Use the over crowded conditions and illegal behavior to fire staff from the organization, then don’t rehire replacements.
Direct them to stop arresting people. Divert internal funds to other things. Cut off their access to information to arrest prople.
A million things they could have done to rot the organization and diminish it’s capability to inflict cruelty.
don’t need to break the law to seriously gum up an organization.
And what good is playing by the spirit of the law, or maintaining political norms, when it’s been made very clear that no one else is going to.
If the option is to maintain a needlessly immigration cruel system, or let it rot on the vine. Let it rot on the vine and salt the earth under it.
They’re really putting the squeezing on everyone they can to shut the dissent down.
Shame for them that it’s not really working.
As the current administration is showing, it is entirely possible for the executive to unilaterally knee cap an organization.
Making a cruel institution 10% less cruel but maintaining/reinforcing its capacity, was a worse call than just knee capping the institution and gutting it as much as they could while they had the opportunity.
Perhaps it would have been divisive, but what does that matter when doing what they did mobilized the opposition’s base just as much.
I think there is a serious disconnect where biden/haris’s government campaigned on “we’re going to stop the bad things that trump is doing” which to the base read as “we’re going to restructure the system” but they meant “we’re going to mitigate the harms of the system but fundamentally leave it intact (because we lack the political capital to actually solve the issue)”.
Haris walked out on stage and said “look what a good job we’re doing” and everyone was pissed because the problem was manifestly not solved. Partially because “the immigration crisis” is not really a single political issues, it’s two political issues that get lumped together in polling. One group of voters have been petrified by stories of “violent foreign gangs” and another is worried about a system harming some of the most vulnerable people.
They shouldn’t have campaigned on it, they should have tried to redirect the focus of the campaign on to something else, and they should have been clear about the messaging on it. It was a colossal fuck up to lean in to it as core issue of the campaign because neither side of the issue cared about how well the existing system was being run. both sides hated the existing system, one side wanted a new system that wasn’t cruel, and one side just didn’t want immigrants at all.
Alcohol is a suppressant and can make people sleepy, but, like, not really a good idea for a sleep aid given that your body uses a lot of water to clear it out, and it’s hard to drink water to replace that when you’re unconscious. Leading to waking up dehydrated and feeling awful.
I think in many ways it’s a matter of poltical survival and optics. Many politicians were terrified that it would be political suicide to say anything negative, to give any notion that they weren’t “supporting an alley”. They were targeted directly by propaganda campaigns to convince them that what was going on was good and that the public and media were on board. Convinced that important media outlets could dogpile and demolish their public support if they did anything to go against the consensus.
But the propaganda campaign has failed to convince significant segments of the public, and media pushing it is actually hurting its credibility and viewership. Finally politicians are realizing that the threat of political destruction over the issue is largely non-existent and that there is actual public good will to be earned.
Eh, I can see some political rational behind the carve out. I think the rational is a bit naive though.
Probably something along the lines of “well he’ll just veto it if it touches his money, and by making it only apply if he some how gets a third term that encourages him not to try it” as if him getting a third term would imply anything but a total break down of the legal system that could enforce a divestment.
Would be less concerning if it was the other way around, with energy drink instead of alcohol. Still a concern though, some people are pretty sensitive to caffeine and those things are like 200mg, and certainly an unpleasant night for anyone expecting to get to bed on time.
I’d say in general they’re not exactly the most ethical company, they market their energy drinks as “healthy” when in reality there really isn’t much of a difference between them and white monster or sugar free red bull.
honestly, tasted both, doubt most people would be able to notice the difference if they were’t paying attention. They both taste of chemicals and vaguely sweet.
Well, clearly, the strategy of rebuilding and reinforcing the system, in hopes that it would diffuse the right’s ability to campaign on immigration issues didn’t work.
Clearly the plan of playing respectability politics and hoping the right comes back to the table for “bipartisan reforms” didn’t work.
The democratic party establishment can keep claiming that they’re all about responsible governance, sensible strategy and practical methods, but if it keeps failing, is it really sensible, practical and reasonable? We can blame Harris’s consultants for leading her astray during the campaign, but it was Harris her self who adopted the strategy of leaning in to immigration policy as her big thing as VP.