Being wild "horses" tends to not end well for the horses.
What a lovely sentiment to share about people concerned with being able to continue to live.
Jumping back and forth between trans rights matter and getting mad at trans people for suggesting their rights shouldn't be a bargaining chip.
Liberal Credo Beliefs lawn sign where “No human being is illegal” has been crossed out and painted over with “we had to make a deal, the Nazis held the lower house”
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but this bill was negotiated in the Senate was it not? Where Republican leadership is supportive of aid for Ukraine? So the offer from Democrats was more than Republicans ever thought they would be able to get, while crossing at least one previous red line for Democrats (previously a bill without a path to citizenship for Dreamers would be DoA) all in order to get the Ukraine aid that the Republican senators also wanted?
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
Depends on the outcome, I'd imagine.
Let's imagine, for argument's sake, that some truly absurd aligning of the stars occurs and somehow Biden wins but the Republicans take/hold the House and Senate.
Obviously he's not getting shit done. They will happily sit on their hands and scream about overreach while sending him endless bills banning being Trans and trying to remove immigrants at every opportunity and banning abortion and I dunno, something about his son's laptop for shits and giggles. Would it be fair to complain about how little he got done?
At that point I imagine he'd just be on veto auto-pilot and doing his best to avoid the nation collapsing under the sheer gravity of the willful ignorance and incompetence involved.
That isn't to say that without a supermajority in both the house and senate that he and his administration are beyond critique or reproach, but even if they get a thin margins win or better, unless we have enough folks willing to throw out the filibuster and the necessary margins to do what needs to be done (y'all know what I mean) without a couple of blue dog assholes ruining everyone's day, like the last congress and the current one, there's only so much that can be done.
They should do more, but I'm trying to note that there's context to consider.
If he had 60+ in the senate and like 60% of the house and was still like 'oh, we should slow roll a few things every now and then', that'd be a torches and pitchforks moment for sure.
But with the running gag of the electoral college and whatnot, that's unlikely to happen, so I guess we're in deep academic territory then.
I don't think the next congress will be seated and they'll all make a 30 point leap to the left, but I do think that piece of context will matter all the same.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Being wild "horses" tends to not end well for the horses.
What a lovely sentiment to share about people concerned with being able to continue to live.
Jumping back and forth between trans rights matter and getting mad at trans people for suggesting their rights shouldn't be a bargaining chip.
Liberal Credo Beliefs lawn sign where “No human being is illegal” has been crossed out and painted over with “we had to make a deal, the Nazis held the lower house”
Or maybe “sorry we let you get conquered by fascists. Immigration was more important to us”?
This is what happens when you don’t have enough votes. You don’t control govt. and then you cannot do the things you want.
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration.
I made no such assumption. I am less interested in what the average voter thinks than I am what is right. I have no doubt that the old people who run the Democratic parties views on immigration are close to the old people who vote. I expect leaders to lead on an issue. To borrow a phrase of quotes at me in this thread, you can't expect your issue to always be tip priority.
That people who are directly affected by these issues seem to be insisting that because the gains aren't enough, that letting the arsonists get their foot in the door is an acceptable outcome, just boggles my mind.
I am probably skipping a lot of posts in this thread, but I wanted to address it since I was quoted. I will accept mediocre progress. I would even accept standing still! I will not accept sliding backwards. I will not be complicit in my own oppression. If the game is, and on many issues this is true, simply slowing the speed at which we implement terrible policies then I will not vote for it. Accelerationism is awful, but slowly boiling a frog actually works on people. Everyone is livid Roe v Wade is dead, but less would care if it were death by a thousand cuts. I will not vote for the death by a thousand cuts option. It will make everything worse long term.
It was death by a thousand cuts though. Abortion access was being restricted constantly by the courts and the states and then SCOTUS made it all worse in one big moment. They thought they could get away with it because people had accepted so many smaller steps.
Exactly! No one cares when it was small steps back. Dobbs has caused actual problems. You are echoing the exact reason I won't support Democrats going for death by a thousand cuts on issues. Republicans implementing their full awful policy is better long term.
This is just accellerationism
It is also boiling a frog in a pot. I said absolutely as much in my very first post.
That metaphor is wrong, the frog jumps out. It's a very human thing to accept incremental shittiness.
.
Yes, and if I were talking about torturing small animals to death that would make sense. We are dealing with the human element. Bulls also do not plow through shelves holding delicate plates. The "bull in a china shop" metaphor persists regardless.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but this bill was negotiated in the Senate was it not? Where Republican leadership is supportive of aid for Ukraine? So the offer from Democrats was more than Republicans ever thought they would be able to get, while crossing at least one previous red line for Democrats (previously a bill without a path to citizenship for Dreamers would be DoA) all in order to get the Ukraine aid that the Republican senators also wanted?
The point was to get it through the House, though you are correct about the literal mechanics.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Are we interested in discussing the interesting and important issues specific to US immigration or do we just want venue #386,215b to serve up a greatest hits playlist of presidential election arguments?
Let's get on track and see some specificity or - or! - we can take a break. That's actually okay too.
Shitty dehumanizing metaphors aside - and I agree I should have chosen dry terminology rather than falling into use of stupid terms just because they were introduced - I apologize.
Edit: Immigration reform needs to be pushed for constantly, even knowing it will often go backwards. It -will- go backwards, forever, but sometimes forward too.
Being wild "horses" tends to not end well for the horses.
What a lovely sentiment to share about people concerned with being able to continue to live.
Jumping back and forth between trans rights matter and getting mad at trans people for suggesting their rights shouldn't be a bargaining chip.
Liberal Credo Beliefs lawn sign where “No human being is illegal” has been crossed out and painted over with “we had to make a deal, the Nazis held the lower house”
Or maybe “sorry we let you get conquered by fascists. Immigration was more important to us”?
This is what happens when you don’t have enough votes. You don’t control govt. and then you cannot do the things you want.
“We had to burn the village to save it” is not sound electoral strategy, let alone humane immigration policy (or humane any policy really)
I do not understand what you’re saying? I was saying that priorities exist and that sometimes we have to give up something we want in order to get something else we want.
There is no “burn the village to save it”. There is only choosing which village is standing at the end of the day. You ask how can we tell people that we have done one thing. I ask “how can you tell the others the same thing?” We don’t get both (unless the aid package passes because Trump rejected the deal, which requires the deal to be proposed first).
In this situation there is no accounting the humanity of immigration policy without accounting for the lack of humanity in defense aid policy.
"Who was more left than Biden" is a weird question to throw into the middle of a conversation about how Biden is explicitly offering the most rapidly anti immigrant GOP of our lifetimes everything they want. Or wanted until the window had been moved.
It wasn't everything they want. It was everything they thought they could get. If you think that the border bill was the end game for Republicans, aka "OK, we solved it, nothing more to be done here", and not just a starting off point for the next time they have the ability to influence policy, I don't know what to say. Republicans who negotiated the bill knew they weren't getting EVERYTHING. They were just able to get everything they thought they could get.
As to the "threat" of Trump being a dictator, maybe he doesn't accomplish it. But he's going to fucking try. And his people know what needs to be done for that to happen. The only reason it didn't succeed last time, was because of "institutionalists" who he just guessed would side with him. Mike Flynn SecDef, handpicking the JCoS for "loyalty". Jeffrey Clark or that other fucker as AG, like they tried to do. Compromised heads of the intel agencies. Making sure the Cabinet is stocked with people who won't even look at the 25th.
Because Trump NEEDS to become a dictator, especially if SCOTUS rule against Presidential Immunity. Because it's the only way he definitely keeps from being convicted. Because even if these cases end up being voided, he's going to keep committing crimes. He can't help himself. And as long as he's got his hands around the nuts of 34 Senators (which he already has), he's immune to anything.
Before Trump came out against it, there were a number of Republican senators who came out saying that the bill gave them far more than what they'd ever be able to get with a Republican president and senate (because an immigration bill like this would be filibustered by Democrats).
Yes. Because they can't get the concessions they want on immigration through without holding Ukraine Aid hostage.
I will yet again point out we know what Republicans actually want on immigration and it's literally rounding up anyone they feel like into literal concentration camps and then deporting them without due process. Something that is definitely not in the compromise immigration/foreign aid bill and is obviously much worse then it.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but this bill was negotiated in the Senate was it not? Where Republican leadership is supportive of aid for Ukraine? So the offer from Democrats was more than Republicans ever thought they would be able to get, while crossing at least one previous red line for Democrats (previously a bill without a path to citizenship for Dreamers would be DoA) all in order to get the Ukraine aid that the Republican senators also wanted?
Senate Republicans want to pass Ukraine aid but don't want to be seen passing Ukraine aid and also know just straight Ukraine aid probably dies in the House. So they went to Democrats and said "give us some concessions on immigration so this can pass the House and we'll vote for it". Then they spent like 3+ months negotiating over exactly what those concessions would be and Democrats slipped in as many of the things they wanted that they could into the bill (mostly in the form of more hiring for processing people). Republican Senators spent a lot of that basically going "we gotta make this crazier cause the House is saying it will never pass the current version".
And then they finally settled on a deal and Trump immediately torpedoed the whole thing because he doesn't want to give Biden a win on immigration.
"Who was more left than Biden" is a weird question to throw into the middle of a conversation about how Biden is explicitly offering the most rapidly anti immigrant GOP of our lifetimes everything they want. Or wanted until the window had been moved.
It wasn't everything they want. It was everything they thought they could get. If you think that the border bill was the end game for Republicans, aka "OK, we solved it, nothing more to be done here", and not just a starting off point for the next time they have the ability to influence policy, I don't know what to say. Republicans who negotiated the bill knew they weren't getting EVERYTHING. They were just able to get everything they thought they could get.
As to the "threat" of Trump being a dictator, maybe he doesn't accomplish it. But he's going to fucking try. And his people know what needs to be done for that to happen. The only reason it didn't succeed last time, was because of "institutionalists" who he just guessed would side with him. Mike Flynn SecDef, handpicking the JCoS for "loyalty". Jeffrey Clark or that other fucker as AG, like they tried to do. Compromised heads of the intel agencies. Making sure the Cabinet is stocked with people who won't even look at the 25th.
Because Trump NEEDS to become a dictator, especially if SCOTUS rule against Presidential Immunity. Because it's the only way he definitely keeps from being convicted. Because even if these cases end up being voided, he's going to keep committing crimes. He can't help himself. And as long as he's got his hands around the nuts of 34 Senators (which he already has), he's immune to anything.
Before Trump came out against it, there were a number of Republican senators who came out saying that the bill gave them far more than what they'd ever be able to get with a Republican president and senate (because an immigration bill like this would be filibustered by Democrats).
Yes. Because they can't get the concessions they want on immigration through without holding Ukraine Aid hostage.
I will yet again point out we know what Republicans actually want on immigration and it's literally rounding up anyone they feel like into literal concentration camps and then deporting them without due process. Something that is definitely not in the compromise immigration/foreign aid bill and is obviously much worse then it.
That's assuming they don't just let citizens shoot them.
While it doesn't specifically call out migrants, it comes in the wake of an Arizona rancher allegedly shooting and killing Gabriel Cuen-Butimea. And the Republican sposoring the bill...
Republican Rep. Justin Heap, said in a committee hearing that his bill was intended to close a loophole to assist ranchers who may witness someone trespassing any section of their land, not just within a mile of their home.
If you can't put two and two together...
Yes, it's possible, even likely, that this bill fails to pass the House, let alone become law (slim R House and Senate requires no defection, and a Democratic Governor ain't going to sign it), it does indicate where some Republicans are positioning themselves on immigration.
And if that potential law isn't enough, Gregg Abbott putting razor wire in the water is not something I see any Democrat being OK with, let alone pushing to institute.
Bad Democratic policy =/= Worse Republican policy.
Immigration changed in 2020 when Trump established Title 42 to basically shrink down the border and send immigrants out. It was the Far Right's dream. When Biden was elected, he continued it. He made it not apply to unaccompanied migrants but he continued it. He expelled like 700k people. He continued the construction of the wall. They had the "do not come" campaign. There are still migrant detention facilities.
Yes, reinstated DACA and tried to get families back together, but we're still WORSE off than we were before Trump. This is the face of COMPROMISE. It is the ratchet effect. This is not incremental progress. It is the swing toward American politics becoming more and more right wing. Constantly. As long as Immigrants are suffering these atrocities, this is not progress. This is the knife in the back that Malcolm X talked about.
The president and the party elite CHOOSE to adopt these narratives and not form counter narratives. They CHOOSE to continually state that they need to compromise on these issues. This is their strategy. This is their legacy.
I get it. I have two options when an election happens. The far right and the less right. I will vote for the only option I have. I get it. I'm not an accelerationist, but I am allowed to complain about this shitty political reality in which we live.
If you don't do #5, #1-#4 really won't have mattered at all.
It's like buying all the ingredients to make a meal, realizing you bought jasmine rice instead of brown rice, and shoving everything into the garbage because "fuck it, that's not what I wanted, now nobody's eating."
Analogies!
That’s demonstrably bullshit, though. Voting for president isn’t even remotely the most important office you could be voting for. Local school board, state senators, even city council can all have more direct impact, either because of direct local action, or by influencing the direction of the lower ranks of the party (from the inside, which is what people have repeatedly said is the only way to do it).
Except without the presidency in this election, democracy itself ends.
If that’s the case (and it’s not), then maybe Biden should be working harder to earn those votes, especially around his dismal immigration record.
It absolutely is. He's vowed to be a dictator. Going to create a military force to deport anyone he doesn't like.
So Biden can’t be expected to keep his campaign promises because it’s normal and expected for politicians to lie about what they’ll do in office and I should accept that.
But Trump will somehow keep all of his promises and turn us into the bad future from Back to the Future.
Look, a big part of me genuinely believes that losing would be the kind of shock that the democrats need to reevaluate their positions and get shit together to make some actual changes, seeing their “base” abandon them. I’m not 100% sure it’s the best way to go, but part of me absolutely sees it as the best long term solution.
But holy shit, the way some people are convinced the whole world is going to end if Joe Biden doesn’t get to be president another 4 years is wild. We already saw 4 years of Trump. It sucked and apparently the democrats took the wrong lessons from it. It wasn’t, however, the end of democracy. And if you truly believe that democracy is such a fragile thing that one asshole running for office could destroy it in one election cycle, then maybe it’s not a system worth all the breathless fighting, because we’re clearly going to just spend the next 30 years on defense against this bogeyman or one of his idiot kids when he finally dies.
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Roz on
+9
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
If you don't do #5, #1-#4 really won't have mattered at all.
It's like buying all the ingredients to make a meal, realizing you bought jasmine rice instead of brown rice, and shoving everything into the garbage because "fuck it, that's not what I wanted, now nobody's eating."
Analogies!
That’s demonstrably bullshit, though. Voting for president isn’t even remotely the most important office you could be voting for. Local school board, state senators, even city council can all have more direct impact, either because of direct local action, or by influencing the direction of the lower ranks of the party (from the inside, which is what people have repeatedly said is the only way to do it).
Except without the presidency in this election, democracy itself ends.
If that’s the case (and it’s not), then maybe Biden should be working harder to earn those votes, especially around his dismal immigration record.
It absolutely is. He's vowed to be a dictator. Going to create a military force to deport anyone he doesn't like.
So Biden can’t be expected to keep his campaign promises because it’s normal and expected for politicians to lie about what they’ll do in office and I should accept that.
But Trump will somehow keep all of his promises and turn us into the bad future from Back to the Future.
Look, a big part of me genuinely believes that losing would be the kind of shock that the democrats need to reevaluate their positions and get shit together to make some actual changes, seeing their “base” abandon them. I’m not 100% sure it’s the best way to go, but part of me absolutely sees it as the best long term solution.
But holy shit, the way some people are convinced the whole world is going to end if Joe Biden doesn’t get to be president another 4 years is wild. We already saw 4 years of Trump. It sucked and apparently the democrats took the wrong lessons from it. It wasn’t, however, the end of democracy. And if you truly believe that democracy is such a fragile thing that one asshole running for office could destroy it in one election cycle, then maybe it’s not a system worth all the breathless fighting, because we’re clearly going to just spend the next 30 years on defense against this bogeyman or one of his idiot kids when he finally dies.
This is the most "after Hitler, us" post I've ever seen. This is the real "mask off" moment that people talk about. "Ok yeah sure, Trump will probably end our Democracy and the pain and hurt he'll extract upon millions will be bad, but at least Democrats will learn their lesson"
Jesus christ
Dawg, if you think I’ve ever “masked” my feelings about the democratic party being dangerously inept and pushing heartless immigration policies, you haven’t been paying much attention.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
Trump's immigration policy was "build the wall" as a stand in for causing as much pain and harm he could to immigrants regardless of their status. Democrats haven't done enough for immigrants (and to put all my cards on the table, I want open borders). But I also recognize that Trump signaled a rightward shift on immigration in his own party and that has echoed across the Western world. The American public wants stricter immigration controls, to my own dismay. Left and center left parties across Europe and now America are losing support to hard right parties due to the immigration debate. It's why you've seen those parties and now Democrats willing to adopt stricter immigration control to fend off those attacks, because they are working.
I mean just this week we have Abbott openly demanding that anyone crossing the border should be shot on sight. Democrats aren't aligned with me philosophically on this issue, but I haven't seen any Democrat take a position that brazen.
At this point I really do not know how else to explain that the policy Biden and the Democrats are putting forward is actively harmful and deliberately puts immigrants into the custody of people who at every turn beat, starve, and abuse them in conditions that are unfit for human habitation.
That is the thing the Democrats support. That is the thing they keep putting resources into.
Our immigration system is a carceral one. It’s fucking jail for daring to cross the border. The conditions people imprisoned within it are routinely exposed to include extreme temperatures, are horrifically anti-hygienic, and the people in charge of the immigrants being locked up repeatedly physically and sexually assault the people in their “care”
There is this repeat impression that somehow we on the left or we among marginalized populaces in America are somehow making perfect the enemy of the good. But this system isn’t good. It is torturous.
Congratulations, now that the Democrats have been successfully pulled rightward, the Republicans moved even further to the right; we understand this. It’s moving the Overton Window, the spectrum of Acceptable Political Stances, rightward. And somehow, oddly, it never actually seems to move leftward on this issue.
But instead of recognizing this, a contingent of Democrats leaders and their supporters would rather blame everyone for being too sickened to their stomachs to keep supporting these immigration policies, instead of sucking up being complicit in a system that deliberately violates human dignity, maiming and killing people for daring to enter America or trying to seek asylum.
Yeah, Republicans are at the point now where they’re like “Man, you gotta let us murder brown folk on sight,” and it’s monstrous. But so is supporting this system as well, so is funding it and making it better resourced so Border Patrol and ICE can continue terrorizing people in the name of “law and order” at the border. Just because it’s been systematized and rendered such that you can brush off systematic abuse as the actions of “bad” agents (who never actually seem to stop popping up in the system) doesn’t wash the blood off of the hands of Democrats supporting these immigration policies that are, again, hurting and killing people who are just trying to move to America for a safer and better life.
Lanz on
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
This whole mess was actually fueled by the fact that Republicans were holding aid for Ukraine and Taiwan hostage, and the compromise was the price for it.
Edit: I am assuming by "the whole mess" you mean the bill.
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
This whole mess was actually fueled by the fact that Republicans were holding aid for Ukraine and Taiwan hostage, and the compromise was the price for it.
Edit: I am assuming by "the whole mess" you mean the bill.
So let me ask you this:
Should the democrats budge on the new line? If the demand for Ukraine war funding is “legalize the right of property owners to use lethal force to protect their land from immigrant trespassers,” are you fine with ceding that? After all, you need that Ukraine Funding. That’s why somehow this current crossing of previous red lines was so permissible, after all.
What if they demand the president be granted authority to unilaterally deport any “illegal immigrant?” Is that a fair horse to trade for Ukraine War funding?
No. We had a deal and they blew it up. We get to use it as a cudgel now. If republicans say “we want more” we get to come back and say “no, we had a deal, you cannot be trusted. So you get the deal or nothing”.
Or actually in this case it’s “we want to pass the funding without immigration”. I don’t see why we should give up more given the political circumstances.
No. We had a deal and they blew it up. We get to use it as a cudgel now. If republicans say “we want more” we get to come back and say “no, we had a deal, you cannot be trusted. So you get the deal or nothing”.
Or actually in this case it’s “we want to pass the funding without immigration”. I don’t see why we should give up more given the political circumstances.
So if you get burned by the people you try to work with, then it’s good to tell them fuck off and beat them over the heads with the object of their betrayal to secure your political goals?
No. We had a deal and they blew it up. We get to use it as a cudgel now. If republicans say “we want more” we get to come back and say “no, we had a deal, you cannot be trusted. So you get the deal or nothing”.
Or actually in this case it’s “we want to pass the funding without immigration”. I don’t see why we should give up more given the political circumstances.
So if you get burned by the people you try to work with, then it’s good to tell them fuck off and beat them over the heads with the object of their betrayal to secure your political goals?
It’s always good when we can beat republicans over the head with anything to achieve our political goals/make things as good for people as we can. We should do it whenever we can. Them “burning us”* means we have the advantage. So we get to.
*we absolutely did not get burned. They burned themselves.
No. We had a deal and they blew it up. We get to use it as a cudgel now. If republicans say “we want more” we get to come back and say “no, we had a deal, you cannot be trusted. So you get the deal or nothing”.
Or actually in this case it’s “we want to pass the funding without immigration”. I don’t see why we should give up more given the political circumstances.
So if you get burned by the people you try to work with, then it’s good to tell them fuck off and beat them over the heads with the object of their betrayal to secure your political goals?
It’s always good when we can beat republicans over the head with anything to achieve our political goals/make things as good for people as we can. We should do it whenever we can. Them “burning us”* means we have the advantage. So we get to.
*we absolutely did not get burned. They burned themselves.
Absolutely not. You are assuming they are working in good faith. They aren't. Ever. See the discharge petition currently circulating the House on the Republican side. At best it is the deal that got shot down, but they are trying to shit it up some more.
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
And it seems to have been successful in the recent special election to replace Pope George Santos.
The GOP has backed themselves into a corner with the immigration deal they demanded. It's nice to see the Democratic party actually notice and use this.
No. We had a deal and they blew it up. We get to use it as a cudgel now. If republicans say “we want more” we get to come back and say “no, we had a deal, you cannot be trusted. So you get the deal or nothing”.
Or actually in this case it’s “we want to pass the funding without immigration”. I don’t see why we should give up more given the political circumstances.
So if you get burned by the people you try to work with, then it’s good to tell them fuck off and beat them over the heads with the object of their betrayal to secure your political goals?
Its good politics.
It's not as fun as the stroke dream of ignoring public opinion polling, opening the border, while cheering t90s rolling into Warsaw and then delivering a defiant "History will judge me right" Sorkin-esq concession speech after drowning in a massive red wave election.
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
The one from four Democrats that Hakeem Jeffries has said won't happen?
If we got up in arms every time over the shit that the worst Democrats are in favor of, and were immediately shot down by leadership, we'd never not be.
It's fine to point out the worst shit a party is in support of, and if leadership changes position, that's fine to get angry about too.
But it's clearly NOT the base position of the party, that'd be the clean discharge petition on foreign aid.
Not sure how owned the GOP is when you decide to move the left wing flank of US immigration policy right over to where the GOP just was. Oh man it sure helped you win that super wealthy D+2 district that was just represented by a clown though.
+6
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
This whole mess was actually fueled by the fact that Republicans were holding aid for Ukraine and Taiwan hostage, and the compromise was the price for it.
Edit: I am assuming by "the whole mess" you mean the bill.
So let me ask you this:
Should the democrats budge on the new line? If the demand for Ukraine war funding is “legalize the right of property owners to use lethal force to protect their land from immigrant trespassers,” are you fine with ceding that? After all, you need that Ukraine Funding. That’s why somehow this current crossing of previous red lines was so permissible, after all.
What if they demand the president be granted authority to unilaterally deport any “illegal immigrant?” Is that a fair horse to trade for Ukraine War funding?
Where are your lines? Are there lines?
What if the price for getting good immigration law was joining Russia and helping to bomb Ukraine?
What if the price was nuking all blue states?
"You approve of this line, so let me come up with asinine hypotheticals" is not the rhetorical pile driver you think it is.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
This whole mess was actually fueled by the fact that Republicans were holding aid for Ukraine and Taiwan hostage, and the compromise was the price for it.
Edit: I am assuming by "the whole mess" you mean the bill.
So let me ask you this:
Should the democrats budge on the new line? If the demand for Ukraine war funding is “legalize the right of property owners to use lethal force to protect their land from immigrant trespassers,” are you fine with ceding that? After all, you need that Ukraine Funding. That’s why somehow this current crossing of previous red lines was so permissible, after all.
What if they demand the president be granted authority to unilaterally deport any “illegal immigrant?” Is that a fair horse to trade for Ukraine War funding?
Where are your lines? Are there lines?
What if the price for getting good immigration law was joining Russia and helping to bomb Ukraine?
What if the price was nuking all blue states?
"You approve of this line, so let me come up with asinine hypotheticals" is not the rhetorical pile driver you think it is.
Oh the left wing side of the line is a pretty easy one. You don't horse trade fundamental rights.
If trading away asylum seekers like this is acceptable for the left wing party, other groups at risk are right to be concerned.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+10
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
This whole mess was actually fueled by the fact that Republicans were holding aid for Ukraine and Taiwan hostage, and the compromise was the price for it.
Edit: I am assuming by "the whole mess" you mean the bill.
So let me ask you this:
Should the democrats budge on the new line? If the demand for Ukraine war funding is “legalize the right of property owners to use lethal force to protect their land from immigrant trespassers,” are you fine with ceding that? After all, you need that Ukraine Funding. That’s why somehow this current crossing of previous red lines was so permissible, after all.
What if they demand the president be granted authority to unilaterally deport any “illegal immigrant?” Is that a fair horse to trade for Ukraine War funding?
Where are your lines? Are there lines?
What if the price for getting good immigration law was joining Russia and helping to bomb Ukraine?
What if the price was nuking all blue states?
"You approve of this line, so let me come up with asinine hypotheticals" is not the rhetorical pile driver you think it is.
Oh the left wing side of the line is a pretty easy one. You don't horse trade fundamental rights.
If trading away asylum seekers like this is acceptable for the left wing party, other groups at risk are right to be concerned.
So you would gladly do those things for your thing, got it.
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
This whole mess was actually fueled by the fact that Republicans were holding aid for Ukraine and Taiwan hostage, and the compromise was the price for it.
Edit: I am assuming by "the whole mess" you mean the bill.
So let me ask you this:
Should the democrats budge on the new line? If the demand for Ukraine war funding is “legalize the right of property owners to use lethal force to protect their land from immigrant trespassers,” are you fine with ceding that? After all, you need that Ukraine Funding. That’s why somehow this current crossing of previous red lines was so permissible, after all.
What if they demand the president be granted authority to unilaterally deport any “illegal immigrant?” Is that a fair horse to trade for Ukraine War funding?
Where are your lines? Are there lines?
What if the price for getting good immigration law was joining Russia and helping to bomb Ukraine?
What if the price was nuking all blue states?
"You approve of this line, so let me come up with asinine hypotheticals" is not the rhetorical pile driver you think it is.
Oh the left wing side of the line is a pretty easy one. You don't horse trade fundamental rights.
If trading away asylum seekers like this is acceptable for the left wing party, other groups at risk are right to be concerned.
So you would gladly do those things for your thing, got it.
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
This whole mess was actually fueled by the fact that Republicans were holding aid for Ukraine and Taiwan hostage, and the compromise was the price for it.
Edit: I am assuming by "the whole mess" you mean the bill.
So let me ask you this:
Should the democrats budge on the new line? If the demand for Ukraine war funding is “legalize the right of property owners to use lethal force to protect their land from immigrant trespassers,” are you fine with ceding that? After all, you need that Ukraine Funding. That’s why somehow this current crossing of previous red lines was so permissible, after all.
What if they demand the president be granted authority to unilaterally deport any “illegal immigrant?” Is that a fair horse to trade for Ukraine War funding?
Where are your lines? Are there lines?
What if the price for getting good immigration law was joining Russia and helping to bomb Ukraine?
What if the price was nuking all blue states?
"You approve of this line, so let me come up with asinine hypotheticals" is not the rhetorical pile driver you think it is.
Except one hypothetical is based in a thing Republicans are pushing for and further extrapolated from Democrats conceding the earlier, pre-window shifted GOP position.
Yours is based in being condescending and pulling Bad Scenarios out that sound scary but aren’t within the realm of possibility where you’re not taking your opposing side seriously so to you everything they say sounds silly and childish and you conceptualize their concerns entirely in silly, childish ways. So when folks keep defending the democrats moving to the previous GOP goalpost in order to secure Ukraine funding as a necessary trade because “GOP crazies have the house,” and I say “what stops Democrats from just moving to the new goalpost set by the GOP to get their desired foreign policy in exchange,” and describing what that new goalpost is, you blithely respond with nonsense about nuking blue states to protect immigrants, because as best I can tell you find the concerns raised as being beneath you. Utter nonsense.
Not sure how owned the GOP is when you decide to move the left wing flank of US immigration policy right over to where the GOP just was. Oh man it sure helped you win that super wealthy D+2 district that was just represented by a clown though.
Former Rep. Tom Suozzi rode to his resounding win on Tuesday with a tough-on-the-border stance. He said he was comfortable describing the situation at the border as an “invasion” and referenced Border Patrol in his TV ads. A top Democratic super PAC accused Republican Mazi Pilip of supporting “open borders” when she disavowed the Senate’s bipartisan border bill. And in the final weeks of the race, voters saw more Democratic broadcast spots mentioning immigration than Republican ones, according to AdImpact, a media-tracking firm.
He’s just right out adopting Republican framing on immigration! He is literally parroting the “invasion” bullshit!
Is this what you all want the party to be? Is that the naked fucking bigotry you want in the “Big Tent”?
Cause if so, why the fuck should marginalized people or their allies stay in the tent if you wanna stoke GOP-style open moral rot
An encapsulation, spoilered for size:
Democrats: “we found out the torment nexus polls pretty well among racially-concerned, upper middle class and upper class white folk!”
”racially-concerned” good lord lord what intended-satirically yet cursed pollster flak speak have I unwittingly birthed into the world
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
The one from four Democrats that Hakeem Jeffries has said won't happen?
If we got up in arms every time over the shit that the worst Democrats are in favor of, and were immediately shot down by leadership, we'd never not be.
It's fine to point out the worst shit a party is in support of, and if leadership changes position, that's fine to get angry about too.
But it's clearly NOT the base position of the party, that'd be the clean discharge petition on foreign aid.
Irrelevant to the point. It isn't a situation where you can say this was the deal now what else do we get. Or even this was the deal stick to it. You get. This was the deal, and we want more. They are bad faith actors. You cannot expect to negotiate with them fairly. There is no beating them in the head.
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
The one from four Democrats that Hakeem Jeffries has said won't happen?
If we got up in arms every time over the shit that the worst Democrats are in favor of, and were immediately shot down by leadership, we'd never not be.
It's fine to point out the worst shit a party is in support of, and if leadership changes position, that's fine to get angry about too.
But it's clearly NOT the base position of the party, that'd be the clean discharge petition on foreign aid.
Irrelevant to the point. It isn't a situation where you can say this was the deal now what else do we get. Or even this was the deal stick to it. You get. This was the deal, and we want more. They are bad faith actors. You cannot expect to negotiate with them fairly. There is no beating them in the head.
Wait, what's irrelevant to the point?
Republicans being escalatory assholes? Cause that wasn't my point.
My point was the Democratic party position is NOT the position of four shithead members in a body of 200+.
You brought up that that shitty bill, rejected by the Democratic leadership of the House, is NOT the one the party as a whole is behind. That there's another one that is just foreign aid that is the position.
If we're going to say <2% of a large enough diverse body having a bad position with no real support among the remaining 98% and refuted by the leadership is enough to taint the whole group as "the same", I dunno what to tell you.
Posts
Liberal Credo Beliefs lawn sign where “No human being is illegal” has been crossed out and painted over with “we had to make a deal, the Nazis held the lower house”
Am I incorrect? Accelerationism is deciding that people should die because you're impatient.
Depends on the outcome, I'd imagine.
Let's imagine, for argument's sake, that some truly absurd aligning of the stars occurs and somehow Biden wins but the Republicans take/hold the House and Senate.
Obviously he's not getting shit done. They will happily sit on their hands and scream about overreach while sending him endless bills banning being Trans and trying to remove immigrants at every opportunity and banning abortion and I dunno, something about his son's laptop for shits and giggles. Would it be fair to complain about how little he got done?
At that point I imagine he'd just be on veto auto-pilot and doing his best to avoid the nation collapsing under the sheer gravity of the willful ignorance and incompetence involved.
That isn't to say that without a supermajority in both the house and senate that he and his administration are beyond critique or reproach, but even if they get a thin margins win or better, unless we have enough folks willing to throw out the filibuster and the necessary margins to do what needs to be done (y'all know what I mean) without a couple of blue dog assholes ruining everyone's day, like the last congress and the current one, there's only so much that can be done.
They should do more, but I'm trying to note that there's context to consider.
If he had 60+ in the senate and like 60% of the house and was still like 'oh, we should slow roll a few things every now and then', that'd be a torches and pitchforks moment for sure.
But with the running gag of the electoral college and whatnot, that's unlikely to happen, so I guess we're in deep academic territory then.
I don't think the next congress will be seated and they'll all make a 30 point leap to the left, but I do think that piece of context will matter all the same.
Or maybe “sorry we let you get conquered by fascists. Immigration was more important to us”?
This is what happens when you don’t have enough votes. You don’t control govt. and then you cannot do the things you want.
Yes, and if I were talking about torturing small animals to death that would make sense. We are dealing with the human element. Bulls also do not plow through shelves holding delicate plates. The "bull in a china shop" metaphor persists regardless.
The point was to get it through the House, though you are correct about the literal mechanics.
Let's get on track and see some specificity or - or! - we can take a break. That's actually okay too.
Edit: Immigration reform needs to be pushed for constantly, even knowing it will often go backwards. It -will- go backwards, forever, but sometimes forward too.
I do not understand what you’re saying? I was saying that priorities exist and that sometimes we have to give up something we want in order to get something else we want.
There is no “burn the village to save it”. There is only choosing which village is standing at the end of the day. You ask how can we tell people that we have done one thing. I ask “how can you tell the others the same thing?” We don’t get both (unless the aid package passes because Trump rejected the deal, which requires the deal to be proposed first).
In this situation there is no accounting the humanity of immigration policy without accounting for the lack of humanity in defense aid policy.
Yes. Because they can't get the concessions they want on immigration through without holding Ukraine Aid hostage.
I will yet again point out we know what Republicans actually want on immigration and it's literally rounding up anyone they feel like into literal concentration camps and then deporting them without due process. Something that is definitely not in the compromise immigration/foreign aid bill and is obviously much worse then it.
Senate Republicans want to pass Ukraine aid but don't want to be seen passing Ukraine aid and also know just straight Ukraine aid probably dies in the House. So they went to Democrats and said "give us some concessions on immigration so this can pass the House and we'll vote for it". Then they spent like 3+ months negotiating over exactly what those concessions would be and Democrats slipped in as many of the things they wanted that they could into the bill (mostly in the form of more hiring for processing people). Republican Senators spent a lot of that basically going "we gotta make this crazier cause the House is saying it will never pass the current version".
And then they finally settled on a deal and Trump immediately torpedoed the whole thing because he doesn't want to give Biden a win on immigration.
That's assuming they don't just let citizens shoot them.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/arizona-bill-shoot-kill-migrants-property-trespass-border-rcna141147
"Arizona bill would make shooting and killing migrants on property legal"
While it doesn't specifically call out migrants, it comes in the wake of an Arizona rancher allegedly shooting and killing Gabriel Cuen-Butimea. And the Republican sposoring the bill...
If you can't put two and two together...
Yes, it's possible, even likely, that this bill fails to pass the House, let alone become law (slim R House and Senate requires no defection, and a Democratic Governor ain't going to sign it), it does indicate where some Republicans are positioning themselves on immigration.
And if that potential law isn't enough, Gregg Abbott putting razor wire in the water is not something I see any Democrat being OK with, let alone pushing to institute.
Bad Democratic policy =/= Worse Republican policy.
Yes, reinstated DACA and tried to get families back together, but we're still WORSE off than we were before Trump. This is the face of COMPROMISE. It is the ratchet effect. This is not incremental progress. It is the swing toward American politics becoming more and more right wing. Constantly. As long as Immigrants are suffering these atrocities, this is not progress. This is the knife in the back that Malcolm X talked about.
The president and the party elite CHOOSE to adopt these narratives and not form counter narratives. They CHOOSE to continually state that they need to compromise on these issues. This is their strategy. This is their legacy.
I get it. I have two options when an election happens. The far right and the less right. I will vote for the only option I have. I get it. I'm not an accelerationist, but I am allowed to complain about this shitty political reality in which we live.
*removing as I Just saw mod post"
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Dawg, if you think I’ve ever “masked” my feelings about the democratic party being dangerously inept and pushing heartless immigration policies, you haven’t been paying much attention.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
Trump's immigration policy was "build the wall" as a stand in for causing as much pain and harm he could to immigrants regardless of their status. Democrats haven't done enough for immigrants (and to put all my cards on the table, I want open borders). But I also recognize that Trump signaled a rightward shift on immigration in his own party and that has echoed across the Western world. The American public wants stricter immigration controls, to my own dismay. Left and center left parties across Europe and now America are losing support to hard right parties due to the immigration debate. It's why you've seen those parties and now Democrats willing to adopt stricter immigration control to fend off those attacks, because they are working.
I mean just this week we have Abbott openly demanding that anyone crossing the border should be shot on sight. Democrats aren't aligned with me philosophically on this issue, but I haven't seen any Democrat take a position that brazen.
That is the thing the Democrats support. That is the thing they keep putting resources into.
Our immigration system is a carceral one. It’s fucking jail for daring to cross the border. The conditions people imprisoned within it are routinely exposed to include extreme temperatures, are horrifically anti-hygienic, and the people in charge of the immigrants being locked up repeatedly physically and sexually assault the people in their “care”
There is this repeat impression that somehow we on the left or we among marginalized populaces in America are somehow making perfect the enemy of the good. But this system isn’t good. It is torturous.
Congratulations, now that the Democrats have been successfully pulled rightward, the Republicans moved even further to the right; we understand this. It’s moving the Overton Window, the spectrum of Acceptable Political Stances, rightward. And somehow, oddly, it never actually seems to move leftward on this issue.
But instead of recognizing this, a contingent of Democrats leaders and their supporters would rather blame everyone for being too sickened to their stomachs to keep supporting these immigration policies, instead of sucking up being complicit in a system that deliberately violates human dignity, maiming and killing people for daring to enter America or trying to seek asylum.
Yeah, Republicans are at the point now where they’re like “Man, you gotta let us murder brown folk on sight,” and it’s monstrous. But so is supporting this system as well, so is funding it and making it better resourced so Border Patrol and ICE can continue terrorizing people in the name of “law and order” at the border. Just because it’s been systematized and rendered such that you can brush off systematic abuse as the actions of “bad” agents (who never actually seem to stop popping up in the system) doesn’t wash the blood off of the hands of Democrats supporting these immigration policies that are, again, hurting and killing people who are just trying to move to America for a safer and better life.
Edit: I am assuming by "the whole mess" you mean the bill.
So let me ask you this:
Should the democrats budge on the new line? If the demand for Ukraine war funding is “legalize the right of property owners to use lethal force to protect their land from immigrant trespassers,” are you fine with ceding that? After all, you need that Ukraine Funding. That’s why somehow this current crossing of previous red lines was so permissible, after all.
What if they demand the president be granted authority to unilaterally deport any “illegal immigrant?” Is that a fair horse to trade for Ukraine War funding?
Where are your lines? Are there lines?
Or actually in this case it’s “we want to pass the funding without immigration”. I don’t see why we should give up more given the political circumstances.
So if you get burned by the people you try to work with, then it’s good to tell them fuck off and beat them over the heads with the object of their betrayal to secure your political goals?
It’s always good when we can beat republicans over the head with anything to achieve our political goals/make things as good for people as we can. We should do it whenever we can. Them “burning us”* means we have the advantage. So we get to.
*we absolutely did not get burned. They burned themselves.
Absolutely not. You are assuming they are working in good faith. They aren't. Ever. See the discharge petition currently circulating the House on the Republican side. At best it is the deal that got shot down, but they are trying to shit it up some more.
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
And it seems to have been successful in the recent special election to replace Pope George Santos.
The GOP has backed themselves into a corner with the immigration deal they demanded. It's nice to see the Democratic party actually notice and use this.
Its good politics.
It's not as fun as the stroke dream of ignoring public opinion polling, opening the border, while cheering t90s rolling into Warsaw and then delivering a defiant "History will judge me right" Sorkin-esq concession speech after drowning in a massive red wave election.
But it's still good politics.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
The one from four Democrats that Hakeem Jeffries has said won't happen?
If we got up in arms every time over the shit that the worst Democrats are in favor of, and were immediately shot down by leadership, we'd never not be.
It's fine to point out the worst shit a party is in support of, and if leadership changes position, that's fine to get angry about too.
But it's clearly NOT the base position of the party, that'd be the clean discharge petition on foreign aid.
What if the price for getting good immigration law was joining Russia and helping to bomb Ukraine?
What if the price was nuking all blue states?
"You approve of this line, so let me come up with asinine hypotheticals" is not the rhetorical pile driver you think it is.
Oh the left wing side of the line is a pretty easy one. You don't horse trade fundamental rights.
If trading away asylum seekers like this is acceptable for the left wing party, other groups at risk are right to be concerned.
So you would gladly do those things for your thing, got it.
I don't follow
Except one hypothetical is based in a thing Republicans are pushing for and further extrapolated from Democrats conceding the earlier, pre-window shifted GOP position.
Yours is based in being condescending and pulling Bad Scenarios out that sound scary but aren’t within the realm of possibility where you’re not taking your opposing side seriously so to you everything they say sounds silly and childish and you conceptualize their concerns entirely in silly, childish ways. So when folks keep defending the democrats moving to the previous GOP goalpost in order to secure Ukraine funding as a necessary trade because “GOP crazies have the house,” and I say “what stops Democrats from just moving to the new goalpost set by the GOP to get their desired foreign policy in exchange,” and describing what that new goalpost is, you blithely respond with nonsense about nuking blue states to protect immigrants, because as best I can tell you find the concerns raised as being beneath you. Utter nonsense.
EDIT:
oh look:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/14/democrats-progressives-ny-win-immigration-00141582
He’s just right out adopting Republican framing on immigration! He is literally parroting the “invasion” bullshit!
Is this what you all want the party to be? Is that the naked fucking bigotry you want in the “Big Tent”?
Cause if so, why the fuck should marginalized people or their allies stay in the tent if you wanna stoke GOP-style open moral rot
An encapsulation, spoilered for size:
Democrats: “we found out the torment nexus polls pretty well among racially-concerned, upper middle class and upper class white folk!”
Irrelevant to the point. It isn't a situation where you can say this was the deal now what else do we get. Or even this was the deal stick to it. You get. This was the deal, and we want more. They are bad faith actors. You cannot expect to negotiate with them fairly. There is no beating them in the head.
Wait, what's irrelevant to the point?
Republicans being escalatory assholes? Cause that wasn't my point.
My point was the Democratic party position is NOT the position of four shithead members in a body of 200+.
You brought up that that shitty bill, rejected by the Democratic leadership of the House, is NOT the one the party as a whole is behind. That there's another one that is just foreign aid that is the position.
If we're going to say <2% of a large enough diverse body having a bad position with no real support among the remaining 98% and refuted by the leadership is enough to taint the whole group as "the same", I dunno what to tell you.