So when you said what you wanted was "an actual answer", what you really wanted was for me to change my demeanor? My negative reaction to their grotesquely dishonest - not to mention vastly self-righteous - line of argument was bad, but their indefensible dishonesty was just fine? Double standard?

1) It absolutely isn't
2) Nothing I've said implied I did.
3) If you won't hold yourself to any kind of standard of truth, what's left to distinguish you from the people you purport to oppose?

This kind of "retreat into incoherence" is something I'm very accustomed to seeing from right-wingers when pressed on their terrible arguments, but it's a little sad, to be honest, seeing it from someone purporting to be on the left.

If you were to trouble yourself to scroll through the thread you're responding to, just a little, you would find this statement from me. Does it answer your question sufficiently?

bsky.app/profile/less...

What did I say that gave the impression that that is what I want?

You want an "actual fucking answer" to the question of "why keep ICE at all"?

The absolutely wild level of intellectual dishonesty on display here is really something to see. I'm assuming you really put some time in developing these skills.

> when you're saying Democrats should keep ICE

Can you point to the specific post where this was said?

Obviously ICE shouldn't exist. The agency should be dissolved, and the many crimes committed by its current membership investigated and prosecuted. But perhaps look again at the series of questions I'm responding to above.

What are you aiming to achieve with this question?

The good thing about electric cars is that they're electric. The bad thing about them is that they're cars.

Fingers crossed for a future world where the few remaining cars are all electric.

I'm just concerned all those hard strikes to the head might have given Tate brain damage. I mean, there'd be no way to tell, but it still may have happened.