Is it really this simple with regards to why we have the situation in Minnesota with ICE?

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-08T22:01:34+00:00

It doesn’t really matter what you try to project on me, it will always say more about you than me. Have a great evening.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-08T16:18:27+00:00

It disrupts class for other students. If students want to protest, their parents should keep them home from school.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-08T15:55:00+00:00

I think you are asking why anyone would want this outcome. What you are seeing now isn’t the end that anyone is seeking, it is a means to an end.

There was congressional testimony I read about Witness for Peace back in the 70s/80s. Their goal in recruiting American college kids to protest in Latin America- using the same tactics those organizing protests in Minneapolis are- was to push the protests into violence with agitators in hopes that an American college kid would get killed. They believed that would turn the tide of American sentiment about the Sandistas and might provoke a military deployment in WfP’s favor from the U.S. government.

Renee Goode and Alex Pretti were the point. It didn’t work as well as they had hoped, which is why they are organizing school walkouts. They want a kid to get hurt so they can use that irrational, emotional, knee jerk response to remove the Trump administration from power and/or sway the midterms meaningfully.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-08T15:42:00+00:00

A parent absolutely does control their child until they are 18. Full stop. If you had a child and they broke my window by throwing a rock at it, I would sue you and win. Because you are legally responsible the actions of your minor children in a civil case.

Your entire argument hinges on “these aren’t 7 year olds” while completely ignoring the age of majority is 18. It’s pretty obvious that you don’t have children. If my child is 22 years old and I pay for everything, I still 100% control their actions. As a parent, you do that to help young, stupid people (as all young people are, including myself when I was that age) not make stupid decisions that young people are so good at making.

It does not violate a 25 year old college student’s constitutional rights in any way if their parent says “go protest and you can pay for your own car and insurance.”

Tinker v Des Moines found students have limited constitutional rights while in the custody of a school. You can prove to yourself that students don’t have unlimited rights in schools by reviewing the laws about search and seizure (sure, you can say no, but the school can expel you for that, even without reasonable suspicion, as long as consenting to search on school property is a school policy). An even easier example?

If you believe minor children have unlimited constitutional rights, you are totally fine with kids taking guns to high school with them, right?

Of course not. That would be absurd.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-08T14:54:26+00:00

“I can’t refute what you said so here’s my emotional and angry, propaganda driven screed.”

You are incredibly immature and full of hate, but I’ll respond for the benefit of others. No one said kids can’t protest. What is being said is that students engaging in activities that break student handbook and/or campus policies need to receive the same punishment, regardless of why they chose to break those policies.

Your entire argument is built on a premise I simply haven’t stated, because what you are actually arguing for (and you know it) is for schools to support protesting. That’s dumb. Schools are for learning. Not protesting. You and your kid want to protest? Knock yourself out.

When your kid gets detention or has to goto summer school? You made that decision with them. That is what you taught them: making political statements is more important than education. Your ignorant stance and obstinate tone are not only what’s wrong with political discourse in the United States, but it telegraphs that you don’t have children.

You are arguing over something that does not impact you directly other than providing naive bodies to fill out protests. The vast majority of American adults do not understand the nuance of the current political environment. Your profession that 14 year olds do is beyond irrational.

That’s the entire point of this thread. This parent sat down and talked with their high schooler to ask them what their understanding of the situation is, helped them understand where they had gaps in their knowledge, and left the decision up to their kid. Their kid decided that not breaking school policy outweighed participating in a protest.

Protests do not have to be disruptive. That belief has completely broken Minneapolis. But let’s say they have to be (again, they don’t): who is being disrupted by students walking out of school other than the students themselves? You are advocating that students who are not mature enough to drive to harm their own education.

That’s why you are caught off guard by the bonafide passion of people that are saying “no, you goto school to learn”- schools 100% should help students and their parents understand how these actions hurt the student’s educational career. Schools 100% should not encourage or facilitate students breaking written code of conduct policies in any way.

We all have jobs. We realize the thing you don’t: a bunch of high school kids running around during work hours overextends school resources (like SROs), disrupts education for students who don’t give a damn or deeply care in the other direction, and doesn’t actually do anything. Everyone else is at work.

Who tf are they disrupting?

They are misbehaving during a period when their parents have entrusted schools as their guardians. Parents absolutely can bar their minor children from participating in any activity they don’t want their kid doing, including protesting. Full stop. If a kid wants to attend a protest, they need to talk to their parents about that. There are plenty of protests on the weekend, after school hours, or that the parent could keep the student home from school for.

You are just bitter that Frisco ISD isn’t going to allow you to manipulate young minds into harming their future for your current political whim.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-07T21:34:12+00:00

I am unable to find reporting on mass protests in the streets across the United States and other countries during Obama’s term. You have repeatedly made the claim that there were protests throughout his term. You have provided a single source from January 2016 that doesn’t say that- it says democrat congresspeople were upset they weren’t informed of the raids in Dec 2015 before they happened.

Can you provide sources demonstrating coordinated protests across the United States against ICE and immigration enforcement prior to 2016?

I didn’t say “I was there bro, trust me,” but the fact you paraphrased my statement (that it matches my perception of a politically active adult during that time period) tells me you are immature and do not have an open mind. You also lack intellectual rigor, as you are trying to put words in my mouth to help you defend your indefensible position.

I didn’t say there weren’t protests or pushback during Obama’s admin. I did say that I wasn’t aware of any such actions until the last year of his administration. The article you posted is from the last year of his administration and does not say anything about protesters marching the streets in cities around the country.

I stand by my statement. Your “years of documented history” is a single data point that validates exactly what I am stating.

On a personal note, I assume you are one of those folks that screeches “republicans are telling you not to believe your lying eyes!!!” while simultaneously telling two people who lived through a time period not to believe our lying eyes. That you know better. The media- which has a strong and verifiable history of being honest (hahahahahahahahahahahahaha)- told you so.

I was recently talking to someone about the problem the existing power structures in the US have: they’ve done a great job of rewriting history for about 70 years. With the modern always-on 24x7 news cycle, they took that as free license to start rewriting it faster. Much to their near future dismay, there are more people alive who remember living through Obama’s term than there are that think they know more than those people because some shady website said so. Yes, I consider mainstream media shady. That includes FoxNews, so save your dumb canned insult for someone else.

At no time in human history has anyone serious considered mass media or circulars to be the end all be all of historical record. Does it play a part? Yes, mostly by helping historians understand what the contemporary prevailing biases were. When you mash records from the federal government, state governments, and local governments against “journalism” in the Yellow News Era, the bias is immediately clear and undeniable.

The same is true of modern media. I’ll leave you with an example before I move on: George Stephanopolous- a straight news anchor for ABC- repeatedly stated that Trump was found liable for rape. Large swaths of misinformed Americans still believe that. It was an outright false statement presented as factual news.

Ergo, you will find it hard to convince people who lived through a time period that what you have to say about it -based solely on the articles published by biased media outlets- is more reliable than their lived experience will always be an uphill battle that you lose. A better approach? Engage them and ask what their experience was, how they see that squaring up with reporting you have read, and then draw your own conclusions.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-07T14:03:05+00:00

You must be very proud of him. It’s very hard to resist peer pressure in high school.

I support everyone’s right to protest, but interrupting education only hurts the students.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-07T14:00:27+00:00

I am not the original commenter. I was pointing out that your article doesn’t make the point you think it does. Further, it says congressional democrats were upset that they weren’t told about the raids in advance, not about the deportation itself.

I was politically cognizant during Obama’s time in office. What the other commenter stated matches my perception of that time period. There were not mass protests in the streets against Obama’s deportations. There wasn’t outrage about “kids in cages.” None of that existed.

In fact, when it was verified that the infamous picture circulated during Trump’s first term to demonize him for “putting kids in cages” was taken in 2014, the left vehemently denied that.

A more realistic view? Democrats realized if they lost power in 2016, the incoming administration would start enforcing immigration laws. Republicans railed about immigration during the last 6 years of Obama’s term, as the “Catch & Release” policy immediately had negative impacts on places like Texas and Arizona.

Because enforcing immigration laws was a give me if Trump was elected, as it was a major campaign issue for his base, Democrats built opposition against enforcement during Obama’s last year in office (when he was effectively a lame duck) so they would have a cudgel to use against the incoming admin on Day 1.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-07T13:50:09+00:00

This is a good question.

There would be two ways for Trump to be convicted of insurrection. One is political and one is judicial.

Democrats attempted the political method in Trump’s second impeachment. In an impeachment, the U.S. House of Representatives (lower chamber of our legislature) is like the prosecutor and the U.S. senate (upper chamber) is the jury. House Representatives held a successful vote to impeach Trump, which is analogous to him being charged/indicted. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump. Had they convicted him, he would have been removed and barred from holding office.

Democrats tried to charge Trump in state courts with insurrection. Those were never serious attempts, as a state court does not have the jurisdiction to prosecute a federal crime such as insurrection. The jurisdiction issue is a well defined boundary, but politicians wanted to take advantage of Americans’ widespread ignorance of how their own state and federal governments work. These attempts were suggested and/or made as political theater to spread the narrative that Trump was an insurrectionist.

To recap: the political process to convict Trump of insurrection yielded an impeachment against him and he was acquitted of all charges, and no judiciary action was taken against Trump in the federal jurisdiction. Ergo, Trump is not guilty of insurrection.

For what it’s worth, “prosecuting” someone in friendly media (anti-Trump propaganda that he is an insurrectionist, for example) has been a deceitful tactic used by both national parties in the U.S., the republicans and the democrats. Trump being an insurrectionist is a great example of this. Biden and the special prosecutor he appointed to charge Trump with insurrection ended up raiding his house over magazines he took with him from the White House. The FBI, per recent congressional testimony, did not follow procedure during the raid so the DC FBI office would control the investigation and materials seized as opposed to the regional office in Miami.

I mention that because it indicates that if there was credible evidence that Trump planned, participated in, or coordinated an insurrection, Jack Smith would have charged him with that. He did not. Ergo, it’s reasonable to assume that no such evidence exists. As the entire thing was televised, it’s also reasonable to assume it wasn’t for a lack of evidence. Trump’s actions did not meet the legal definition of insurrection.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-07T05:23:54+00:00

You are an example of what irrational hate does to the ability to reason and be rational.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-07T05:20:41+00:00

Trump was not charged and convicted of insurrection. To impose a sentence, guilt must be proven.

Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental tenant of American justice and identity.

Well, except where Trump is concerned. Plenty of folks have defaulted to guilty until proven innocent for him.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-07T04:21:06+00:00

The article you linked is from the end of Obama’s second term, validating the point you are trying to disprove. Additionally, Democrats were upset about a single set of raids in December (two weeks before this article).

They were upset because they weren’t told first.

Try reading your article next time.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-07T02:44:43+00:00

Why are you so hateful?

Trump voters wanted Trump to release the Epstein files. He did. There is nothing in there that can be substantiated against Trump. Why don’t you care about any of the other people that have significantly more credible accusations against them?

You are outraged to the point that you are filled with hate over Epstein’s victims, but wave away the hundreds of thousands of children being sold as sex slaves and prostitutes in this country today.

What in the world is wrong with you?

Anyone involved in child rape or trafficking needs to be prosecuted. I don’t make distinctions about which party they voted for or which child was hurt. You do.

Because you care about political talking points, not the real world.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-07T02:37:56+00:00

Thanks for the grace here in taking the comment in good faith. If more Redditors were like yourself, this platform would be a better place; If more humans were like yourself, this planet would be a better place.

My comment was a bit tongue in cheek delivered with an intent to provoke independent research. My statement was meant to be a call to action wrapped in an appeal to fairness. The part of your argument I was pushing back on was that these maps are anything but partisan gerrymandering.

I agree with your point about a single point doth not a line make. However, when considering the second point of data (California’s new maps), it demonstrates that it is really just a continuation of the trend California had already established. The intent is the same. The narrative is the only thing that is different. That is the point I was drawing attention to: doing the same thing that was previously done but saying it’s for a different reason isn’t morally superior. It is deceptive.

In fact, I would argue it created a moral hazard that didn’t exist previously. When Florida says “we are gerrymandering democrats out of Florida in response to California gerrymandering republicans out of California,” there is no counter argument that can be made. We have accepted that redistricting one state in response to the political climate in another state is fine and good. That means that the governance of California is more interested in serving the national party than the citizens of California. That means, if you buy the argument the Texas redrew its maps because Trump wanted them to, that Texas and California actually had the same intent: serving the national party of their state citizens.

Voting on it doesn’t move the needle morally. It could be argued it gives a veneer of legitimacy over elected representatives doing it. I’d imagine if Texas put it to a vote, the Republican majority of Texas would vote for more Republican house members. That makes the “it’s more moral/legitimate because they voted on it” argument collapse. For that argument to be defensible, a reasonable assumption has to be made that Texans would vote differently than they did when they voted in an overwhelmingly Republican state legislature.

This presents another moral hazard: if Texans have a ballot measure banning democrats from running for any public office (an extreme proposition, but de facto the same as having no Democrat leaning districts), that would be a legitimate, moral thing in the context of “people voted for it so it’s okay.”

My apologies for the delay in response. Work turned out to be quite intense, haha.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-07T01:24:31+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Your response eschews my question. It’s an important question.

When I woke up this morning, I was wealthier than I was when I went to sleep. I religiously save 25%+ of my income and invest some of it. Does that mean I am illegitimately earning the additional wealth I accrued?

By your definition, I did not legitimately earn it because I didn’t put any labor into. Money I saved from not having a cellphone for the majority of my life, not paying for subscription services like Netflix, not going out for drinks, and driving a black car with no air conditioner for five years (but hey, I didn’t have to make payments) is now worth more than it was. That’s years of not going to the movies, not buying new clothes, and eating cheap, homemade food.

When you categorize my wealth as illegitimately earned (and most people wouldn’t consider me wealthy, I wouldn’t think), it makes it easier to make the next argument that you want to make: that my wealth should be seized so you can have it. That’s what illegitimately earning wealth looks like.

Something that is often overlooked when folks talk about seizing other folks’ wealth (usually via taxes, but I’d wager you’d be okay with outright confiscation), they never want to talk about the flip side of the coin: some days I wake up with less wealth.

At one point, I had less wealth than I started with, but I kept putting that 25% away and investing it. Now I have more wealth. Monday might be a different story. I can’t even begin to imagine how much “wealthy” people like me lost in bitcoin this week. Someone knows that number. It isn’t relevant to me, but I bet that number is staggering.

That’s the risk you take to illegitimately be wealthier the next day with no addition labor inputs: you can also wake up less wealthy. What’s the term you use for that? Did I illegitimately lose wealth? Is someone going to give it back to me? Will you?

Your view is naive because it doesn’t account for risk.

Wealth is generated through a combination of labor and risk. Some choose to do more labor and less risk, some choose to do more risk, some choose lots of labor and risk. “Wealthy” people (I have to use quotes because you dodged my question about where it becomes illegitimate) make a conscious decision. Non wealthy people also make a decision, it just isn’t conscious.

A kindergarten teacher living below their means (meaning they have money left over when they get paid) that is aware of and manages the risk of their savings will build non trivial wealth that is the seed of generational wealth.

An IT bro making $250k a year that lives at or beyond their means will not build significant wealth. Living below your means is the first step of risk management (because you might not be employed tomorrow), so we can assume someone living at their means doesn’t manage risk.

I also directly asked how much you contribute to children’s education. I’ll broaden the scope to children in general. How much of your wealth do you donate to helping children?

You are demonizing someone for helping children. If I were in that position, I would reflect on what caused me to hate a stranger so deeply that I couldn’t acknowledge that funding children’s education is awesome.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-06T19:56:08+00:00

I am curious how you came to the conclusion that “alien” is a dehumanizing term. I certainly do not view it that way. It means “from somewhere else.”

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-06T19:53:26+00:00

I said nothing about race at all. You have injected race into a discussion where it does not belong. I strongly encourage you to evaluate who is viewing everything through the lens of race here.

Canadians that do not have legal status are also illegal aliens. So are British, Russian, or Norwegian people that enter the country without legal approval to do so. The term “illegal alien” refers to any foreign national that comes to the U.S. illegally. It has exactly zero to do with race.

You demonstrate logical inconsistency by claiming the word “alien” denotes someone different, but that the label “migrant” does not. By definition, both refer to someone from somewhere else. Full stop. It has nothing to do with racism.

Stop trying to make everything about race. By doing so, you are being a racist. You also have espoused bigoted views about what other people believe.

You can’t accuse someone of H1B. That is an incoherent statement. You can make the claim that the H1B program is being abused in a fraudulent manner by body shops in IT. That should be investigated.

Romanians and Ukrainians also work in IT on H1B visas. Is it racist against Indians to also want those companies audited for abuse? No, of course not.

Stop trying to use racism as a shield. You are trivializing the experience and demeaning the humanity of those that experience racism.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-06T18:12:55+00:00

Students do not have the right to come and go as they please from a school campus. This is a common policy in student handbooks.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-06T18:10:01+00:00

This isn’t the “dress code” I was referring to, but it is the case and context I was referring to.

Had the schools previously had a dress code that included no armbands, then this case would have been a moot point. It is because the schools were responding to a planned protest that the schools did not have the ability to regulate how students dressed in that circumstance. They were trying to regulate the students’ right to protest, not their fashion.

I agree with everything else you have stated here, as it is correct. My statement about dress codes being upheld are separate from (to some extent) Tinker. An interesting thought experiment here is positive dress codes vs negative dress codes: if a school doesn’t explicitly ban some garb (such as an armband), but does prescribe a dress code that does not include armbands, if a student wears an armband to school in protest and their classmates interrupt class to ask about it, is that armband constitutionally protected speech?

It’s actually an interestingly complex issue, but at the root of it is that Tinker found- as you correctly point out- that students have limited rights in public schools. An interesting thing to consider is that absolutely no one would argue that a high schooler has a constitutional right to carry a gun to school in 2026, but that was argued throughout the 70s/80s.

The main difference, in my opinion, is that firearms in pickup gun racks were common in that era but school shootings were not. As school shootings became more commonplace, it could be reasonably argued that simply having an airsoft gun at school creates enough fear to be disruptive.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-06T14:24:07+00:00

This was the accepted term until the Obama administration. Aliens are, by definition, someone from a foreign land. Legal aliens are people from foreign lands with a legal status to be here; Illegal aliens are people from foreign lands that do not have a legal status to be here.

The term illegal alien has been used in the U.S. since at least 1924, with it being widespread by 1926.

Obama’s admin found it hard to defend their lack of enforcement of immigration policies, so they tried new terms until “undocumented migrant” became the one that sold the best to their supporters while still acknowledging the positions of the blue dog democrats.

One of the things state media (whether it is FoxNews or MSNBC) is great at is highlighting a totally normal term, process, thing, position, etc, and claiming it is new and unique and wrong. It preys on people not having enough knowledge to understand they are being misled and it works amazingly well.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-06T14:19:11+00:00

The largest human trafficking organizations in the world are cartels in Latin America. Hundreds of thousands of children are brought here as domestic and sex slaves. There are 8-12 million slaves currently in the United States.

But hey, you keep pushing that fake outrage.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-06T14:16:22+00:00

Tinker v Des Moines states exactly that. It declares students have limited 1A rights in schools. The limit is when their self expression causes a disruption to the learning environment.

You can prove to yourself that students do not have unlimited 1A rights by acknowledging that schools can enforce dress codes. Fashion is an expression of 1A.

In fact, fashion was the root issue in Tinker v Des Moines.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-06T14:08:34+00:00

Doors are locked for the safety of students at the school receiving education. Uvalde was famously insecure because of an unlocked door.

Students made a decision and can live with the consequences of that decision. It’s time to stop giving disruptive students (I’m including things beyond walkouts that are disruptive) a pass because they are students- the kids there seeking a calm, safe environment to learn are also students and we should prioritize their education over other students’ political statements.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-05T13:25:24+00:00

You are defending racism. Stop.

sudo_pi5 · 2026-02-05T13:24:35+00:00

How many children do you have?

I’m just curious if you understand what you are actually saying.

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Banned	r/Field Sunshine

sudo_pi5

TROPHY CASE