President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[LVAllen]

No. I want these J6ers who Trump hired gone. I want funding levels to remain the same but hiring and vetting to be done properly. And just like police, I believe whole heartedly in a rotating position. Entry requires a mental eval, and regularly evaluations. As for rotating, they should be on the streets for a period of time and then in office or service related work to keep them from this heavy intense time on the streets.

They should be required to have CEUs in various areas to address de-escalation, intense situations etc.

Too many come from the military and are used to the SOP in military and that needs to be adjusted.

You want funding levels to remain the same? After it got jacked way up? Yeah, to hell with that.

Also, it is likely that most of these asshats are not, in fact, coming from the military. They're failing from police departments and picking up a job after no one else would give them a duty holster.

[dabrockster]

You want funding levels to remain the same? After it got jacked way up? Yeah, to hell with that.

Also, it is likely that most of these asshats are not, in fact, coming from the military. They're failing from police departments and picking up a job after no one else would give them a duty holster.

Yeah. I think I will take the word of law enforcement over yours. Those who failed in getting into law enforcement ending up in ICE. I agree with this. And again, goes tog point that all these new hires under Trump’s orders and his lesser hiring practices needs to be cleansed.

[Northwestcoug]

Yeah. I think I will take the word of law enforcement over yours. Those who failed in getting into law enforcement ending up in ICE. I agree with this. And again, goes tog point that all these new hires under Trump’s orders and his lesser hiring practices needs to be cleansed.

The conservative argument about government spending being linked to fraud and abuse is apt. The government rained money down on ICE, to the ludicrous tune of tripling their budget. They went on a buying spree, buying detention centers, hiring more officers, getting new surveillance technology, etc, etc. They literally have more money than they know what to do with. The problem isn't hiring the wrong people. The problem is the existence of that money and ICE trying to spend it. The bad people who you are hoping can be weeded out in a different administration will still be attracted to a department that has to spend the money allocated to them.

[Maximus]

Yeah. I think I will take the word of law enforcement over yours. Those who failed in getting into law enforcement ending up in ICE. I agree with this. And again, goes tog point that all these new hires under Trump’s orders and his lesser hiring practices needs to be cleansed.

you trust ICE? 1984

[dabrockster]

you trust ICE? 1984

Just stop.. I trust qualified agents who have been there through various admins.

[Northwestcoug]

Yeah, the problem isn't poorly trained agents or hiring the wrong people. It's the agency itself. When it has the resources and the full backing of the government, it does actions like these that would have historical conservatives up in arms:

On a recent Sunday morning at Prince of Peace Lutheran Church in Roseville, Minn., Steve Sylvester, the interim pastor there, had an unusual announcement to make.

Standing at the altar, he told his mostly elderly congregation that the Department of Homeland Security had surveilled their church during the federal immigration enforcement surge that happened in the state last winter.

The revelation was part of a motion filed in federal court just a few days before the service, as part of an ongoing conspiracy case against ICE protesters.

According to government documents, an undercover DHS agent attended a meeting of ICE protesters at Prince of Peace in February. The agent captured the license plates of people there and then compiled dossiers including their names, addresses and information about their families and jobs, according to the motion...

For months, the documents show, federal agents secretly made recordings of meetings held at churches, libraries, restaurants and schools around the Twin Cities. They infiltrated private group chats, sought the financial records of national labor unions, and gathered information on community members who had not been accused of any crimes.

https://www.npr.org/2026/08/25/nx-s1-5941135/dhs-surveillance-minnesota-ice-surge?utm_medium=social&utm_source=bsky.app&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr

[Clark Addison]

Maybe I am reading too quickly and missed something but I don't understand what this argument is about. DaBrockster says it needs reform, I assume no one is saying that the US shouldn't have an enforcement arm of immigration policy, so what is the fight about?

[Northwestcoug]

Maybe I am reading too quickly and missed something but I don't understand what this argument is about. DaBrockster says it needs reform, I assume no one is saying that the US shouldn't have an enforcement arm of immigration policy, so what is the fight about?

I'm responding to his post that he's OK with the current level of DHS funding.

[Copelius]

I'm responding to his post that he's OK with the current level of DHS funding.

I am not ok with any federal department's current funding. I think that all government funding could take a significant haircut. But what about the benefits? People have earned them and deserve what was promised to them. Yes they do. But what exactly is the promise of Social Security and Medicare, which I believe to be the highest portion of the "non-discretionary" funding requirements of the budget each year.

My recollection from US History is that the original purpose was "to provide a federal safety net against poverty-ridden old age." Why was old age so poverty ridden in the 1930s? The consensus answer I have found is that "older adults who could no longer work depended entirely on personal savings or family support." So the Social Security pension was created to allow those who were unable to work a safety net, thus creating the retirement myth. I get it. I am tired of going to work everyday and would love to be able to just be done in 10-15 years, which is when I am eligible to start collecting SS pension. But does that mean I shouldn't work if I can, and don't have enough saved to care for myself without the help of the government? I don't think so.

When the SS began in the 1930s the life expectancy was 58 to 60 for men and 62-64 for women. So they set the SS retirement age to 65, essentially saying that if you live past your life expectancy, we will take care of you. I think that is a good start. After all, if the benefit can be attached to inflation, why can't the eligibility be attached to life expectancy? With the addition of disability to the SSA, those who cannot work to their life expectancy can be taken care of as well.

I know this has nothing to do with the evils of Trump or DHS or anything else that has been discussed on this thread recently, and I may be repeating myself, but I saw government funding complaints and wanted to add my own.

Now back to my observational hole with occasional snarky comments.

[dabrockster]

I am not ok with any federal department's current funding. I think that all government funding could take a significant haircut. But what about the benefits? People have earned them and deserve what was promised to them. Yes they do. But what exactly is the promise of Social Security and Medicare, which I believe to be the highest portion of the "non-discretionary" funding requirements of the budget each year.

My recollection from US History is that the original purpose was "to provide a federal safety net against poverty-ridden old age." Why was old age so poverty ridden in the 1930s? The consensus answer I have found is that "older adults who could no longer work depended entirely on personal savings or family support." So the Social Security pension was created to allow those who were unable to work a safety net, thus creating the retirement myth. I get it. I am tired of going to work everyday and would love to be able to just be done in 10-15 years, which is when I am eligible to start collecting SS pension. But does that mean I shouldn't work if I can, and don't have enough saved to care for myself without the help of the government? I don't think so.

When the SS began in the 1930s the life expectancy was 58 to 60 for men and 62-64 for women. So they set the SS retirement age to 65, essentially saying that if you live past your life expectancy, we will take care of you. I think that is a good start. After all, if the benefit can be attached to inflation, why can't the eligibility be attached to life expectancy? With the addition of disability to the SSA, those who cannot work to their life expectancy can be taken care of as well.

I know this has nothing to do with the evils of Trump or DHS or anything else that has been discussed on this thread recently, and I may be repeating myself, but I saw government funding complaints and wanted to add my own.

Now back to my observational hole with occasional snarky comments.

[dabrockster]

I'm responding to his post that he's OK with the current level of DHS funding.

Look, I am all for cutting their budget and I think it should go back to the levels it was prior to this Admin. It was working fine prior and would still address immigration issues sufficiently. I figure my statement of getting rid of all these new hires was clear enough that it implied non rehiring. Only after attrition of existing positions prior to this massive hiring we have seen.

[Moliere]

I’m not okay with the current IRS funding

[BlueK]

So is Trump not actually joking about running in 2028? While I don't think that will work out for him, I wonder if he will still manage to severely damage the Republican chances of winning by just holding the possibility out there that he wants to run again.

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/disturbing-secret-behind-karoline-leavitt-140551886.html

[Northwestcoug]

Look, I am all for cutting their budget and I think it should go back to the levels it was prior to this Admin. It was working fine prior and would still address immigration issues sufficiently. I figure my statement of getting rid of all these new hires was clear enough that it implied non rehiring. Only after attrition of existing positions prior to this massive hiring we have seen.

I didn’t realize I was that persuasive!

From two days ago:

I want funding levels to remain the same but hiring and vetting to be done properly.

[Northwestcoug]

This bit of serious diplomacy will surely help his poll numbers:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTDsBrXM2/