#us polotics

[acephoric]

I saw a comment on a video talking about how horrible the Epstein files and Ice are, and the comment said “Y’all have guns, why don’t you do something?”

Because they have tanks.

I asked my parents the same question a few days ago. Since the right wing fought so hard for the second amendment, why don’t we use it? Why don’t we gun down ice officers whenever they invade our homes, streets, communities?”

and there’s a few reasons.

Not everyone has the guts to be a murderer. You may talk big about how you would kill every Ice agent, how you would slaughter every member of congress… But if you found yourself holding the gun with both of your shaking hands, every person you’ve ever wanted dead lined up and ready to take that bullet…

Would you really be able to put it through their skulls?

I know I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t be able to live with myself.

That’s not a bad thing. It makes us better than them, because they can kill with no guilt, no regret, no regard for the lives they end. They wash their hands, and to them, that means the blood is gone.

If we wash our hands, we still know it was there, we’ll remember the residue and the stain it left. Because we are better. Because we know better.

Another reason would be because, even if everybody in Minneapolis pulled out their guns and killed every last ice agent who dared step foot on the street, ignoring how hard it is to murder, then the ice agents— the government would come back, with tanks and bombs and heavier weapons to bring those damn buildings to the ground.

They’ve dealt with our unruliness until now, but if we pushed any further than protests and riots, we wouldn’t make it out alive.

so no, we can’t just get our guns and fight; You don’t fight fire with fire unless you want a larger fire.

You fight it with water.

That’s what we’re doing.

and if you aren’t ready to stand up and shout for what’s right, then you are not angry enough.

[fotovelocity]

A member of The Portland Frog Brigade crossing the street across from The Portland ICE Detention Facility on the night of January 25, 2026.

[call-me-mother-darling]

For fellow Americans because we are being censored I’ll use the emoji instead of spelling it out.

Here are some things to remember about 🧊 going door to door.

- Do not let them in unless they have a warrant signed by a JUDGE and a JUDGE only. It’s called a judicial warrant. A way to check quickly is to make sure it doesn’t say administrative officer/ agent/ etc next to the signature line.

- Do not answer your door. If they do not leave, set up your phone somewhere, NOT in your hand because they will take it, and start recording. If you have a screen door then talk through that. Remember they have the right to knock but you also have the right to not answer.

- Always lock your doors at night and during the day. Never have it unlocked unless you’re walking through the door way.

- If you have the funds, get an outside camera. If you don’t record as much as you can with your phone or any device you can get your hands on, with the same technique I talking about above.

- Remember this is a very real thing and the best thing you can do is be prepared.

For those who are willing to do some witchy stuff to make your house “invisible” (not literally but to put that protection) put black salt, which is any kind of ash mixed with salt, garlics power, and onion powder on all doors and windows with the intention of protecting and shield the house from lingering eyes. I personally do it on the top of said things so it’s out of reach for animals and it can’t be seen unless you’re looking for it.

I will also put a ss below of a something simple I got from a creator.

[thebadchoicemachine]

Reddit - Dive into anything

The top comment:

As of this moment this legislation is in front of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transport. I have taken the liberty of compiling a list of all the names and phone numbers of every Senator on that committee, and I've put the names of Senators up for re-election in 2026 in bold.

I will note that this is the third time this legislation has been introduced. In 2022 it ended up dying in Committee when introduced in the Senate and the same happened when it was introduced to the House of Representatives in 2023. Obviously we should all be concerned and take action, but don't go into full blown panic unless it exits committee. At that point I intend to have a list ready of all 100 Senators stating which ones are up for re-election and are considered at risk of losing seats.

Also my advice for calls:

- When talking with Republicans play up the fact that this would force Elon to implement age verification systems on X (yes do call it X during the call). Elon's been threatening to primary Republicans who stand in his way so there's fear of him. Also play up concerns about "Liberals" doxxing people or Chinese hackers.

- When talking with Democrats, play up the connections to Project 2025 and suggest voters will not be happy to see Democrats siding with it.

Republicans:

Ted Cruz, Texas (Chairman) - Phone: [phone]

John Thune, South Dakota - Phone: [phone]

Roger Wicker, Mississippi - Phone: [phone]

Deb Fischer, Nebraska - Phone: [phone]

Jerry Moran, Kansas - Phone: [phone]

Dan Sullivan, Alaska - Phone: [phone]

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee - Phone: [phone]

Todd Young, Indiana - Phone: [phone]

Ted Budd, North Carolina - [phone]

Eric Schmitt, Missouri - [phone]

John Curtis, Utah - Phone: [phone]

Bernie Moreno, Ohio - Phone: [phone]

Tim Sheehy, Montana - Phone: [phone]

Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia - Phone: [phone]

Cynthia Lummis, Wyoming - Phone: [phone]

Democrats:

Maria Cantwell, Washington (Ranking Member) - Phone: [phone]

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota - Phone: [phone]

Brian Schatz, Hawaii - Phone: [phone]

Ed Markey, Massachusetts - Phone: [phone]

Gary Peters, Michigan - Phone: [phone]

Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin - Phone: [phone]

Tammy Duckworth, Illinois - Phone: [phone]

Jacky Rosen, Nevada - Phone: [phone]

Ben Ray Luján, New Mexico - Phone: [phone]

John Hickenlooper, Colorado - Phone: [phone]

John Fetterman, Pennsylvania - Phone: [phone]

Andy Kim, New Jersey - Phone: [phone]

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware - Phone: [phone]

••••

script courtesy of the comment section comment:

Here is a script I just wrote - feel free to use!

Hi, my name is [], and I am one of Senator []’s constituents. I live in [city, zip code - leave your full address if leaving a voicemail].

I am calling in regards to a bill that was recently introduced in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transport: the SCREEN act.

I am asking Senator [] to either take no action or vote against this bill because of its implications for freedom of speech. [insert one of the other concerns listed above]. Thank you for your time and for listening to my concerns.

[sockssketchingshack]

Some debate advice from someone who was in the advanced debate team in highschool. (I am not a professional and I do not claim to be one.)

How to debate with someone on social issues when it's clear they hate you and will not be swayed because of their ignorance and the lies they have been fed:

Okay so I've seen a lot of content about people debating people who are way too stubborn in their beliefs and they are always made out to be the correct ones based on the fact that they have done research before hand to back their arguments

The best way to debate with this type of person is to derail from the original question

And if you haven't done any research before hand go for opinionated emotional reasoning. You can't logic or fact your way through an moral delimma

I recommend "do you want people to suffer?" Because you can make a lot of arguments on how treating people like the way those people treat people make those people suffer. How treating people like the enemy can make these innocent people hate themselves.

Make sure you bring up how bad suffering can be, suffering can lead people to isolate themselves, hate themselves, harm themselves, and even suicide. This will give your argument a much more solid and heavier footing. Make sure to really give it meaning by using terms that are familiar, a family having to mourn their child, a friend having to speak at their funeral, the wasted dreams and potential of the person who we have all failed going to waste due to losing a soul too soon. A loss we could have easily avoided if the world was less cruel.

And if they say they want innocent people to suffer? You now have enough ammunition to win the debate on that alone. Make sure to go all on on how messed up it is that they would want innocent people to suffer and how that's sadistic behavior, use any and all titles you think could back up your point. Heartless, apathetic, Etc.

I recommend some comparison pieces because people like these seem to love comparing things, for instance pride month getting a month meanwhile veterans only get a day, (this is not true veterans month is November) comparing transitioning genders to transitioning race, and other irrational and completely stupid comparisons they create. But you can be better than this by giving comparisons that actually have a lot of similarities, for instance Nazis hated gay people, Nazis used to come into people's homes and split apart families similar to how immigration does today.

Also they love definitions of words. They use them to their advantage. For example the definition of a women, We can do the same, the definition of tyrant is "a person exercising power or control in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way" you can now easily make an argument on why a certain figure fits into this definition.

And I recommend the definition of dictator, "a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force" you can easily apply it to the current ruler of this country and back your reasoning with the way they have deployed the military in unnecessary and board line obsessive intensity.

And if you are really really serious about proving these people wrong you can actually do research, remember research people like to argue in facts and statistics, so you have to have your own in order to debate them, or like I said change the debate to morals and then they're f#cked cause facts and statistics does absolutely nothing for moral arguments.

Stay safe out there, sometimes it's better to pick and choose your battles, purely because I don't want any of you getting physically hurt by anyone, because when people get angry at losing an argument they can get physical.

[dusk-the-fallen]

“Why can’t everyone just get along??” Idk maybe it’s because they’re raping us and murdering us and taking our rights away and trying to take away resources that we need on to survive and assaulting us on the streets and killing our kids and calling us dangerous to society and and glorifying\ignoring our suffering and trying to keep us impoverished and saying that our history shouldn’t be taught in schools and demonizing our cultures and trying to make our existence illegal unless we’re quiet, subservient, and suppress ourselves for white cishet, perisex people (if they want us to exist at all). But I guess we have to “Respect others opinions” and all.

[leafgorge]

the 20s were an awful time to be a lesbian or whatever jash said

[poke-me-with-sticks]

so this is horrifying but sadly not surprising.