right to attend a town hall. You don't only represent your voters or your party. Are you going to start carding people that show up at town halls to ensure only members of your party are in attendance? 

To say nothing of their assumption that only Democrats are upset with how they're doing things. There's a reason there's been stories in recent weeks about some Trump voters having buyer's remorse. And then there's the independents and Republicans who wanted nothing to do with Trump at all/feel alienated from their party because of how Trump-centric it's become. 

Mind, I don't know how big those groups are, but still, they are out there. 

[DoctorAtomic]

I'd like to know how the Speaker thinks agitators are paid to disrupt these town halls in a deep red area like north Georgia, for example. Walk me through that. Because an actual maga agitator over here was posting random pictures of buses and saying a 'source' at the airport said that the mayor is getting $18K for every 'illegal' coming into our city. Despite the police denying anything was happening and the local news debunking the pictures. So, I would imagine if 'Democrat' agitators were infiltrating all these town halls, people would be going bonkers on social media. Nextdoor is the bastion of old people scared of the world. 

That's really got to get pushed back. The Sunday shows aren't going to be antagonistic, but you can reasonably ask how you come to the conclusion. 

[andromeda331]

Another depressing horrible topic and yet I'm not surprised it's happening. People being thrown into ICE detention centers for the dumbest reasons. Of course they are. Trump will throw more in there. Because of course he will. Is there anything in the country that doesn't suck? No. If there is don't worry I'm sure Trump will make sure it will.

[iMonrey]

On 3/11/2025 at 5:57 PM, Annber03 said:

There's a reason there's been stories in recent weeks about some Trump voters having buyer's remorse.

While it's somewhat comforting to think that it's also misleading. It's true a lot of Trump voters didn't vote for Trump so he could throw people into ICE detention centers. But . . . given the chance, they would still vote for him. They might be disappointed or even angry he's not doing what they wanted him to do but they still think he's going to do what they wanted him to do eventually (bring costs down, etc.).

[andromeda331]

42 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

While it's somewhat comforting to think that it's also misleading. It's true a lot of Trump voters didn't vote for Trump so he could throw people into ICE detention centers. But . . . given the chance, they would still vote for him. They might be disappointed or even angry he's not doing what they wanted him to do but they still think he's going to do what they wanted him to do eventually (bring costs down, etc.).

Pretty much. After all the crap he pulled in his first term and lies he told and crimes he committed. They still voted for him. 

[Shrek]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

While it's somewhat comforting to think that it's also misleading. It's true a lot of Trump voters didn't vote for Trump so he could throw people into ICE detention centers. But . . . given the chance, they would still vote for him. They might be disappointed or even angry he's not doing what they wanted him to do but they still think he's going to do what they wanted him to do eventually (bring costs down, etc.).

This is exactly what a lot of his supporters wanted & expected him to do. As long as they're not the ones getting thrown into ICE detention centers they don't care who gets thrown in there. They would even cheer their own families getting thrown into these places as long as Trump said they were in the wrong. The majority of them are cheering from the rooftops about it & there are a few with buyers remorse but they just get shouted down by the majority who just call them names, just like the orange felon does when people don't agree with him. 

[peeayebee]

"I never thought the leopards would eat MY face."

Yeah, I read a couple of stories from people who were fired but not supported at all by their friends and family.

[EtheltoTillie]

NM. Wrong thread. 

Edited March 18 by EtheltoTillie