Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
Gnizmo you're hearing "this issue is irrelevant and should be ignored" and that is not anything like what I'm saying.
There is an issue here of humanity, and there is an issue here of politics. The overlap is significant, and both circles also include a lot of other equally critical issues, including abortion and civil rights, all of which suffer when you leave the caucus over immigration. So don't get baited into leaving the caucus over immigration, because everything else suffers when you do.
What you are trying to say is not as important as what the other people hear. It is a fundamental fact of this life, and this forum as reflected in the rules. I am trying to get you to hear how it sounds. Because right now you are asking a huge thing as if it were spotting you some money for lunch.
This is something people on this board have repeatedly struggled to identify with, and get very angry when it is pointed out. I am trying to keep it short because I don't like being the star of a thread, and certainly don't want to be one that isn't actually relevant to me. The more stuff that is sacrificed this way the smaller the coalition will become. Not because people are wrong, but because they want to survive. There is no point in voting for a party that isn't fighting to ensure, at the bare fucking minimum, your right to survive.
This issue probably won't get me to leave the coalition. It will make me grumpy and less enthusiastic to vote which can cause problems. I certainly am not going to be able to talk about how good the party is in good faith to others so I won't try.
The Republican play is to get the Democrats to throw their coalition piece by piece to the wolves, and it is working! If we reduce this down to who can get the bigger plurality then Republicans win by having so many white cis straight people. If we keep taking care of the members then there are more of us than them. Stronger together. That means fighting for everyone even when it is difficult.
I don't mean this to be offensive, but I really can't think of a way to word it without there being some risk of offending you. If the Republican plan is to get Democrats to throw away their coalition, and you're stating that leaving the coalition is on the table for you, then you're following the Republican plan.
If progressive voters become disillusioned to the point that they don't vote due to party actions based on a narrative set mostly by the Republicans, then not only will we lose the White House, but we'll also have a lot of downstream political losses. One big issue I see with the current Dem party is that we focus too much on the WH/Congress to the detriment of local politics, which is an area that Republicans have been making major inroads on.
It's why I approve of Biden's current narrative. Not only is it based on the truth, but it shows that even if Republicans are handed everything they demanded, they will still refuse.
Yes it is. The problem is you are assigning the blame at the wrong end. I am not going to leave the coalition because Republicans are meanies who want me out. I absolutely will if Democrats decide that they do not value my life enough to protect and cast me out of the coalition. Democrats have the power to not do things to alienate the base. They make their choices, and so do we.
You are not, so far as I can tell, the base!
This topic does not, so far as I can tell, endanger your life!
I understand wanting to act in solidarity with other humans but I don't understand framing this issue of immigration policy as one of life or death for you, a person who is not an undocumented immigrant but a citizen voter. It's challenging to engage in a way that respects your personal situation when you're representing yourself as personally endangered by the border policy from the Biden admin when that doesn't seem to be the case, and I really want to respect your situation because we're all at least cordial acquaintances here, or I'd like to think of it as such rather than bitter enemies blasting away at each other.
I want party unity going into this election. I don't want the progressive wing to roll over but I also don't want them to try and pull a Freedom Caucus and wreck everything to get their political point across, because doing that will harm a lot more folks than biting their tongues on the theatrics of the Border Bullshit while helping to get actual Representatives into office that support the policies they want.
Gnizmo you're hearing "this issue is irrelevant and should be ignored" and that is not anything like what I'm saying.
There is an issue here of humanity, and there is an issue here of politics. The overlap is significant, and both circles also include a lot of other equally critical issues, including abortion and civil rights, all of which suffer when you leave the caucus over immigration. So don't get baited into leaving the caucus over immigration, because everything else suffers when you do.
What you are trying to say is not as important as what the other people hear. It is a fundamental fact of this life, and this forum as reflected in the rules. I am trying to get you to hear how it sounds. Because right now you are asking a huge thing as if it were spotting you some money for lunch.
This is something people on this board have repeatedly struggled to identify with, and get very angry when it is pointed out. I am trying to keep it short because I don't like being the star of a thread, and certainly don't want to be one that isn't actually relevant to me. The more stuff that is sacrificed this way the smaller the coalition will become. Not because people are wrong, but because they want to survive. There is no point in voting for a party that isn't fighting to ensure, at the bare fucking minimum, your right to survive.
This issue probably won't get me to leave the coalition. It will make me grumpy and less enthusiastic to vote which can cause problems. I certainly am not going to be able to talk about how good the party is in good faith to others so I won't try.
The Republican play is to get the Democrats to throw their coalition piece by piece to the wolves, and it is working! If we reduce this down to who can get the bigger plurality then Republicans win by having so many white cis straight people. If we keep taking care of the members then there are more of us than them. Stronger together. That means fighting for everyone even when it is difficult.
I don't mean this to be offensive, but I really can't think of a way to word it without there being some risk of offending you. If the Republican plan is to get Democrats to throw away their coalition, and you're stating that leaving the coalition is on the table for you, then you're following the Republican plan.
If progressive voters become disillusioned to the point that they don't vote due to party actions based on a narrative set mostly by the Republicans, then not only will we lose the White House, but we'll also have a lot of downstream political losses. One big issue I see with the current Dem party is that we focus too much on the WH/Congress to the detriment of local politics, which is an area that Republicans have been making major inroads on.
It's why I approve of Biden's current narrative. Not only is it based on the truth, but it shows that even if Republicans are handed everything they demanded, they will still refuse.
Yes it is. The problem is you are assigning the blame at the wrong end. I am not going to leave the coalition because Republicans are meanies who want me out. I absolutely will if Democrats decide that they do not value my life enough to protect and cast me out of the coalition. Democrats have the power to not do things to alienate the base. They make their choices, and so do we.
You are not, so far as I can tell, the base!
This topic does not, so far as I can tell, endanger your life!
I understand wanting to act in solidarity with other humans but I don't understand framing this issue of immigration policy as one of life or death for you, a person who is not an undocumented immigrant but a citizen voter. It's challenging to engage in a way that respects your personal situation, and I want to do that because we're all at least cordial acquaintances here, or I'd like to think of is as such rather than bitter enemies blasting away at each other.
I want party unity going into this election. I don't want the progressive wing to roll over but I also don't want them to try and pull a Freedom Caucus and wreck everything to get their political point across, because doing that will harm a lot more folks than biting their tongues on the theatrics of the Border Bullshit while helping to get actual Representatives into office that support the policies they want.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
Government and politics are literally asking (or making) people sacrifice for the betterment of others or the betterment of society. Sometimes for the betterment of themselves, but to large and small degrees there are always trade-offs.
As I noted previously, in a nation of 350m people each with their own circumstances, every decision and every policy is going to cost some lives and wellbeing and (hopefully) save some lives or increase some quality of life.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement. You may consider even that to be sacrificing others for the betterment of society, but I think you will find most American voters would disagree with you on that.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
Gnizmo you're hearing "this issue is irrelevant and should be ignored" and that is not anything like what I'm saying.
There is an issue here of humanity, and there is an issue here of politics. The overlap is significant, and both circles also include a lot of other equally critical issues, including abortion and civil rights, all of which suffer when you leave the caucus over immigration. So don't get baited into leaving the caucus over immigration, because everything else suffers when you do.
What you are trying to say is not as important as what the other people hear. It is a fundamental fact of this life, and this forum as reflected in the rules. I am trying to get you to hear how it sounds. Because right now you are asking a huge thing as if it were spotting you some money for lunch.
This is something people on this board have repeatedly struggled to identify with, and get very angry when it is pointed out. I am trying to keep it short because I don't like being the star of a thread, and certainly don't want to be one that isn't actually relevant to me. The more stuff that is sacrificed this way the smaller the coalition will become. Not because people are wrong, but because they want to survive. There is no point in voting for a party that isn't fighting to ensure, at the bare fucking minimum, your right to survive.
This issue probably won't get me to leave the coalition. It will make me grumpy and less enthusiastic to vote which can cause problems. I certainly am not going to be able to talk about how good the party is in good faith to others so I won't try.
The Republican play is to get the Democrats to throw their coalition piece by piece to the wolves, and it is working! If we reduce this down to who can get the bigger plurality then Republicans win by having so many white cis straight people. If we keep taking care of the members then there are more of us than them. Stronger together. That means fighting for everyone even when it is difficult.
I don't mean this to be offensive, but I really can't think of a way to word it without there being some risk of offending you. If the Republican plan is to get Democrats to throw away their coalition, and you're stating that leaving the coalition is on the table for you, then you're following the Republican plan.
If progressive voters become disillusioned to the point that they don't vote due to party actions based on a narrative set mostly by the Republicans, then not only will we lose the White House, but we'll also have a lot of downstream political losses. One big issue I see with the current Dem party is that we focus too much on the WH/Congress to the detriment of local politics, which is an area that Republicans have been making major inroads on.
It's why I approve of Biden's current narrative. Not only is it based on the truth, but it shows that even if Republicans are handed everything they demanded, they will still refuse.
Yes it is. The problem is you are assigning the blame at the wrong end. I am not going to leave the coalition because Republicans are meanies who want me out. I absolutely will if Democrats decide that they do not value my life enough to protect and cast me out of the coalition. Democrats have the power to not do things to alienate the base. They make their choices, and so do we.
You are not, so far as I can tell, the base!
This topic does not, so far as I can tell, endanger your life!
I understand wanting to act in solidarity with other humans but I don't understand framing this issue of immigration policy as one of life or death for you, a person who is not an undocumented immigrant but a citizen voter. It's challenging to engage in a way that respects your personal situation, and I want to do that because we're all at least cordial acquaintances here, or I'd like to think of is as such rather than bitter enemies blasting away at each other.
I want party unity going into this election. I don't want the progressive wing to roll over but I also don't want them to try and pull a Freedom Caucus and wreck everything to get their political point across, because doing that will harm a lot more folks than biting their tongues on the theatrics of the Border Bullshit while helping to get actual Representatives into office that support the policies they want.
I think I have been clear here where I stand on this issue. This isn't my issue, and I have openly stated I don't think it will cause me to leave. I am not happy about that reality, but that is where I am. I do want to help give context to the issue for others since a lot of the debates appear to boil down to us snapping at the imagined opinions of others. The forum rivalry has really done a lot of damage to the quality of conversation here and I am extremely angry at both sides for it. That said, I do think we can all talk if we can hear each other.
So I am not framing it as life or death for me, but it is for others. Not just immigrants either. We have plenty of cases of US citizens being deported because of how unbelievably racist ICE is. That gets worse and not better with stricter policies. Speaking Spanish is long established as getting you severely harassed if your skin is the wrong color and I am not for it. It won't apply to me (white and can't learn Spanish because stupid R rolling problems) but it does other members of this community that has historically meant something to me.
Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
What is the sacrifice?
I am not playing this game again. I have been through this before with you posting along the way. I reiterate I do not have the patience for repeating myself to people I know are aware of what I am talking about.
Gnizmo you're hearing "this issue is irrelevant and should be ignored" and that is not anything like what I'm saying.
There is an issue here of humanity, and there is an issue here of politics. The overlap is significant, and both circles also include a lot of other equally critical issues, including abortion and civil rights, all of which suffer when you leave the caucus over immigration. So don't get baited into leaving the caucus over immigration, because everything else suffers when you do.
What you are trying to say is not as important as what the other people hear. It is a fundamental fact of this life, and this forum as reflected in the rules. I am trying to get you to hear how it sounds. Because right now you are asking a huge thing as if it were spotting you some money for lunch.
This is something people on this board have repeatedly struggled to identify with, and get very angry when it is pointed out. I am trying to keep it short because I don't like being the star of a thread, and certainly don't want to be one that isn't actually relevant to me. The more stuff that is sacrificed this way the smaller the coalition will become. Not because people are wrong, but because they want to survive. There is no point in voting for a party that isn't fighting to ensure, at the bare fucking minimum, your right to survive.
This issue probably won't get me to leave the coalition. It will make me grumpy and less enthusiastic to vote which can cause problems. I certainly am not going to be able to talk about how good the party is in good faith to others so I won't try.
The Republican play is to get the Democrats to throw their coalition piece by piece to the wolves, and it is working! If we reduce this down to who can get the bigger plurality then Republicans win by having so many white cis straight people. If we keep taking care of the members then there are more of us than them. Stronger together. That means fighting for everyone even when it is difficult.
I don't mean this to be offensive, but I really can't think of a way to word it without there being some risk of offending you. If the Republican plan is to get Democrats to throw away their coalition, and you're stating that leaving the coalition is on the table for you, then you're following the Republican plan.
If progressive voters become disillusioned to the point that they don't vote due to party actions based on a narrative set mostly by the Republicans, then not only will we lose the White House, but we'll also have a lot of downstream political losses. One big issue I see with the current Dem party is that we focus too much on the WH/Congress to the detriment of local politics, which is an area that Republicans have been making major inroads on.
It's why I approve of Biden's current narrative. Not only is it based on the truth, but it shows that even if Republicans are handed everything they demanded, they will still refuse.
Yes it is. The problem is you are assigning the blame at the wrong end. I am not going to leave the coalition because Republicans are meanies who want me out. I absolutely will if Democrats decide that they do not value my life enough to protect and cast me out of the coalition. Democrats have the power to not do things to alienate the base. They make their choices, and so do we.
Yeah, but when it comes to immigration the base is mostly for paths to citizenship and securing the border.
The Republican base is all secure the border and deport everyone.
Which means that if progressives want them to tack back to the left they need to make them lose more votes for tacking to the right.
But this topic is particularly tough when you compare where progressives have positioned themselves compared to even moderate voters.
I dont expect Dems to offer open borders. I do expect them to make a meaningful distinction between their position on immigration and the GOP's.
I literally linked you to a Democrat with a meaningful distinction from her Republican opponent and yet
and yet
Im not playing this game where when we talk about Bidens policies and Dem leadership's actions you switch to the policy platform of someone running for TX-15
Dem leadership is spending money to support politicians that have progressive positions. Sorry it feels like a game to you, I wonder if that's something members of the thread will find offputting!
So I bring up a complaint with the way the President js behaving and you use a random local campaign platform of someone who is not Biden as a shield against that criticism. Whatever this is it isnt particularly rational.
This give away the farm approach to immigration is bad policy and bad politics.
My dude
"random local campaign" = ground zero for this issue, Brownsville TX, and an election for national office to help determine the majority in the United States House of Representatives. Are you thinking I'm on about a state rep here? I feel like you understand how national politics works pretty well and if I was being uncharitable I'd suggest maybe you don't want to engage on specifics because it's much shakier ground than opposing the broader rhetoric, and I hope that's not the case...
... ultimately the rhetoric matters less than the races. If you want to change policy you need allies in Congress, and right now you're refusing to talk about how to get an ally into Congress, while focusing very strongly on something you can do practically nothing about (Presidential rhetoric) absent allies in Congress.
Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
Government and politics are literally asking (or making) people sacrifice for the betterment of others or the betterment of society. Sometimes for the betterment of themselves, but to large and small degrees there are always trade-offs.
As I noted previously, in a nation of 350m people each with their own circumstances, every decision and every policy is going to cost some lives and wellbeing and (hopefully) save some lives or increase some quality of life.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement. You may consider even that to be sacrificing others for the betterment of society, but I think you will find most American voters would disagree with you on that.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
You are severely misframing this, and possibly misunderstanding my words so I will try again. We all sacrifice something. We do not sacrifice ourselves. More and more this board has people demanding others sacrifice their safety for their own interests. There is nothing moral about sacrificing the life, safety, and well being of others so you can sleep safely at night.
on the drug trade front I'm sure its way easier to sneak in drugs in a shipping container than fucking hiking it across the desert from mexico.
Much like everywhere else that has a smuggling problem, it is thoae enforcing it that are the problem. Bringing a guard with 50 grand to make 50 million is just the cost of doing business.
Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
Government and politics are literally asking (or making) people sacrifice for the betterment of others or the betterment of society. Sometimes for the betterment of themselves, but to large and small degrees there are always trade-offs.
As I noted previously, in a nation of 350m people each with their own circumstances, every decision and every policy is going to cost some lives and wellbeing and (hopefully) save some lives or increase some quality of life.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement. You may consider even that to be sacrificing others for the betterment of society, but I think you will find most American voters would disagree with you on that.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
Well, there it is I suppose, the actual crux of the division: your wing has no actual sense of solidarity or comeraderie. Ours, however, is expected to faithfully show up and “do our duty” no matter what the “real democrats” decide or how it harms us in the marginalized communities.
Acting just like the GOP at large, but within the increasingly obscene and inhumane fiefdom of the National Democratic Party.
Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
Government and politics are literally asking (or making) people sacrifice for the betterment of others or the betterment of society. Sometimes for the betterment of themselves, but to large and small degrees there are always trade-offs.
As I noted previously, in a nation of 350m people each with their own circumstances, every decision and every policy is going to cost some lives and wellbeing and (hopefully) save some lives or increase some quality of life.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement. You may consider even that to be sacrificing others for the betterment of society, but I think you will find most American voters would disagree with you on that.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
Well, there it is I suppose, the actual crux of the division: your wing has no actual sense of solidarity or comeraderie. Ours, however, is expected to faithfully show up and “do our duty” no matter what the “real democrats” decide or how it harms us in the marginalized communities.
Acting just like the GOP at large, but within the increasingly obscene and inhumane fiefdom of the National Democratic Party.
Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
Government and politics are literally asking (or making) people sacrifice for the betterment of others or the betterment of society. Sometimes for the betterment of themselves, but to large and small degrees there are always trade-offs.
As I noted previously, in a nation of 350m people each with their own circumstances, every decision and every policy is going to cost some lives and wellbeing and (hopefully) save some lives or increase some quality of life.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement. You may consider even that to be sacrificing others for the betterment of society, but I think you will find most American voters would disagree with you on that.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
Well, there it is I suppose, the actual crux of the division: your wing has no actual sense of solidarity or comeraderie. Ours, however, is expected to faithfully show up and “do our duty” no matter what the “real democrats” decide or how it harms us in the marginalized communities.
Acting just like the GOP at large, but within the increasingly obscene and inhumane fiefdom of the National Democratic Party.
To follow up on the edit then don't be surprised that we don't vote for you. You cannot call us irrelevant, and be mad we don't vote how you want. It matters or it doesn't. Pick a lane.
Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
Government and politics are literally asking (or making) people sacrifice for the betterment of others or the betterment of society. Sometimes for the betterment of themselves, but to large and small degrees there are always trade-offs.
As I noted previously, in a nation of 350m people each with their own circumstances, every decision and every policy is going to cost some lives and wellbeing and (hopefully) save some lives or increase some quality of life.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement. You may consider even that to be sacrificing others for the betterment of society, but I think you will find most American voters would disagree with you on that.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
Well, there it is I suppose, the actual crux of the division: your wing has no actual sense of solidarity or comeraderie. Ours, however, is expected to faithfully show up and “do our duty” no matter what the “real democrats” decide or how it harms us in the marginalized communities.
Acting just like the GOP at large, but within the increasingly obscene and inhumane fiefdom of the National Democratic Party.
To follow up on the edit then don't be surprised that we don't vote for you. You cannot call us irrelevant, and be mad we don't vote how you want. It matters or it doesn't. Pick a lane.
Like I said: a microcosm of the last thirty to forty years of Democratic Party politics ever since the DLC remade leadership in the donors’ image: “shut up, get back in your place, and do what the wealthy, conservative white men tell you what’s good for you”
I am not playing this game again. I have been through this before with you posting along the way. I reiterate I do not have the patience for repeating myself to people I know are aware of what I am talking about.
I don't generally put things to memory unless they're very good/compelling or very bad/stupid, so I honestly don't know what you've said before.
I am not playing this game again. I have been through this before with you posting along the way. I reiterate I do not have the patience for repeating myself to people I know are aware of what I am talking about.
I don't generally put things to memory unless they're very good/compelling or very bad/stupid, so I honestly don't know what you've said before.
In the case of immigration as is relevant to this thread? Their lives, safety, and ability to be in this country regardless of citizenship status.
I am not playing this game again. I have been through this before with you posting along the way. I reiterate I do not have the patience for repeating myself to people I know are aware of what I am talking about.
I don't generally put things to memory unless they're very good/compelling or very bad/stupid, so I honestly don't know what you've said before.
In the case of immigration as is relevant to this thread? Their lives, safety, and ability to be in this country regardless of citizenship status.
I don't understand how that follows.
Do you mean "the emotional labor of having to help someone who will continue to jeopardize other people's lives, safety, etc."?
Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
Government and politics are literally asking (or making) people sacrifice for the betterment of others or the betterment of society. Sometimes for the betterment of themselves, but to large and small degrees there are always trade-offs.
As I noted previously, in a nation of 350m people each with their own circumstances, every decision and every policy is going to cost some lives and wellbeing and (hopefully) save some lives or increase some quality of life.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement. You may consider even that to be sacrificing others for the betterment of society, but I think you will find most American voters would disagree with you on that.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
Well, there it is I suppose, the actual crux of the division: your wing has no actual sense of solidarity or comeraderie. Ours, however, is expected to faithfully show up and “do our duty” no matter what the “real democrats” decide or how it harms us in the marginalized communities.
Acting just like the GOP at large, but within the increasingly obscene and inhumane fiefdom of the National Democratic Party.
crap like this is why I want to talk specifics rather than generalities. The generalities are increasingly bullshit the farther down the line we go. That last sentence of yours Lanz is absolute bothsidesist bunk, and I hope you can break out of your frame for a minute and see it.
There are places in this country where moderates are expected to show up and pull the lever for a progressive. You can just look at a ranking list for the House and see what the most leftwing 25% or so of the caucus looks like, and if you're a moderate Dem living in those districts well tough shit buddy, sorry you don't like universal healthcare and abolishing ICE but take your ass to the polls regardless and support the caucus.
Look at the most conservative districts, and it's exactly the opposite. Sorry @Magell if you live in TX-15 and you don't like one line of an immigration policy statement that otherwise goes 80% of the way to your position, I'm still expecting you to go to the polls and vote for the Democrat.
To my knowledge there are very few unicorns running in 2024, so everyone's gonna have to make some choices. If Rep. Allred wins the TX Dem Senate primary instead of Roland Gutierrez, am I going to walk away from a chance to remove Ted Cruz? Hell fuckin no. No Texan should regardless of how far left of center they are. Cruz will vote for a national abortion ban and a closed border, among a thousand other fucked-up things, and Allred will not. That is the actual gap between them and us.
Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
Government and politics are literally asking (or making) people sacrifice for the betterment of others or the betterment of society. Sometimes for the betterment of themselves, but to large and small degrees there are always trade-offs.
As I noted previously, in a nation of 350m people each with their own circumstances, every decision and every policy is going to cost some lives and wellbeing and (hopefully) save some lives or increase some quality of life.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement. You may consider even that to be sacrificing others for the betterment of society, but I think you will find most American voters would disagree with you on that.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
Well, there it is I suppose, the actual crux of the division: your wing has no actual sense of solidarity or comeraderie. Ours, however, is expected to faithfully show up and “do our duty” no matter what the “real democrats” decide or how it harms us in the marginalized communities.
Acting just like the GOP at large, but within the increasingly obscene and inhumane fiefdom of the National Democratic Party.
To follow up on the edit then don't be surprised that we don't vote for you. You cannot call us irrelevant, and be mad we don't vote how you want. It matters or it doesn't. Pick a lane.
I believe there is a misunderstanding at work here, one fueled in part by a level of animosity that gets brought into pretty much every discussion related to these topics.
The statement that the far left is “not the base”, is not the same as saying they are irrelevant. Just that as a faction they are smaller in number, and because of that, overall level of influence to the larger party as a whole.
I am not playing this game again. I have been through this before with you posting along the way. I reiterate I do not have the patience for repeating myself to people I know are aware of what I am talking about.
I don't generally put things to memory unless they're very good/compelling or very bad/stupid, so I honestly don't know what you've said before.
In the case of immigration as is relevant to this thread? Their lives, safety, and ability to be in this country regardless of citizenship status.
I don't understand how that follows.
Do you mean "the emotional labor of having to help someone who will continue to jeopardize other people's lives, safety, etc."?
This might be time to move to PMs because I am not a fan of being the star of a topic as mentioned before. The original post was pointing out that by not supporting the Democratic plans to let Republicans inflict their acts of cruelty to portions of the Democratic base that the voters were allowing the Republican plan to work. I agreed and pointed out that the change must start with Democrats and not the voters. Blaming voters for not voting for politicians who support policies that inflict acts of cruelty on themselves is pointless, wrong, and an exercise for those who have the privilege to know they will not be next.
Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
Government and politics are literally asking (or making) people sacrifice for the betterment of others or the betterment of society. Sometimes for the betterment of themselves, but to large and small degrees there are always trade-offs.
As I noted previously, in a nation of 350m people each with their own circumstances, every decision and every policy is going to cost some lives and wellbeing and (hopefully) save some lives or increase some quality of life.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement. You may consider even that to be sacrificing others for the betterment of society, but I think you will find most American voters would disagree with you on that.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
Well, there it is I suppose, the actual crux of the division: your wing has no actual sense of solidarity or comeraderie. Ours, however, is expected to faithfully show up and “do our duty” no matter what the “real democrats” decide or how it harms us in the marginalized communities.
Acting just like the GOP at large, but within the increasingly obscene and inhumane fiefdom of the National Democratic Party.
To follow up on the edit then don't be surprised that we don't vote for you. You cannot call us irrelevant, and be mad we don't vote how you want. It matters or it doesn't. Pick a lane.
I believe there is a misunderstanding at work here, one fueled in part by a level of animosity that gets brought into pretty much every discussion related to these topics.
The statement that the far left is “not the base”, is not the same as saying they are irrelevant. Just that as a faction they are smaller in number, and because of that, overall level of influence to the larger party as a whole.
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
Zagdrob is the one to use the word irrelevant. The qualifier more implies that they already are. Further, the topic gets heated because people fear the left will not vote and Trump will win implying a high level of relevance. Both cannot be true at the same time.
Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
Government and politics are literally asking (or making) people sacrifice for the betterment of others or the betterment of society. Sometimes for the betterment of themselves, but to large and small degrees there are always trade-offs.
As I noted previously, in a nation of 350m people each with their own circumstances, every decision and every policy is going to cost some lives and wellbeing and (hopefully) save some lives or increase some quality of life.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement. You may consider even that to be sacrificing others for the betterment of society, but I think you will find most American voters would disagree with you on that.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
Well, there it is I suppose, the actual crux of the division: your wing has no actual sense of solidarity or comeraderie. Ours, however, is expected to faithfully show up and “do our duty” no matter what the “real democrats” decide or how it harms us in the marginalized communities.
Acting just like the GOP at large, but within the increasingly obscene and inhumane fiefdom of the National Democratic Party.
crap like this is why I want to talk specifics rather than generalities. The generalities are increasingly bullshit the farther down the line we go. That last sentence of yours Lanz is absolute bothsidesist bunk, and I hope you can break out of your frame for a minute and see it.
There are places in this country where moderates are expected to show up and pull the lever for a progressive. You can just look at a ranking list for the House and see what the most leftwing 25% or so of the caucus looks like, and if you're a moderate Dem living in those districts well tough shit buddy, sorry you don't like universal healthcare and abolishing ICE but take your ass to the polls regardless and support the caucus.
Look at the most conservative districts, and it's exactly the opposite. Sorry Magell if you live in TX-15 and you don't like one line of an immigration policy statement that otherwise goes 80% of the way to your position, I'm still expecting you to go to the polls and vote for the Democrat.
To my knowledge there are very few unicorns running in 2024, so everyone's gonna have to make some choices. If Rep. Allred wins the TX Dem Senate primary instead of Roland Gutierrez, am I going to walk away from a chance to remove Ted Cruz? Hell fuckin no. No Texan should regardless of how far left of center they are. Cruz will vote for a national abortion ban and a closed border, among a thousand other fucked-up things, and Allred will not. That is the actual gap between them and us.
People continue to mistake "I won't vote for that person," with "I won't vote."
I am not playing this game again. I have been through this before with you posting along the way. I reiterate I do not have the patience for repeating myself to people I know are aware of what I am talking about.
I don't generally put things to memory unless they're very good/compelling or very bad/stupid, so I honestly don't know what you've said before.
In the case of immigration as is relevant to this thread? Their lives, safety, and ability to be in this country regardless of citizenship status.
I don't understand how that follows.
Do you mean "the emotional labor of having to help someone who will continue to jeopardize other people's lives, safety, etc."?
This might be time to move to PMs because I am not a fan of being the star of a topic as mentioned before. The original post was pointing out that by not supporting the Democratic plans to let Republicans inflict their acts of cruelty to portions of the Democratic base that the voters were allowing the Republican plan to work. I agreed and pointed out that the change must start with Democrats and not the voters. Blaming voters for not voting for politicians who support policies that inflict acts of cruelty on themselves is pointless, wrong, and an exercise for those who have the privilege to know they will not be next.
My experience is that PMs go bad places, so I'll pass just to keep things simple.
I can understand "voting for the lesser evil is too painful" if that's the situation (and I won't claim it is nor expect clarification ). It's a position I would push against, but I am deeply privileged.
I am not playing this game again. I have been through this before with you posting along the way. I reiterate I do not have the patience for repeating myself to people I know are aware of what I am talking about.
I don't generally put things to memory unless they're very good/compelling or very bad/stupid, so I honestly don't know what you've said before.
In the case of immigration as is relevant to this thread? Their lives, safety, and ability to be in this country regardless of citizenship status.
I don't understand how that follows.
Do you mean "the emotional labor of having to help someone who will continue to jeopardize other people's lives, safety, etc."?
This might be time to move to PMs because I am not a fan of being the star of a topic as mentioned before. The original post was pointing out that by not supporting the Democratic plans to let Republicans inflict their acts of cruelty to portions of the Democratic base that the voters were allowing the Republican plan to work. I agreed and pointed out that the change must start with Democrats and not the voters. Blaming voters for not voting for politicians who support policies that inflict acts of cruelty on themselves is pointless, wrong, and an exercise for those who have the privilege to know they will not be next.
My experience is that PMs go bad places, so I'll pass just to keep things simple.
I can understand "voting for the lesser evil is too painful" if that's the situation (and I won't claim it is nor expect clarification ). It's a position I would push against, but I am deeply privileged.
That is functionally accurate. I don't know your history with PMs, but I can assure you with me I will continue to be polite. I might bite your head off a bit of I am grumpy (❤️Heffling) but I will keep it within the forum rules of civility and kindness.
The Democratic Party is a coalition of at least 10 different interest group that all have a chip on their shoulder about not being priority #1 and they are all correct about this.
Leftists, moderates, conservatives, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities, immigrants, African Americans, Native Americans, Jewish people and Muslims are all screwed over in the name of electoral advantage. Even white straight Christians sometimes get jealous of the way that they don’t get treated as special as Republicans treat them.
They all have to vote together to win, even though an anarcho-socialist Wiccan college student and a Muslim grandpa who owns 3 convenience stores are not going to see eye to eye on very much at all.
Well, there it is I suppose, the actual crux of the division: your wing has no actual sense of solidarity or comeraderie. Ours, however, is expected to faithfully show up and “do our duty” no matter what the “real democrats” decide or how it harms us in the marginalized communities.
Acting just like the GOP at large, but within the increasingly obscene and inhumane fiefdom of the National Democratic Party.
crap like this is why I want to talk specifics rather than generalities. The generalities are increasingly bullshit the farther down the line we go. That last sentence of yours Lanz is absolute bothsidesist bunk, and I hope you can break out of your frame for a minute and see it.
There are places in this country where moderates are expected to show up and pull the lever for a progressive. You can just look at a ranking list for the House and see what the most leftwing 25% or so of the caucus looks like, and if you're a moderate Dem living in those districts well tough shit buddy, sorry you don't like universal healthcare and abolishing ICE but take your ass to the polls regardless and support the caucus.
Look at the most conservative districts, and it's exactly the opposite. Sorry Magell if you live in TX-15 and you don't like one line of an immigration policy statement that otherwise goes 80% of the way to your position, I'm still expecting you to go to the polls and vote for the Democrat.
To my knowledge there are very few unicorns running in 2024, so everyone's gonna have to make some choices. If Rep. Allred wins the TX Dem Senate primary instead of Roland Gutierrez, am I going to walk away from a chance to remove Ted Cruz? Hell fuckin no. No Texan should regardless of how far left of center they are. Cruz will vote for a national abortion ban and a closed border, among a thousand other fucked-up things, and Allred will not. That is the actual gap between them and us.
People continue to mistake "I won't vote for that person," with "I won't vote."
God, fixing that quote tree was a mess.
I am intentionally equating them, because this is not an academic exercise. There will only be one relevant person running for the Senate against Ted Cruz, and TX Democrats are picking that person on March 5th. If they pick Rep. Colin Allred, a very moderate Democrat, that will be the only option.
If you don't vote for that person, you don't have any other options! Not participating is identical to accepting Ted Cruz as Senator. Allred winning means he will vote for Schumer as majority leader. It's that stark. The political reality of 2024 does not allow for your abdication of voting responsibility while avoiding the gift of a +1 to the fascists.
Now, depending on where you live, you might actually bail on the caucus because of Biden's rhetoric on the border. Hell, if you live in CA and don't want to bother with the Senate race because you think Schiff sucks, and you want to vote for some rando instead of Biden because CA is a lock and you're mad at the administration over border rhetoric, you have that luxury.
It'd be great if you mentioned the geographic circumstance that lets you lean harder into protest voting so folks don't get overly touchy about how you might help a Republican. Specifics really help here. They help everybody recognize the calculus that goes into these decisions, and go a long way toward breaking the cycle of moderates telling the progressive wing they're irrelevant, and progressives telling moderates they're immoral.
The Democratic Party is a coalition of at least 10 different interest group that all have a chip on their shoulder about not being priority #1 and they are all correct about this.
Leftists, moderates, conservatives, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities, immigrants, African Americans, Native Americans, Jewish people and Muslims are all screwed over in the name of electoral advantage. Even white straight Christians sometimes get jealous of the way that they don’t get treated as special as Republicans treat them.
They all have to vote together to win, even though an anarcho-socialist Wiccan college student and a Muslim grandpa who owns 3 convenience stores are not going to see eye to eye on very much at all.
Again this framing is disingenuous. Priority one in this case would be immigration reform, abolishing ICE, and ensuring the humane treatment of immigrants. What is happening is that the group is being seen as ok to make their lives immeasurably worse in order to make it better for the other members. The Wiccan college student and the Muslim grandpa won't see eye to eye on the best of circumstances, but you cannot reasonably expect one to support a policy that makes their life severely worse to maintain the life of the other.
Well, there it is I suppose, the actual crux of the division: your wing has no actual sense of solidarity or comeraderie. Ours, however, is expected to faithfully show up and “do our duty” no matter what the “real democrats” decide or how it harms us in the marginalized communities.
Acting just like the GOP at large, but within the increasingly obscene and inhumane fiefdom of the National Democratic Party.
crap like this is why I want to talk specifics rather than generalities. The generalities are increasingly bullshit the farther down the line we go. That last sentence of yours Lanz is absolute bothsidesist bunk, and I hope you can break out of your frame for a minute and see it.
There are places in this country where moderates are expected to show up and pull the lever for a progressive. You can just look at a ranking list for the House and see what the most leftwing 25% or so of the caucus looks like, and if you're a moderate Dem living in those districts well tough shit buddy, sorry you don't like universal healthcare and abolishing ICE but take your ass to the polls regardless and support the caucus.
Look at the most conservative districts, and it's exactly the opposite. Sorry Magell if you live in TX-15 and you don't like one line of an immigration policy statement that otherwise goes 80% of the way to your position, I'm still expecting you to go to the polls and vote for the Democrat.
To my knowledge there are very few unicorns running in 2024, so everyone's gonna have to make some choices. If Rep. Allred wins the TX Dem Senate primary instead of Roland Gutierrez, am I going to walk away from a chance to remove Ted Cruz? Hell fuckin no. No Texan should regardless of how far left of center they are. Cruz will vote for a national abortion ban and a closed border, among a thousand other fucked-up things, and Allred will not. That is the actual gap between them and us.
People continue to mistake "I won't vote for that person," with "I won't vote."
God, fixing that quote tree was a mess.
I am intentionally equating them, because this is not an academic exercise. There will only be one relevant person running for the Senate against Ted Cruz, and TX Democrats are picking that person on March 5th. If they pick Rep. Colin Allred, a very moderate Democrat, that will be the only option.
If you don't vote for that person, you don't have any other options! Not participating is identical to accepting Ted Cruz as Senator. Allred winning means he will vote for Schumer as majority leader. It's that stark. The political reality of 2024 does not allow for your abdication of voting responsibility while avoiding the gift of a +1 to the fascists.
Now, depending on where you live, you might actually bail on the caucus because of Biden's rhetoric on the border. Hell, if you live in CA and don't want to bother with the Senate race because you think Schiff sucks, and you want to vote for some rando instead of Biden because CA is a lock and you're mad at the administration over border rhetoric, you have that luxury.
It'd be great if you mentioned the geographic circumstance that lets you lean harder into protest voting so folks don't get overly touchy about how you might help a Republican. Specifics really help here. They help everybody recognize the calculus that goes into these decisions, and go a long way toward moderates telling the progressive wing they're irrelevant, and progressives telling moderates they're immoral.
I live in New Orleans. D+25 district and the state speaks for itself. That number is likely to drop soon so we will see how that impacts my reality. We also have our fun jungle primary where everyone is an option to vote on election day. Perhaps living under a primary system would change my view. I don't know. I really don't. I can just talk about from mine.
People continue to mistake "I won't vote for that person," with "I won't vote."
If it’s with regards to the Presidency there’s no appreciable difference
Better make some changes to bring them around then.
The last person on here I saw that told Gnizmo that she wasn't part of the base of the party, went on a few days later to say they spent ten years dreaming of a John McCain presidency.
People keep claiming that Biden saying he wants to work together with a man that a month ago(?) he said was using the language of Adolf Hitler on immigration is just cornering him on the topic. That might be more believeable if Dems hadn't just attempted to give republicans their wet dream bill, or that he hasn't been horrendous on the subject his entire term.
Lets delve again back into to his 2020 policy platform.
I am not playing this game again. I have been through this before with you posting along the way. I reiterate I do not have the patience for repeating myself to people I know are aware of what I am talking about.
I don't generally put things to memory unless they're very good/compelling or very bad/stupid, so I honestly don't know what you've said before.
In the case of immigration as is relevant to this thread? Their lives, safety, and ability to be in this country regardless of citizenship status.
I don't understand how that follows.
Do you mean "the emotional labor of having to help someone who will continue to jeopardize other people's lives, safety, etc."?
This might be time to move to PMs because I am not a fan of being the star of a topic as mentioned before. The original post was pointing out that by not supporting the Democratic plans to let Republicans inflict their acts of cruelty to portions of the Democratic base that the voters were allowing the Republican plan to work. I agreed and pointed out that the change must start with Democrats and not the voters. Blaming voters for not voting for politicians who support policies that inflict acts of cruelty on themselves is pointless, wrong, and an exercise for those who have the privilege to know they will not be next.
My experience is that PMs go bad places, so I'll pass just to keep things simple.
I can understand "voting for the lesser evil is too painful" if that's the situation (and I won't claim it is nor expect clarification ). It's a position I would push against, but I am deeply privileged.
That is functionally accurate. I don't know your history with PMs, but I can assure you with me I will continue to be polite. I might bite your head off a bit of I am grumpy (❤️Heffling) but I will keep it within the forum rules of civility and kindness.
Thank you! So yeah, I can understand that position. I think that basically puts proponents in the position of trying to make the the bitter and toxic pill easier to swallow.
Little in most situations. In this one it is working out the starting point of a problem and thus the point that needs to be resolved. You cannot reasonably ask people to sacrifice themselves for your betterment. Democratic actions are what has put members of this board into that position and discussion.
Government and politics are literally asking (or making) people sacrifice for the betterment of others or the betterment of society. Sometimes for the betterment of themselves, but to large and small degrees there are always trade-offs.
As I noted previously, in a nation of 350m people each with their own circumstances, every decision and every policy is going to cost some lives and wellbeing and (hopefully) save some lives or increase some quality of life.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement. You may consider even that to be sacrificing others for the betterment of society, but I think you will find most American voters would disagree with you on that.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
Well, there it is I suppose, the actual crux of the division: your wing has no actual sense of solidarity or comeraderie. Ours, however, is expected to faithfully show up and “do our duty” no matter what the “real democrats” decide or how it harms us in the marginalized communities.
Acting just like the GOP at large, but within the increasingly obscene and inhumane fiefdom of the National Democratic Party.
crap like this is why I want to talk specifics rather than generalities. The generalities are increasingly bullshit the farther down the line we go. That last sentence of yours Lanz is absolute bothsidesist bunk, and I hope you can break out of your frame for a minute and see it.
There are places in this country where moderates are expected to show up and pull the lever for a progressive. You can just look at a ranking list for the House and see what the most leftwing 25% or so of the caucus looks like, and if you're a moderate Dem living in those districts well tough shit buddy, sorry you don't like universal healthcare and abolishing ICE but take your ass to the polls regardless and support the caucus.
Look at the most conservative districts, and it's exactly the opposite. Sorry @Magell if you live in TX-15 and you don't like one line of an immigration policy statement that otherwise goes 80% of the way to your position, I'm still expecting you to go to the polls and vote for the Democrat.
To my knowledge there are very few unicorns running in 2024, so everyone's gonna have to make some choices. If Rep. Allred wins the TX Dem Senate primary instead of Roland Gutierrez, am I going to walk away from a chance to remove Ted Cruz? Hell fuckin no. No Texan should regardless of how far left of center they are. Cruz will vote for a national abortion ban and a closed border, among a thousand other fucked-up things, and Allred will not. That is the actual gap between them and us.
From a utilitarian approach, I don't disagree with anything you've said here. That said, in the real world I have observed that voting against a politician is less of a motivator than voting for a politician, especially on the left. I worry that while arguments about moral responsibility to follow the utilitarian approach to electing our representative may have a lot going for them, it's not going to make the difference in a large enough or consistent enough way to do more than maybe eke out a win.
It’s not disingenuous at all. People feel strongly about the immigration issue and the Democrats will lose if they don’t acknowledge this.
Technically the only moral decision would be to vastly increase refugee intake to the “open borders” level that Republicans claim we are doing, because the whole world is going to shit and it would save millions of lives. But that would utterly shatter the Democratic vote and produce a result like Ronald Reagan got.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement.
"Humane enforcement" is doing a lot of work here, papering over a lot of the actual disagreements. For one thing the existing federal agency in charge of border security is not actually capable of delivering "humane enforcement". Beyond that, presumably "humane enforcement" means granting asylum as required by international law. But even centrist positions on immigration seem to presuppose that most asylum requests are illegitimate.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
People continue to mistake "I won't vote for that person," with "I won't vote."
If it’s with regards to the Presidency there’s no appreciable difference
Better make some changes to bring them around then.
The last person on here I saw that told Gnizmo that she wasn't part of the base of the party, went on a few days later to say they spent ten years dreaming of a John McCain presidency.
People keep claiming that Biden saying he wants to work together with a man that a month ago(?) he said was using the language of Adolf Hitler on immigration is just cornering him on the topic. That might be more believeable if Dems hadn't just attempted to give republicans their wet dream bill, or that he hasn't been horrendous on the subject his entire term.
Lets delve again back into to his 2020 policy platform.
I’ve agreed that immigration has been probably the worst part of the Biden presidency.
That being said, the border bill is a list of things that most moderate voters would look at and find more or less acceptable changes, and at the time it was being considered voting for the bill was tied to getting funding for Ukraine.
And while Biden has been disappointing on immigration, he’s been pretty good overall in other areas and I’m not a single issue voter. Not even to mention the glaringly obvious fact that Biden is better than the only other option in this election in every single possible way and it’s not even close.
btw this is what a fucking wedge issue looks like, and this is also how you get around it - by zooming in and understanding shit like "Brownsville Progressives need to vote for Vallejo no matter what they think about Biden", and also, idk, "I won't vote for Eddy Morales in OR-3 because he doesn't advocate we abolish ICE."
The official Republican position is they are going to do large sweeping round ups of anyone they think qualifies as "illegal", put them into camps and then deport them all with basically no process. And tell anyone that tells them to stop "make me".
Whatever you think of the Democratic party's official position or the compromise deal they made with Republicans, it's not even close to what the Republicans actually want to do.
It’s not disingenuous at all. People feel strongly about the immigration issue and the Democrats will lose if they don’t acknowledge this.
Technically the only moral decision would be to vastly increase refugee intake to the “open borders” level that Republicans claim we are doing, because the whole world is going to shit and it would save millions of lives. But that would utterly shatter the Democratic vote and produce a result like Ronald Reagan got.
I am not certain how it can be seen as any other way. Continuously people on this board frame resistance to towing the party line as wanting to be the top priority. That is wrong. It is an inaccurate framing of the issue, and arguments being put forth by one side. It doesn't have to be the top priority, but it does have to be a priority. Hundreds can be before that as long as there is a sense that it is working towards helping rather than working towards harming as is the case here.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement.
"Humane enforcement" is doing a lot of work here, papering over a lot of the actual disagreements. For one thing the existing federal agency in charge of border security is not actually capable of delivering "humane enforcement". Beyond that, presumably "humane enforcement" means granting asylum as required by international law. But even centrist positions on immigration seem to presuppose that most asylum requests are illegitimate.
Case in point: They literally invented, and had to be told to stop using (and they have thus far refused), a new slur for immigrants derived from the sound of hitting people in their charge in the head with flashlights and batons.
On December 3, 2017, Matthew Bowen, an agent patrolling in Nogales, Arizona, allegedly ran over a Guatemalan man who had crossed the border illegally. He’s accused of driving into the man, who survived, and then lying about what happened. The incident gained national attention in May, when the Arizona Daily Star published a story about Bowen’s text messages, including one in which he called migrants “disgusting subhuman shit unworthy of being kindling for a fire.”
In an exchange with another agent, Bowen discussed “frying” migrants from Guatemala: “Guats are best made crispy with an olive oil from their native [country].” While this was deemed inadmissible by the judge, several others that included the slur “tonk” can go in front of the jury.
“If I had to tackle the tonk I would still be doing memos and shit. I wonder how they expect us to apprehend wild ass runners who don’t want to be apprehended?” Bowen texted after the incident. “I’m looking at serious charges even though the Tonk was completely uninjured.”
The meaning of “tonk” has long been contested. For years, Border Patrol critics and immigrant rights groups have contended that the word is derogatory, and that it specifically refers to the sound a flashlight makes when agents hit migrants on the head. Border Patrol supporters have denied this and said it’s simply an acronym for “Territory of Origin Not Known” or “Temporarily Out of Native Country.”
On Thursday, a CBP spokesperson wrote in an email that while “there is no clear answer on where the term originated or if it was once considered an acronym, but flatly, it is now considered a derogatory term and CBP does not condone its use.”
Earlier in the week, I spoke to Jenn Budd, a former Border Patrol agent turned migrant aid volunteer, who has been outspoken about the myriad problems within the agency. I got in touch with her to discuss the recent ProPublica exposé that uncovered a secret Border Patrol Facebook group where agents joked about migrants dying and posted sexist memes. Budd said the racism, corruption, and sexism inside the agency goes back decades. To drive home her point, she pointed me toward a small merchandise site run by two former Border Patrol agents who she said went to the training academy with her in the 1990s.
The site, BleedGreen, bills itself as a page dedicated “to the men and women of the United States Border Patrol” that sells “unique” products “for our brethren in green.”
Among the apparel available for sale is this T-shirt:
I kinda wish we could make it a rule that no one is allowed to reiterate for the millionth time that Biden is better than Trump and that there's only two options (a non-truth, there's a third) this election.
Everyone in this conversation knows this. Everyone has lived through it. Biden is objectively better than having Trump in the White House. There's no reason to have to say it over and over and over again unless you're actually part of the campaign and trying out the main slogan for 2024.
Like, we've all waisted days of our lives reading or typing out that Biden is better than Trump. We've added tons of CO2 to the atmosphere transmitting that thought and storing it on servers thousands of times over the last 4 years at least.
Im not being disingenuous. I’m being utterly sincere. When I talk to working class Democrats and Democrats of color I’m struck by how differently they feel about things to me. Much more conservative than me as a rule.
It’s where the “liberal elite” isn’t so much of a fallacy: Democrat politics nerds see the world in a very different way to the “vote every 4 years” guys. They are liberal in that they don’t want people shot at the border, but they are also not wanting a lot of immigration. I don’t think they are correct but their vote is as good as a socialist’s vote.
Im not being disingenuous. I’m being utterly sincere. When I talk to working class Democrats and Democrats of color I’m struck by how differently they feel about things to me. Much more conservative than me as a rule.
It’s where the “liberal elite” isn’t so much of a fallacy: Democrat politics nerds see the world in a very different way to the “vote every 4 years” guys. They are liberal in that they don’t want people shot at the border, but they are also not wanting a lot of immigration. I don’t think they are correct but their vote is as good as a socialist’s vote.
I understand that, but you are not hearing what I am saying. Framing it as being upset over not being priority one is wrong, dismissive, and can only cause problems.
Im hearing what you are saying and disagreeing. I think that politics always involves a certain amount of harm and the general idea is to minimize it. (Or in the case of the Republican Party, maximize it.)
If we open the borders to everyone who needs it and save millions of human lives, but guarantee handing power to Republicans for the next 20 years/permanently, did we do good?
Posts
What is the sacrifice?
You are not, so far as I can tell, the base!
This topic does not, so far as I can tell, endanger your life!
I understand wanting to act in solidarity with other humans but I don't understand framing this issue of immigration policy as one of life or death for you, a person who is not an undocumented immigrant but a citizen voter. It's challenging to engage in a way that respects your personal situation when you're representing yourself as personally endangered by the border policy from the Biden admin when that doesn't seem to be the case, and I really want to respect your situation because we're all at least cordial acquaintances here, or I'd like to think of it as such rather than bitter enemies blasting away at each other.
I want party unity going into this election. I don't want the progressive wing to roll over but I also don't want them to try and pull a Freedom Caucus and wreck everything to get their political point across, because doing that will harm a lot more folks than biting their tongues on the theatrics of the Border Bullshit while helping to get actual Representatives into office that support the policies they want.
Why for like thirty to forty years is “party unity” always dependent on the left wing of the party rolling over for the conservatives?
It’s almost as if the issue isn’t actually party unity; it’s the right wing of the democrats, as usual, wanting complete dominance, control and unwavering deference.
Government and politics are literally asking (or making) people sacrifice for the betterment of others or the betterment of society. Sometimes for the betterment of themselves, but to large and small degrees there are always trade-offs.
As I noted previously, in a nation of 350m people each with their own circumstances, every decision and every policy is going to cost some lives and wellbeing and (hopefully) save some lives or increase some quality of life.
By and large the American public is for secure borders with humane enforcement. You may consider even that to be sacrificing others for the betterment of society, but I think you will find most American voters would disagree with you on that.
Edit -
Simple. You don't represent the party base and the more the left wing threatens to take their ball and go home the more irrelevant they make themselves.
I think I have been clear here where I stand on this issue. This isn't my issue, and I have openly stated I don't think it will cause me to leave. I am not happy about that reality, but that is where I am. I do want to help give context to the issue for others since a lot of the debates appear to boil down to us snapping at the imagined opinions of others. The forum rivalry has really done a lot of damage to the quality of conversation here and I am extremely angry at both sides for it. That said, I do think we can all talk if we can hear each other.
So I am not framing it as life or death for me, but it is for others. Not just immigrants either. We have plenty of cases of US citizens being deported because of how unbelievably racist ICE is. That gets worse and not better with stricter policies. Speaking Spanish is long established as getting you severely harassed if your skin is the wrong color and I am not for it. It won't apply to me (white and can't learn Spanish because stupid R rolling problems) but it does other members of this community that has historically meant something to me.
I am not playing this game again. I have been through this before with you posting along the way. I reiterate I do not have the patience for repeating myself to people I know are aware of what I am talking about.
Yeah, but when it comes to immigration the base is mostly for paths to citizenship and securing the border.
The Republican base is all secure the border and deport everyone.
My dude
"random local campaign" = ground zero for this issue, Brownsville TX, and an election for national office to help determine the majority in the United States House of Representatives. Are you thinking I'm on about a state rep here? I feel like you understand how national politics works pretty well and if I was being uncharitable I'd suggest maybe you don't want to engage on specifics because it's much shakier ground than opposing the broader rhetoric, and I hope that's not the case...
... ultimately the rhetoric matters less than the races. If you want to change policy you need allies in Congress, and right now you're refusing to talk about how to get an ally into Congress, while focusing very strongly on something you can do practically nothing about (Presidential rhetoric) absent allies in Congress.
You are severely misframing this, and possibly misunderstanding my words so I will try again. We all sacrifice something. We do not sacrifice ourselves. More and more this board has people demanding others sacrifice their safety for their own interests. There is nothing moral about sacrificing the life, safety, and well being of others so you can sleep safely at night.
Much like everywhere else that has a smuggling problem, it is thoae enforcing it that are the problem. Bringing a guard with 50 grand to make 50 million is just the cost of doing business.
Well, there it is I suppose, the actual crux of the division: your wing has no actual sense of solidarity or comeraderie. Ours, however, is expected to faithfully show up and “do our duty” no matter what the “real democrats” decide or how it harms us in the marginalized communities.
Acting just like the GOP at large, but within the increasingly obscene and inhumane fiefdom of the National Democratic Party.
They're cutting off their nose to spiderface.
To follow up on the edit then don't be surprised that we don't vote for you. You cannot call us irrelevant, and be mad we don't vote how you want. It matters or it doesn't. Pick a lane.
Like I said: a microcosm of the last thirty to forty years of Democratic Party politics ever since the DLC remade leadership in the donors’ image: “shut up, get back in your place, and do what the wealthy, conservative white men tell you what’s good for you”
I don't generally put things to memory unless they're very good/compelling or very bad/stupid, so I honestly don't know what you've said before.
In the case of immigration as is relevant to this thread? Their lives, safety, and ability to be in this country regardless of citizenship status.
I don't understand how that follows.
Do you mean "the emotional labor of having to help someone who will continue to jeopardize other people's lives, safety, etc."?
crap like this is why I want to talk specifics rather than generalities. The generalities are increasingly bullshit the farther down the line we go. That last sentence of yours Lanz is absolute bothsidesist bunk, and I hope you can break out of your frame for a minute and see it.
There are places in this country where moderates are expected to show up and pull the lever for a progressive. You can just look at a ranking list for the House and see what the most leftwing 25% or so of the caucus looks like, and if you're a moderate Dem living in those districts well tough shit buddy, sorry you don't like universal healthcare and abolishing ICE but take your ass to the polls regardless and support the caucus.
Look at the most conservative districts, and it's exactly the opposite. Sorry @Magell if you live in TX-15 and you don't like one line of an immigration policy statement that otherwise goes 80% of the way to your position, I'm still expecting you to go to the polls and vote for the Democrat.
To my knowledge there are very few unicorns running in 2024, so everyone's gonna have to make some choices. If Rep. Allred wins the TX Dem Senate primary instead of Roland Gutierrez, am I going to walk away from a chance to remove Ted Cruz? Hell fuckin no. No Texan should regardless of how far left of center they are. Cruz will vote for a national abortion ban and a closed border, among a thousand other fucked-up things, and Allred will not. That is the actual gap between them and us.
I believe there is a misunderstanding at work here, one fueled in part by a level of animosity that gets brought into pretty much every discussion related to these topics.
The statement that the far left is “not the base”, is not the same as saying they are irrelevant. Just that as a faction they are smaller in number, and because of that, overall level of influence to the larger party as a whole.
This might be time to move to PMs because I am not a fan of being the star of a topic as mentioned before. The original post was pointing out that by not supporting the Democratic plans to let Republicans inflict their acts of cruelty to portions of the Democratic base that the voters were allowing the Republican plan to work. I agreed and pointed out that the change must start with Democrats and not the voters. Blaming voters for not voting for politicians who support policies that inflict acts of cruelty on themselves is pointless, wrong, and an exercise for those who have the privilege to know they will not be next.
Zagdrob is the one to use the word irrelevant. The qualifier more implies that they already are. Further, the topic gets heated because people fear the left will not vote and Trump will win implying a high level of relevance. Both cannot be true at the same time.
People continue to mistake "I won't vote for that person," with "I won't vote."
My experience is that PMs go bad places, so I'll pass just to keep things simple.
I can understand "voting for the lesser evil is too painful" if that's the situation (and I won't claim it is nor expect clarification
If it’s with regards to the Presidency there’s no appreciable difference
That is functionally accurate. I don't know your history with PMs, but I can assure you with me I will continue to be polite. I might bite your head off a bit of I am grumpy (❤️Heffling) but I will keep it within the forum rules of civility and kindness.
Leftists, moderates, conservatives, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities, immigrants, African Americans, Native Americans, Jewish people and Muslims are all screwed over in the name of electoral advantage. Even white straight Christians sometimes get jealous of the way that they don’t get treated as special as Republicans treat them.
They all have to vote together to win, even though an anarcho-socialist Wiccan college student and a Muslim grandpa who owns 3 convenience stores are not going to see eye to eye on very much at all.
God, fixing that quote tree was a mess.
I am intentionally equating them, because this is not an academic exercise. There will only be one relevant person running for the Senate against Ted Cruz, and TX Democrats are picking that person on March 5th. If they pick Rep. Colin Allred, a very moderate Democrat, that will be the only option.
If you don't vote for that person, you don't have any other options! Not participating is identical to accepting Ted Cruz as Senator. Allred winning means he will vote for Schumer as majority leader. It's that stark. The political reality of 2024 does not allow for your abdication of voting responsibility while avoiding the gift of a +1 to the fascists.
Now, depending on where you live, you might actually bail on the caucus because of Biden's rhetoric on the border. Hell, if you live in CA and don't want to bother with the Senate race because you think Schiff sucks, and you want to vote for some rando instead of Biden because CA is a lock and you're mad at the administration over border rhetoric, you have that luxury.
It'd be great if you mentioned the geographic circumstance that lets you lean harder into protest voting so folks don't get overly touchy about how you might help a Republican. Specifics really help here. They help everybody recognize the calculus that goes into these decisions, and go a long way toward breaking the cycle of moderates telling the progressive wing they're irrelevant, and progressives telling moderates they're immoral.
Again this framing is disingenuous. Priority one in this case would be immigration reform, abolishing ICE, and ensuring the humane treatment of immigrants. What is happening is that the group is being seen as ok to make their lives immeasurably worse in order to make it better for the other members. The Wiccan college student and the Muslim grandpa won't see eye to eye on the best of circumstances, but you cannot reasonably expect one to support a policy that makes their life severely worse to maintain the life of the other.
I live in New Orleans. D+25 district and the state speaks for itself. That number is likely to drop soon so we will see how that impacts my reality. We also have our fun jungle primary where everyone is an option to vote on election day. Perhaps living under a primary system would change my view. I don't know. I really don't. I can just talk about from mine.
Better make some changes to bring them around then.
The last person on here I saw that told Gnizmo that she wasn't part of the base of the party, went on a few days later to say they spent ten years dreaming of a John McCain presidency.
People keep claiming that Biden saying he wants to work together with a man that a month ago(?) he said was using the language of Adolf Hitler on immigration is just cornering him on the topic. That might be more believeable if Dems hadn't just attempted to give republicans their wet dream bill, or that he hasn't been horrendous on the subject his entire term.
Lets delve again back into to his 2020 policy platform.
Thank you! So yeah, I can understand that position. I think that basically puts proponents in the position of trying to make the the bitter and toxic pill easier to swallow.
From a utilitarian approach, I don't disagree with anything you've said here. That said, in the real world I have observed that voting against a politician is less of a motivator than voting for a politician, especially on the left. I worry that while arguments about moral responsibility to follow the utilitarian approach to electing our representative may have a lot going for them, it's not going to make the difference in a large enough or consistent enough way to do more than maybe eke out a win.
Technically the only moral decision would be to vastly increase refugee intake to the “open borders” level that Republicans claim we are doing, because the whole world is going to shit and it would save millions of lives. But that would utterly shatter the Democratic vote and produce a result like Ronald Reagan got.
"Humane enforcement" is doing a lot of work here, papering over a lot of the actual disagreements. For one thing the existing federal agency in charge of border security is not actually capable of delivering "humane enforcement". Beyond that, presumably "humane enforcement" means granting asylum as required by international law. But even centrist positions on immigration seem to presuppose that most asylum requests are illegitimate.
I’ve agreed that immigration has been probably the worst part of the Biden presidency.
That being said, the border bill is a list of things that most moderate voters would look at and find more or less acceptable changes, and at the time it was being considered voting for the bill was tied to getting funding for Ukraine.
And while Biden has been disappointing on immigration, he’s been pretty good overall in other areas and I’m not a single issue voter. Not even to mention the glaringly obvious fact that Biden is better than the only other option in this election in every single possible way and it’s not even close.
Geography matters a lot.
Whatever you think of the Democratic party's official position or the compromise deal they made with Republicans, it's not even close to what the Republicans actually want to do.
I am not certain how it can be seen as any other way. Continuously people on this board frame resistance to towing the party line as wanting to be the top priority. That is wrong. It is an inaccurate framing of the issue, and arguments being put forth by one side. It doesn't have to be the top priority, but it does have to be a priority. Hundreds can be before that as long as there is a sense that it is working towards helping rather than working towards harming as is the case here.
Case in point: They literally invented, and had to be told to stop using (and they have thus far refused), a new slur for immigrants derived from the sound of hitting people in their charge in the head with flashlights and batons.
EDIT: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/07/border-patrol-racist-texts-bowen-t-shirt/
Everyone in this conversation knows this. Everyone has lived through it. Biden is objectively better than having Trump in the White House. There's no reason to have to say it over and over and over again unless you're actually part of the campaign and trying out the main slogan for 2024.
Like, we've all waisted days of our lives reading or typing out that Biden is better than Trump. We've added tons of CO2 to the atmosphere transmitting that thought and storing it on servers thousands of times over the last 4 years at least.
We all know it.
It’s where the “liberal elite” isn’t so much of a fallacy: Democrat politics nerds see the world in a very different way to the “vote every 4 years” guys. They are liberal in that they don’t want people shot at the border, but they are also not wanting a lot of immigration. I don’t think they are correct but their vote is as good as a socialist’s vote.
Where as that been said in this thread recently?
I understand that, but you are not hearing what I am saying. Framing it as being upset over not being priority one is wrong, dismissive, and can only cause problems.
If we open the borders to everyone who needs it and save millions of human lives, but guarantee handing power to Republicans for the next 20 years/permanently, did we do good?