If you actually look at that conversation then you know it is not exactly immediately, but based on evidence as it trickles down. I personally think your 'side' is missing forest for the trees.

Since that is the case, allow me to spell it out for you. Antics of middleaged, overindulged woman, who was so comfortable that they thought she was virtually untouchable have gone mainstream. Do I get to stop ATF or IRS from performing their operations? No? Why is ICE different then? Because you don't agree with them?

So, the choice is now to either normalize those antics, normalize excessive police force or some sort of reasonable middle ground.

But what do I get? Insults and thinly veiled threats that once dems get into power, I will rue the day.

Get off your high horse and realize that you are encouraging civil war for a retard, who thought they could do whatever they want and face no consequences. Welcome to the real world.

Thank you for proving my point. In one scenario, you argue that ICE has the right to perform an extrajudicial murder because he felt threatened by a car. In this scenario, you defend ICE hitting someone with their car whose only crime was walking nearby. Your only consistent belief is that anything that ICE does is justified. The kind of person you are is incredibly clear.

<< The kind of person you are is incredibly clear.

Oh? What kind of a person am I? Or maybe more interestingly, what kind of a person should I be? The second question is more interesting as it is intended to elicit your hopes and dreams.