Back to immigration and away from round 23024302450243020342 of the morals of voting or not voting.
In terms of my concerns on anything Biden does around immigration/migration, while this was 10 months ago, it's pretty much spot on from John Oliver: https://youtu.be/sy5VQvDGKd4
How can you come to the conclusion that deals are not motivated by necessity?
Because I’ve watched the Democratic Party throw people who aren’t straight, cishet white folk to the republicans my entire fucking life
Each time motivated by some… “Necessity.”
“Crime is too high, so we need a bill that makes it so we can punish people more harshly to stop the ‘Superpredators’.”
“Well, Gays don’t have any real pull so we have to compromise with the republicans to keep people like them out of the military, for the good of the military.”
“Well, those people are coming into the wrong way, so we have to get rid of them quickly and make it so that they’re discouraged from trying to come here.”
“Well, I mean, why should biological boys be playing on a girl’s sports team”
Over and over and over a-fucking-gain
Lanz on
+8
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
As far as I’ve been able to see, Biden is still using the same for-profit immigrant detention centers that he promised to do away with. (Actually his usage of them has nearly doubled according to the article I read from 3 months ago)
So… why would I give him and the party he leads the benefit of the doubt on other immigration issues?
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Politicians being unable or unwilling to fulfill their promises isn't really a novelty. There isn't a place on the political spectrum that's free of it.
There is no reason to believe any politician reaching the presidency in the next 40 years will reform immigration in any meaningful way.
Politicians being unable or unwilling to fulfill their promises isn't really a novelty. There isn't a place on the political spectrum that's free of it.
There is no reason to believe any politician reaching the presidency in the next 40 years will reform immigration in any meaningful way.
And why not? Why can’t we demand better? What is the point of a fucking democracy if the only choices are fast or slow forms of immiseration and pain?
It’s like I said before, the Democratic Party does not, and honestly I would argue has no interest in, articulating a better vision of the future, which generates the kind of nihilism you’re expressing there.
Don’t you want something better to believe in? Don’t you want leaders who actually fight for what’s right?
Politicians being unable or unwilling to fulfill their promises isn't really a novelty. There isn't a place on the political spectrum that's free of it.
There is no reason to believe any politician reaching the presidency in the next 40 years will reform immigration in any meaningful way.
And why not? Why can’t we demand better? What is the point of a fucking democracy if the only choices are fast or slow forms of immiseration and pain?
Trying anyway is still worth it, but expecting things to end up where you want is absurd. Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down, but you never know when something crazy will shake up Tartarus.
Politicians being unable or unwilling to fulfill their promises isn't really a novelty. There isn't a place on the political spectrum that's free of it.
There is no reason to believe any politician reaching the presidency in the next 40 years will reform immigration in any meaningful way.
And why not? Why can’t we demand better? What is the point of a fucking democracy if the only choices are fast or slow forms of immiseration and pain?
Trying anyway is still worth it, but expecting things to end up where you want is absurd. Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down, but you never know when something crazy will shake up Tartarus.
I’m not exactly willing to put my faith in some eventual outside context solution randomly appearing to save us instead of actually demanding better of a party helmed by feckless, racist bastards.
Lanz on
+5
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Politicians being unable or unwilling to fulfill their promises isn't really a novelty. There isn't a place on the political spectrum that's free of it.
There is no reason to believe any politician reaching the presidency in the next 40 years will reform immigration in any meaningful way.
And why not? Why can’t we demand better? What is the point of a fucking democracy if the only choices are fast or slow forms of immiseration and pain?
Trying anyway is still worth it, but expecting things to end up where you want is absurd. Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down, but you never know when something crazy will shake up Tartarus.
I’m not exactly willing to put my faith in some eventual outside context solution randomly appearing to save us instead of actually demanding better of a party helmed by feckless, racist bastards.
Faith is also absurd. The status quo sucks, but it's self-perpetuating until something breaks it and drives more people into being interested in change or changes the demographics in a sudden way. This tends to require things like being conscripted into wars.
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
Again, this is why I feel like this whole thing is an argument on faith rather than actual, practical politics.
We have seen how the democrats at the national level act with power, over and over again, for thirty years. We have even more decades of history to look at how the party became the way it is now and the kind of values its leadership and power players hold and the kind of beliefs they have that motivate and drive them, and they’re not actually progressive. It’s just more and more variations on the Clintons’ and DLC’s accursed triangulation and it fucking hurts the weakest and most vulnerable among us every fucking time in order to appease some of the worst people in this country.
How can you come to the conclusion that deals are not motivated by necessity?
Because I’ve watched the Democratic Party throw people who aren’t straight, cishet white folk to the republicans my entire fucking life
Each time motivated by some… “Necessity.”
“Crime is too high, so we need a bill that makes it so we can punish people more harshly to stop the ‘Superpredators’.”
“Well, Gays don’t have any real pull so we have to compromise with the republicans to keep people like them out of the military, for the good of the military.”
“Well, those people are coming into the wrong way, so we have to get rid of them quickly and make it so that they’re discouraged from trying to come here.”
“Well, I mean, why should biological boys be playing on a girl’s sports team”
Over and over and over a-fucking-gain
Why would a person motivated by hurting gay people in the military institute DADT instead of leaving the policy of investigating people for the crime of homosexuality in place?
This reasoning falls apart at the slightest gust of wind.
Democrats, even at their worst, are better than Republicans on every issue.
I’m not exactly willing to put my faith in some eventual outside context solution randomly appearing to save us instead of actually demanding better of a party helmed by feckless, racist bastards.
Demanding better is done from the inside.
Anything other than a vote for the democrat is far more likely to end the country than the Democratic party
How can you come to the conclusion that deals are not motivated by necessity?
Because I’ve watched the Democratic Party throw people who aren’t straight, cishet white folk to the republicans my entire fucking life
Each time motivated by some… “Necessity.”
“Crime is too high, so we need a bill that makes it so we can punish people more harshly to stop the ‘Superpredators’.”
“Well, Gays don’t have any real pull so we have to compromise with the republicans to keep people like them out of the military, for the good of the military.”
“Well, those people are coming into the wrong way, so we have to get rid of them quickly and make it so that they’re discouraged from trying to come here.”
“Well, I mean, why should biological boys be playing on a girl’s sports team”
Over and over and over a-fucking-gain
Why would a person motivated by hurting gay people in the military institute DADT instead of leaving the policy of investigating people for the crime of homosexuality in place?
This reasoning falls apart at the slightest gust of wind.
Democrats, even at their worst, are better than Republicans on every issue.
I’m not exactly willing to put my faith in some eventual outside context solution randomly appearing to save us instead of actually demanding better of a party helmed by feckless, racist bastards.
Demanding better is done from the inside.
Anything other than a vote for the democrat is far more likely to end the country than the Democratic party
No it doesn’t, because DADT still hurt gay people in the military. Hell, I forget if it was this thread or one of the others we had Fuzzy talk about just how under it you still had the same shit going on with upper ranks trying to ferret out who was gay despite the program.
DADT was still throwing gay people under the bus. It was a tacit declaration that “no, we don’t want your kind in the military, but as long as you can disguise everything about yourself that makes us perceive you as gay, then we’ll let bygones be bygones*”
It very much is exactly an example of the Democrats throwing a vulnerable member of the ostensible coalition to the wolves to appease the wolves.
As for “done from the inside,” I’ve seen enough evidence in my lifetime to know that isn’t the slightest bit true, not unless you can somehow overwhelm the institution by force of numbers and do so quickly enough to shift it before it consumes you and reshapes you into it’s image. And, while this ties in more to the age to govern thread, the Democratic Party has expended every effort to make sure that the generation that last shift the balance of power within the party has held onto its grip for the last several decades, going all the way back to their original entry in the 70s.
*except, in practice, they didn’t. As mentioned before, they still hunted out queer members of the forces to out them and discharge them.
I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the very unpopular reality that sometimes in a democracy, you options on the ballot for a specific issue are all going to be shit. People tend to make the mistake of assuming that since they are in a democracy, their preferred policy solution will be popular enough that every race will have a candidate running to make it happen. Reality is that some number of your policies preference aren't going to represented on the ballot, even in places that are really friendly to having a ton of political parties existing. FPTP setups just make it even worse; especially, when you have a shitty media and types of geese that try to portray very complex issues as either black or white. So electorally strategy ends up being a case where even politicians that support certain policies initiatives, might decide they'd rather not burn political capital trying to endorse something that not only has no hope of passing congress, but actively harms their chances of getting elected; especially, when there are a mountain of other policies that they either want to protect or know have a chance of getting implemented.
Of course the other issue and we've seen it in this very thread with "both sides are the same because I don't like any of the solutions they offer!" One, it's incredibly intellectually lazy because it's not true. Feeling that all the solutions offered by both major parties being shit doesn't magically make both the major parties the same. It also makes it rather obnoxious to have a discussion about any policy stances, when you got some intellectually lazy person ignoring clear differences in policy and constantly exclaiming that two policies are the same thing simple because they don't like either. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take anymore effort to just admit the reality of the matter that the policies being proposed are different, but you don't think either is acceptable. The only reasons I can think that people resort to this obnoxious both sides shit. Maybe they are too intellectually lazy to really think beyond whether or not they like something and don't get the concept of nuance and the idea that people can disagree with them and sometimes, you can have multiple valid positions on an issue. Though should be noted that not all issues have more than one correct stance and every issue has a number of stances that aren't just run, but are indefensible. Maybe they don't get that acknowledging differences in polices, that you don't like, isn't an admission of support for those policy positions. Maybe they are afraid that if they acknowledge those policies differences they might have to defend their position of not supporting either policy proposal, when they do have to admit that one policy position is worse than the other. Maybe they believe that admitting the differences between two policies and that one of those positions is actual worse, means that the less awful one will win support, get implemented and that it will make it harder to get the policy that they actually want.
As much as I can sympathize with that last point, of not wanting to get stuck with an imperfect solution because inertia is a hell of a force; especially, in the US's piss poor system of democracy. That feels like a very harmful approach. It's not just that it's making perfect the enemy of better, it's self centered in that it risks making things worse, while still trying to prevent any sort of improvement to a problem because you aren't getting the solution you feel is best. At the end of the day, you're still in a position where you don't have enough support to get the policy that you want and will have to continue to advocate for that goal until you get enough support to make it into reality, which may be a futile endeavor regardless of what happens. So in a way you're already going to have to fight the inertia, so why engineering things so that there aren't any improvements to the current situation. I'd also argue it's incredibly cynical because it's stating "but if we make even a modest improvement, people are jaded enough that they'll decide it was good enough and let things stay pretty rubbish!" Maybe getting the incremental change is the exact thing you needed in order to get more buy in from the public because people go "Hey, that modest change was really nice, we want more of that and we ant it now!" Maybe it does fuck all or worse, people decide that they really didn't like it all and the last thing they want is more of it. Sometimes if you don't get support for a position, you do need to ask why that is and not just assume people are being self serving assholes and maybe you don't necessarily have as righteous a take as you want to believe. There is a reason why we have the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Sometimes people lose sight of the original goal aimed at improving things because their ego decided it was more important to be pure and uncompromising, to the point where even your allies, 100% agree with you on policy end goals, feel that you're being a total goose.
The way the tangent ties into immigration is in answering the absurd claim that Democrats are compromising because they are racist rather than because it is literally the only option for passing any legislation at all.
Lanz is trying to justify that, which is impossible. In doing so, she is now claiming that DADT was motivated by a desire to hurt gay people in the military... but when challenged on that, the response was that it was still bad, not that it was worse, a requirement for being motivated by wanting to make things worse for gay people.
In that situation, a better alternative would have been to simply change the policy to what it is now.
On this bill, there is no viable alternative. Nothing appears to be viable, on fact, because Trump doesn't want it to be.
That's not a question of faith. Republicans won't vote for any bill involving immigration without something they can use to hurt people. But it's also not a question of faith that inaction is also bad.
What else do you call it when you give the Republicans exactly what they want, and the only reason they dont take it is because their new king can throw a tantrum to demand they pull the Overton Window even further to the right now that the Democrats took the bait?
Reminder of the shit that was in the bill, from earlier in the thread:
Whats infuriating here is that we're just entirely past trying to undo anything about how border and immigration policy works. Now all thats left is to see how close the administration will get to the GOP position before the GOP takes power anyway. Gotta keep cranking that ratchet.
This is what Fox News is reporting/testing the waters on*, via one of their national correspondents:
BREAKING: Senate border deal details, per source familiar I just had a call with.
- Mandatory detention of all single adults.
- Mandatory “shut down” of border once average daily migrant encounters hits 5,000. Importantly, this 5,000 number includes 1,400 CBP One app entries at ports of entry per day, and roughly 3,600 illegal crossings per day.
- How is that enforced? Once the 5,000 threshold is hit, a new authority is codified into law that requires Border Patrol to immediately remove illegal immigrants they catch without processing. They would not get to request asylum, they would immediately be removed. This includes removals back to Mexico, and deportations to home countries. This would be a *massive* change from current policy, which is that once an illegal immigrant reaches US soil, they must be processed via Title 8 and allowed to claim asylum. Under this new authority – they are not processed, and they are mandatorily immediately removed once the “shut down” threshold is reached.
- This “shut down” also takes effect is there are 8,500 migrant encounters in a single day.
- The “shut down” would not lift the next day. It wouldn’t lift until daily encounters are reduced to under 75% of the 5,000 threshold for at least two weeks. This means the “shut down” authority would not lift until two weeks of an average of less than 3,750 migrant encounters per day.
- Some family units will be released with ATD (Alternatives to Detention, ankle monitors etc).
- New removal authority to immediately remove all migrants who do not have valid asylum claims, which will be determined within 6 months rather than the years long process we have right now.
- Any migrant caught trying to cross twice during “shut down” phase would be banned from entering US for one year.
- US will need agreement with Mexico for MX to take back non Mexican illegal immigrants. This hasn't been ironed out yet.
- President Biden approves of the deal and is ready to sign it as is, right now, and implement the new authority it would give him.
Fuck this to heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell
*always remember Fox is a political operation first and foremost.
(3) APPLICABILITY .—The border emergency
authority shall only be activated as to aliens who are
not subject to an exception under paragraph (2),
and who are, after the authority is activated, within1
100 miles of the United States southwest land bor-2
der and within the 14-day period after entry.
So anyone NOT in the following list who entered in the last two weeks (the 100 mile thing is so huge as to be meaningless):
The border emergency authority shall not be activated with respect to any of the following:
(A) A citizen or national of the United States.
(B) An alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
(C) An unaccompanied alien child.
(D) An alien who an immigration officer determines, with the approval of a supervisory
immigration officer, should be excepted from the border emergency authority based on the totality of the circumstances, including consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and public safety, humanitarian, and public health interests, or an alien who an immigration officer determines, in consultation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, should be excepted from the border emergency authority due to operational considerations.
(E) An alien who is determined to be a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons (as defined in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C.24 7102)).
(F) An alien who has a valid visa or other lawful permission to enter the United States,
including—
(i) a member of the Armed Forces of the United States and associated personnel, United States Government employees or contractors on orders abroad, or United States Government employees or contractors, and an accompanying family member who is on orders or is a member of the alien’s household, subject to required assurances;
(ii) an alien who holds a valid travel
document upon arrival at a port of entry;14
(iii) an alien from a visa waiver program country under section 217 who is not otherwise subject to travel restrictions and who arrives at a port of entry; or
(iv) an alien who presents at a port of entry pursuant to a process approved by the Secretary to allow for safe and orderly entry into the United States.
The way the tangent ties into immigration is in answering the absurd claim that Democrats are compromising because they are racist rather than because it is literally the only option for passing any legislation at all.
Lanz is trying to justify that, which is impossible. In doing so, she is now claiming that DADT was motivated by a desire to hurt gay people in the military... but when challenged on that, the response was that it was still bad, not that it was worse, a requirement for being motivated by wanting to make things worse for gay people.
In that situation, a better alternative would have been to simply change the policy to what it is now.
On this bill, there is no viable alternative. Nothing appears to be viable, on fact, because Trump doesn't want it to be.
That's not a question of faith. Republicans won't vote for any bill involving immigration without something they can use to hurt people. But it's also not a question of faith that inaction is also bad.
You can still be racist and homophobic by just not giving a damn that you’re hurting the people you’re throwing under the bus, because you fail or refuse to see them as lives worth protecting and instead as a decent price to make a bargain with the GOP with.. Maybe your intent isn’t to be a mustache twirling villain, but you’re still throwing people under the goddamn bus, and the people being thrown don’t particularly care that you had some pseudo-practical reason for it rather than a deep desire to see immigrants and queer folk suffer.
Anyway it feels agian like this just reaffirms the thing that Gnizmo, I and others have been feeling and trying to explain at length: there are people who matter in this party, and people who exist only conditionally within the party and at the pleasure of leadership’s own whims.
We aren’t actually safe in the Democratic Party, because they don’t view outgroup members of American society as full members of it. Our lives are only as worth as much as we make it painful for the Democrats whenever they abandon us or threaten any member of our fellow outgroup members in so called “bargains” and “compromises”
Edit: being in or out of the party has no bearing on safety, except in that voting against Republicans make them less likely to have power.
Whether a policy protects people has nothing to do with who they vote for. That's particularly relevant regarding immigration, but on any issue, you don't need to even vote to get the result.
That's the thing about voting: it only matters as it impacts the result of the election. Trying to use it to send a message doesn't work. It has never worked ever, in all of history, even once.
What else do you call it when you give the Republicans exactly what they want, and the only reason they dont take it is because their new king can throw a tantrum to demand they pull the Overton Window even further to the right now that the Democrats took the bait?
Reminder of the shit that was in the bill, from earlier in the thread:
Whats infuriating here is that we're just entirely past trying to undo anything about how border and immigration policy works. Now all thats left is to see how close the administration will get to the GOP position before the GOP takes power anyway. Gotta keep cranking that ratchet.
This is what Fox News is reporting/testing the waters on*, via one of their national correspondents:
BREAKING: Senate border deal details, per source familiar I just had a call with.
- Mandatory detention of all single adults.
- Mandatory “shut down” of border once average daily migrant encounters hits 5,000. Importantly, this 5,000 number includes 1,400 CBP One app entries at ports of entry per day, and roughly 3,600 illegal crossings per day.
- How is that enforced? Once the 5,000 threshold is hit, a new authority is codified into law that requires Border Patrol to immediately remove illegal immigrants they catch without processing. They would not get to request asylum, they would immediately be removed. This includes removals back to Mexico, and deportations to home countries. This would be a *massive* change from current policy, which is that once an illegal immigrant reaches US soil, they must be processed via Title 8 and allowed to claim asylum. Under this new authority – they are not processed, and they are mandatorily immediately removed once the “shut down” threshold is reached.
- This “shut down” also takes effect is there are 8,500 migrant encounters in a single day.
- The “shut down” would not lift the next day. It wouldn’t lift until daily encounters are reduced to under 75% of the 5,000 threshold for at least two weeks. This means the “shut down” authority would not lift until two weeks of an average of less than 3,750 migrant encounters per day.
- Some family units will be released with ATD (Alternatives to Detention, ankle monitors etc).
- New removal authority to immediately remove all migrants who do not have valid asylum claims, which will be determined within 6 months rather than the years long process we have right now.
- Any migrant caught trying to cross twice during “shut down” phase would be banned from entering US for one year.
- US will need agreement with Mexico for MX to take back non Mexican illegal immigrants. This hasn't been ironed out yet.
- President Biden approves of the deal and is ready to sign it as is, right now, and implement the new authority it would give him.
Fuck this to heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell
*always remember Fox is a political operation first and foremost.
(3) APPLICABILITY .—The border emergency
authority shall only be activated as to aliens who are
not subject to an exception under paragraph (2),
and who are, after the authority is activated, within1
100 miles of the United States southwest land bor-2
der and within the 14-day period after entry.
So anyone NOT in the following list who entered in the last two weeks (the 100 mile thing is so huge as to be meaningless):
The border emergency authority shall not be activated with respect to any of the following:
(A) A citizen or national of the United States.
(B) An alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
(C) An unaccompanied alien child.
(D) An alien who an immigration officer determines, with the approval of a supervisory
immigration officer, should be excepted from the border emergency authority based on the totality of the circumstances, including consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and public safety, humanitarian, and public health interests, or an alien who an immigration officer determines, in consultation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, should be excepted from the border emergency authority due to operational considerations.
(E) An alien who is determined to be a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons (as defined in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C.24 7102)).
(F) An alien who has a valid visa or other lawful permission to enter the United States,
including—
(i) a member of the Armed Forces of the United States and associated personnel, United States Government employees or contractors on orders abroad, or United States Government employees or contractors, and an accompanying family member who is on orders or is a member of the alien’s household, subject to required assurances;
(ii) an alien who holds a valid travel
document upon arrival at a port of entry;14
(iii) an alien from a visa waiver program country under section 217 who is not otherwise subject to travel restrictions and who arrives at a port of entry; or
(iv) an alien who presents at a port of entry pursuant to a process approved by the Secretary to allow for safe and orderly entry into the United States.
Because it's not what they wanted in total, but what they wanted in these negotiations?
Several politicians (I think Graham?) said it was the best they could get. Which suggests not the best they wanted.
I have absolutely no confidence that this is their end game. That they'd be satisfied with what was in this bill, and no further.
If they had the capacity to do worse, they absolutely would. If given the chance to, they absolutely will.
The current state of the immigration system, even with this bill passed, is NOT rock bottom if Republicans regain the White House, with Trump in charge.
How can you come to the conclusion that deals are not motivated by necessity?
Because I’ve watched the Democratic Party throw people who aren’t straight, cishet white folk to the republicans my entire fucking life
Each time motivated by some… “Necessity.”
“Crime is too high, so we need a bill that makes it so we can punish people more harshly to stop the ‘Superpredators’.”
“Well, Gays don’t have any real pull so we have to compromise with the republicans to keep people like them out of the military, for the good of the military.”
“Well, those people are coming into the wrong way, so we have to get rid of them quickly and make it so that they’re discouraged from trying to come here.”
“Well, I mean, why should biological boys be playing on a girl’s sports team”
Over and over and over a-fucking-gain
Why would a person motivated by hurting gay people in the military institute DADT instead of leaving the policy of investigating people for the crime of homosexuality in place?
This reasoning falls apart at the slightest gust of wind.
Democrats, even at their worst, are better than Republicans on every issue.
I’m not exactly willing to put my faith in some eventual outside context solution randomly appearing to save us instead of actually demanding better of a party helmed by feckless, racist bastards.
Demanding better is done from the inside.
Anything other than a vote for the democrat is far more likely to end the country than the Democratic party
This is such a boring argument. We all know Republicans are worse, but that doesn't make opininons from Democrats good. ICE only exists because of 9/11 and doesn't even focus on preventing how the terrorists got into the country, but it's treated like an august institution and not an overreaction to a moment and xenophobia.
Pointing out that the Democratic party has a bad baseline stance on immigration doesn't mean people won't vote for them and it's disingenuous to interject the vote argument instead of talking about the actual issue.
Racist and homophobic Democrats tend to be less so than Republicans.
And yet my Democratic stronghold state is also known as one of the most racist crowds in sports.
These aren’t incompatible.
We’re talking about averages across tens of millions of people in a nation of hundreds of millions.
If you put 100 people in a room I’m feeling confident saying that at least a couple of them are assholes.
And just like we regularly see people push back on the notion that just because a state is deep red, that doesn’t mean it’s homogeneously full of republicans.
Note: I’m also not saying that ‘oh, all those racists are probably republicans”, just noting the contrast.
Deep blue states will naturally have a potion of racists and assholes and republicans, and there’s going to be some overlap in that Venn diagram, though obviously it’s not a circle.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration. My feeling is that they're to the left (barely) of that.
We can argue that a move to the left is necessary for change, but if that move to the left causes Republican gains, when control of the government is on a knife's edge, is the issue at play.
How do we shift it? I don't know. The right have spent decades demonizing this shit, and the media carry water for it. Grassroots advocacy groups fight, but they're underfunded, and while there might be public support in some areas, the lizard brain of the electorate seems predisposed to shit on it.
It's the same with policing, crime, poverty, guns, LGBT rights, schools, etc etc etc. Polling of concept tends to be more liberal than voting records do.
You elect people you can pressure*. And while some people in this thread will refuse to admit it, Democrats have moved left on significant issues like climate or student loans or basic government stuff like the filibuster and Biden is more movable than most, having historically positioned himself dead center in his own party.
I hope we can acknowledge that while accepting that more work has to be done to move the party to a more humane immigration policy. Though I suspect that might first require the move the public left, at least with this generation of Democratic leadership.
I tend to actually think AOC in particular is right when she says this:
I just think it is so important that I think our party understands that we gain momentum and we gain support when people either see us winning or catch us trying. And if we're not winning, we need to be caught trying.
The timidity and poll focused nature of leadership hurts them more than anything because voters don't think they believe in anything.
*And I know it's inconvenient to the political project of destroying the Democratic Party to continue to point out that the GOP wants to end democracy and give carte blanche to people to murder the undocumented, but it seems relevant.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration.
I made no such assumption. I am less interested in what the average voter thinks than I am what is right. I have no doubt that the old people who run the Democratic parties views on immigration are close to the old people who vote. I expect leaders to lead on an issue. To borrow a phrase of quotes at me in this thread, you can't expect your issue to always be tip priority.
No it doesn’t, because DADT still hurt gay people in the military. Hell, I forget if it was this thread or one of the others we had Fuzzy talk about just how under it you still had the same shit going on with upper ranks trying to ferret out who was gay despite the program.
DADT was still throwing gay people under the bus. It was a tacit declaration that “no, we don’t want your kind in the military, but as long as you can disguise everything about yourself that makes us perceive you as gay, then we’ll let bygones be bygones*”
This is goose and you should feel goose for having these thoughts.
We got what we could. And when we could get more we got more…. No one was thrown under a bus. We pulled them out from under the bus as fast as we damn well could.
*And I know it's inconvenient to the political project of destroying the Democratic Party to continue to point out that the GOP wants to end democracy and give carte blanche to people to murder the undocumented, but it seems relevant.
I am not sure this is inconvenient so much as what they want. Once a few tens of millions of people die in the fascist takeover of the US then the people will finally see the gloriousness of communism. And then the wrong people will never be thrown under a bus again.
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration.
I made no such assumption. I am less interested in what the average voter thinks than I am what is right. I have no doubt that the old people who run the Democratic parties views on immigration are close to the old people who vote. I expect leaders to lead on an issue. To borrow a phrase of quotes at me in this thread, you can't expect your issue to always be tip priority.
And that's true. But I'll take the side that has my issue as something they are at least open to fixing, as those that are fine, if not gleeful, about destroying, any day of the week.
I just find it difficult that people who might actually have skin in the game, are so dead set on pissing away mediocre progress (when the alternative is worse oppression), because it's not good enough, even when it's relatively crap.
Every election, I'm voting against my own direct best interest (in favor of schools I have no children at, and for higher taxes on myself, etc), and as a SWM, not having to worry about bigotry affecting my life), because it's the right thing to do for the most people, and I believe more people being able to live free and without as many burdens, makes my life better.
That people who are directly affected by these issues seem to be insisting that because the gains aren't enough, that letting the arsonists get their foot in the door is an acceptable outcome, just boggles my mind.
If you want to change things because you're unhappy with the current crop, I see a couple options.
1) Try and influence your local communities to vote in the primaries for the candidate you like.
2) Do the same at the county/district level.
3) Do the same at the state level.
4) Vote in the primaries.
5) Regardless who wins, vote blue.
Giving a foothold to the fascists is not an acceptable outcome.
+7
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
What on earth would make you think folks like gnizmo aren’t already doing 1-4 on your list (and then some)?
I may not be voting for Biden this election, but I’ve never missed a local or primary election, or a town council meeting.
It’s the voting blindly “no matter who” part that I, and probably a lot of others, take issue with.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
If you don't do #5, #1-#4 really won't have mattered at all.
It's like buying all the ingredients to make a meal, realizing you bought jasmine rice instead of brown rice, and shoving everything into the garbage because "fuck it, that's not what I wanted, now nobody's eating."
It’s not “blindly” though. People have been abundantly clear about this.
“Regardless who wins, vote blue.”
That word implies otherwise.
What exactly is the problem with that sentiment. I mean the expanded sentiment of “vote your preference in the primary, and then vote for whoever the candidate in the general”?
You guys constantly emphasize the latter part is if you’re told to shut up and vote. When it’s the logical conclusion of the fact that the worst Democrat is preferable to any Republican.
Bernie is a poor leader and I feel would have been an ineffective candidate, and would have likely lost. But I would have still walked over broken glass to vote for him had he been the nominee.
+3
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
If you don't do #5, #1-#4 really won't have mattered at all.
It's like buying all the ingredients to make a meal, realizing you bought jasmine rice instead of brown rice, and shoving everything into the garbage because "fuck it, that's not what I wanted, now nobody's eating."
Analogies!
That’s demonstrably bullshit, though. Voting for president isn’t even remotely the most important office you could be voting for. Local school board, state senators, even city council can all have more direct impact, either because of direct local action, or by influencing the direction of the lower ranks of the party (from the inside, which is what people have repeatedly said is the only way to do it).
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
If you don't do #5, #1-#4 really won't have mattered at all.
It's like buying all the ingredients to make a meal, realizing you bought jasmine rice instead of brown rice, and shoving everything into the garbage because "fuck it, that's not what I wanted, now nobody's eating."
Analogies!
That’s demonstrably bullshit, though. Voting for president isn’t even remotely the most important office you could be voting for. Local school board, state senators, even city council can all have more direct impact, either because of direct local action, or by influencing the direction of the lower ranks of the party (from the inside, which is what people have repeatedly said is the only way to do it).
Except without the presidency in this election, democracy itself ends. And they are 100% vowing to use federal power to do whatever the fuck they want locally, especially on immigration.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+17
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
It’s not “blindly” though. People have been abundantly clear about this.
“Regardless who wins, vote blue.”
That word implies otherwise.
What exactly is the problem with that sentiment. I mean the expanded sentiment of “vote your preference in the primary, and then vote for whoever the candidate in the general”?
The problem is the clear implication that the candidate doesn’t have to do anything to earn your vote, and that’s an expectation that, when reinforced with this “vote blue no matter who” bullshit for years just leads to worse and worse candidates. It leads to democratic candidates catering to center-right republicans because their votes are the only ones “in play”, which just keeps pushing them further away from policies and actions that I’m okay with.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
It’s not “blindly” though. People have been abundantly clear about this.
“Regardless who wins, vote blue.”
That word implies otherwise.
What exactly is the problem with that sentiment. I mean the expanded sentiment of “vote your preference in the primary, and then vote for whoever the candidate in the general”?
The problem is the clear implication that the candidate doesn’t have to do anything to earn your vote, and that’s an expectation that, when reinforced with this “vote blue no matter who” bullshit for years just leads to worse and worse candidates. It leads to democratic candidates catering to center-right republicans because their votes are the only ones “in play”, which just keeps pushing them further away from policies and actions that I’m okay with.
Joe Biden is the most left wing president in 50 years! The left is winning the argument!
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
In terms of my concerns on anything Biden does around immigration/migration, while this was 10 months ago, it's pretty much spot on from John Oliver:
Because I’ve watched the Democratic Party throw people who aren’t straight, cishet white folk to the republicans my entire fucking life
Each time motivated by some… “Necessity.”
“Crime is too high, so we need a bill that makes it so we can punish people more harshly to stop the ‘Superpredators’.”
“Well, Gays don’t have any real pull so we have to compromise with the republicans to keep people like them out of the military, for the good of the military.”
“Well, those people are coming into the wrong way, so we have to get rid of them quickly and make it so that they’re discouraged from trying to come here.”
“Well, I mean, why should biological boys be playing on a girl’s sports team”
Over and over and over a-fucking-gain
So… why would I give him and the party he leads the benefit of the doubt on other immigration issues?
There is no reason to believe any politician reaching the presidency in the next 40 years will reform immigration in any meaningful way.
And why not? Why can’t we demand better? What is the point of a fucking democracy if the only choices are fast or slow forms of immiseration and pain?
It’s like I said before, the Democratic Party does not, and honestly I would argue has no interest in, articulating a better vision of the future, which generates the kind of nihilism you’re expressing there.
Don’t you want something better to believe in? Don’t you want leaders who actually fight for what’s right?
Trying anyway is still worth it, but expecting things to end up where you want is absurd. Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down, but you never know when something crazy will shake up Tartarus.
I’m not exactly willing to put my faith in some eventual outside context solution randomly appearing to save us instead of actually demanding better of a party helmed by feckless, racist bastards.
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
Faith is also absurd. The status quo sucks, but it's self-perpetuating until something breaks it and drives more people into being interested in change or changes the demographics in a sudden way. This tends to require things like being conscripted into wars.
Again, this is why I feel like this whole thing is an argument on faith rather than actual, practical politics.
We have seen how the democrats at the national level act with power, over and over again, for thirty years. We have even more decades of history to look at how the party became the way it is now and the kind of values its leadership and power players hold and the kind of beliefs they have that motivate and drive them, and they’re not actually progressive. It’s just more and more variations on the Clintons’ and DLC’s accursed triangulation and it fucking hurts the weakest and most vulnerable among us every fucking time in order to appease some of the worst people in this country.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Why would a person motivated by hurting gay people in the military institute DADT instead of leaving the policy of investigating people for the crime of homosexuality in place?
This reasoning falls apart at the slightest gust of wind.
Democrats, even at their worst, are better than Republicans on every issue.
Demanding better is done from the inside.
Anything other than a vote for the democrat is far more likely to end the country than the Democratic party
No it doesn’t, because DADT still hurt gay people in the military. Hell, I forget if it was this thread or one of the others we had Fuzzy talk about just how under it you still had the same shit going on with upper ranks trying to ferret out who was gay despite the program.
DADT was still throwing gay people under the bus. It was a tacit declaration that “no, we don’t want your kind in the military, but as long as you can disguise everything about yourself that makes us perceive you as gay, then we’ll let bygones be bygones*”
It very much is exactly an example of the Democrats throwing a vulnerable member of the ostensible coalition to the wolves to appease the wolves.
As for “done from the inside,” I’ve seen enough evidence in my lifetime to know that isn’t the slightest bit true, not unless you can somehow overwhelm the institution by force of numbers and do so quickly enough to shift it before it consumes you and reshapes you into it’s image. And, while this ties in more to the age to govern thread, the Democratic Party has expended every effort to make sure that the generation that last shift the balance of power within the party has held onto its grip for the last several decades, going all the way back to their original entry in the 70s.
*except, in practice, they didn’t. As mentioned before, they still hunted out queer members of the forces to out them and discharge them.
Of course the other issue and we've seen it in this very thread with "both sides are the same because I don't like any of the solutions they offer!" One, it's incredibly intellectually lazy because it's not true. Feeling that all the solutions offered by both major parties being shit doesn't magically make both the major parties the same. It also makes it rather obnoxious to have a discussion about any policy stances, when you got some intellectually lazy person ignoring clear differences in policy and constantly exclaiming that two policies are the same thing simple because they don't like either. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take anymore effort to just admit the reality of the matter that the policies being proposed are different, but you don't think either is acceptable. The only reasons I can think that people resort to this obnoxious both sides shit. Maybe they are too intellectually lazy to really think beyond whether or not they like something and don't get the concept of nuance and the idea that people can disagree with them and sometimes, you can have multiple valid positions on an issue. Though should be noted that not all issues have more than one correct stance and every issue has a number of stances that aren't just run, but are indefensible. Maybe they don't get that acknowledging differences in polices, that you don't like, isn't an admission of support for those policy positions. Maybe they are afraid that if they acknowledge those policies differences they might have to defend their position of not supporting either policy proposal, when they do have to admit that one policy position is worse than the other. Maybe they believe that admitting the differences between two policies and that one of those positions is actual worse, means that the less awful one will win support, get implemented and that it will make it harder to get the policy that they actually want.
As much as I can sympathize with that last point, of not wanting to get stuck with an imperfect solution because inertia is a hell of a force; especially, in the US's piss poor system of democracy. That feels like a very harmful approach. It's not just that it's making perfect the enemy of better, it's self centered in that it risks making things worse, while still trying to prevent any sort of improvement to a problem because you aren't getting the solution you feel is best. At the end of the day, you're still in a position where you don't have enough support to get the policy that you want and will have to continue to advocate for that goal until you get enough support to make it into reality, which may be a futile endeavor regardless of what happens. So in a way you're already going to have to fight the inertia, so why engineering things so that there aren't any improvements to the current situation. I'd also argue it's incredibly cynical because it's stating "but if we make even a modest improvement, people are jaded enough that they'll decide it was good enough and let things stay pretty rubbish!" Maybe getting the incremental change is the exact thing you needed in order to get more buy in from the public because people go "Hey, that modest change was really nice, we want more of that and we ant it now!" Maybe it does fuck all or worse, people decide that they really didn't like it all and the last thing they want is more of it. Sometimes if you don't get support for a position, you do need to ask why that is and not just assume people are being self serving assholes and maybe you don't necessarily have as righteous a take as you want to believe. There is a reason why we have the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Sometimes people lose sight of the original goal aimed at improving things because their ego decided it was more important to be pure and uncompromising, to the point where even your allies, 100% agree with you on policy end goals, feel that you're being a total goose.
Lanz is trying to justify that, which is impossible. In doing so, she is now claiming that DADT was motivated by a desire to hurt gay people in the military... but when challenged on that, the response was that it was still bad, not that it was worse, a requirement for being motivated by wanting to make things worse for gay people.
In that situation, a better alternative would have been to simply change the policy to what it is now.
On this bill, there is no viable alternative. Nothing appears to be viable, on fact, because Trump doesn't want it to be.
That's not a question of faith. Republicans won't vote for any bill involving immigration without something they can use to hurt people. But it's also not a question of faith that inaction is also bad.
What else do you call it when you give the Republicans exactly what they want, and the only reason they dont take it is because their new king can throw a tantrum to demand they pull the Overton Window even further to the right now that the Democrats took the bait?
Reminder of the shit that was in the bill, from earlier in the thread:
You can still be racist and homophobic by just not giving a damn that you’re hurting the people you’re throwing under the bus, because you fail or refuse to see them as lives worth protecting and instead as a decent price to make a bargain with the GOP with.. Maybe your intent isn’t to be a mustache twirling villain, but you’re still throwing people under the goddamn bus, and the people being thrown don’t particularly care that you had some pseudo-practical reason for it rather than a deep desire to see immigrants and queer folk suffer.
Anyway it feels agian like this just reaffirms the thing that Gnizmo, I and others have been feeling and trying to explain at length: there are people who matter in this party, and people who exist only conditionally within the party and at the pleasure of leadership’s own whims.
We aren’t actually safe in the Democratic Party, because they don’t view outgroup members of American society as full members of it. Our lives are only as worth as much as we make it painful for the Democrats whenever they abandon us or threaten any member of our fellow outgroup members in so called “bargains” and “compromises”
Edit: being in or out of the party has no bearing on safety, except in that voting against Republicans make them less likely to have power.
Whether a policy protects people has nothing to do with who they vote for. That's particularly relevant regarding immigration, but on any issue, you don't need to even vote to get the result.
That's the thing about voting: it only matters as it impacts the result of the election. Trying to use it to send a message doesn't work. It has never worked ever, in all of history, even once.
Because it's not what they wanted in total, but what they wanted in these negotiations?
Several politicians (I think Graham?) said it was the best they could get. Which suggests not the best they wanted.
I have absolutely no confidence that this is their end game. That they'd be satisfied with what was in this bill, and no further.
If they had the capacity to do worse, they absolutely would. If given the chance to, they absolutely will.
The current state of the immigration system, even with this bill passed, is NOT rock bottom if Republicans regain the White House, with Trump in charge.
This is such a boring argument. We all know Republicans are worse, but that doesn't make opininons from Democrats good. ICE only exists because of 9/11 and doesn't even focus on preventing how the terrorists got into the country, but it's treated like an august institution and not an overreaction to a moment and xenophobia.
Pointing out that the Democratic party has a bad baseline stance on immigration doesn't mean people won't vote for them and it's disingenuous to interject the vote argument instead of talking about the actual issue.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
And yet my Democratic stronghold state is also known as one of the most racist crowds in sports.
These aren’t incompatible.
We’re talking about averages across tens of millions of people in a nation of hundreds of millions.
If you put 100 people in a room I’m feeling confident saying that at least a couple of them are assholes.
And just like we regularly see people push back on the notion that just because a state is deep red, that doesn’t mean it’s homogeneously full of republicans.
Note: I’m also not saying that ‘oh, all those racists are probably republicans”, just noting the contrast.
Deep blue states will naturally have a potion of racists and assholes and republicans, and there’s going to be some overlap in that Venn diagram, though obviously it’s not a circle.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration. My feeling is that they're to the left (barely) of that.
We can argue that a move to the left is necessary for change, but if that move to the left causes Republican gains, when control of the government is on a knife's edge, is the issue at play.
How do we shift it? I don't know. The right have spent decades demonizing this shit, and the media carry water for it. Grassroots advocacy groups fight, but they're underfunded, and while there might be public support in some areas, the lizard brain of the electorate seems predisposed to shit on it.
It's the same with policing, crime, poverty, guns, LGBT rights, schools, etc etc etc. Polling of concept tends to be more liberal than voting records do.
I hope we can acknowledge that while accepting that more work has to be done to move the party to a more humane immigration policy. Though I suspect that might first require the move the public left, at least with this generation of Democratic leadership.
I tend to actually think AOC in particular is right when she says this:
The timidity and poll focused nature of leadership hurts them more than anything because voters don't think they believe in anything.
*And I know it's inconvenient to the political project of destroying the Democratic Party to continue to point out that the GOP wants to end democracy and give carte blanche to people to murder the undocumented, but it seems relevant.
I made no such assumption. I am less interested in what the average voter thinks than I am what is right. I have no doubt that the old people who run the Democratic parties views on immigration are close to the old people who vote. I expect leaders to lead on an issue. To borrow a phrase of quotes at me in this thread, you can't expect your issue to always be tip priority.
This is goose and you should feel goose for having these thoughts.
We got what we could. And when we could get more we got more…. No one was thrown under a bus. We pulled them out from under the bus as fast as we damn well could.
I am not sure this is inconvenient so much as what they want. Once a few tens of millions of people die in the fascist takeover of the US then the people will finally see the gloriousness of communism. And then the wrong people will never be thrown under a bus again.
And that's true. But I'll take the side that has my issue as something they are at least open to fixing, as those that are fine, if not gleeful, about destroying, any day of the week.
I just find it difficult that people who might actually have skin in the game, are so dead set on pissing away mediocre progress (when the alternative is worse oppression), because it's not good enough, even when it's relatively crap.
Every election, I'm voting against my own direct best interest (in favor of schools I have no children at, and for higher taxes on myself, etc), and as a SWM, not having to worry about bigotry affecting my life), because it's the right thing to do for the most people, and I believe more people being able to live free and without as many burdens, makes my life better.
That people who are directly affected by these issues seem to be insisting that because the gains aren't enough, that letting the arsonists get their foot in the door is an acceptable outcome, just boggles my mind.
If you want to change things because you're unhappy with the current crop, I see a couple options.
1) Try and influence your local communities to vote in the primaries for the candidate you like.
2) Do the same at the county/district level.
3) Do the same at the state level.
4) Vote in the primaries.
5) Regardless who wins, vote blue.
Giving a foothold to the fascists is not an acceptable outcome.
I may not be voting for Biden this election, but I’ve never missed a local or primary election, or a town council meeting.
It’s the voting blindly “no matter who” part that I, and probably a lot of others, take issue with.
“Regardless who wins, vote blue.”
That word implies otherwise.
Like, man, come on, the usual catchphrase is “vote blue no matter who.”
It's like buying all the ingredients to make a meal, realizing you bought jasmine rice instead of brown rice, and shoving everything into the garbage because "fuck it, that's not what I wanted, now nobody's eating."
Analogies!
What exactly is the problem with that sentiment. I mean the expanded sentiment of “vote your preference in the primary, and then vote for whoever the candidate in the general”?
You guys constantly emphasize the latter part is if you’re told to shut up and vote. When it’s the logical conclusion of the fact that the worst Democrat is preferable to any Republican.
Bernie is a poor leader and I feel would have been an ineffective candidate, and would have likely lost. But I would have still walked over broken glass to vote for him had he been the nominee.
That’s demonstrably bullshit, though. Voting for president isn’t even remotely the most important office you could be voting for. Local school board, state senators, even city council can all have more direct impact, either because of direct local action, or by influencing the direction of the lower ranks of the party (from the inside, which is what people have repeatedly said is the only way to do it).
Except without the presidency in this election, democracy itself ends. And they are 100% vowing to use federal power to do whatever the fuck they want locally, especially on immigration.
The problem is the clear implication that the candidate doesn’t have to do anything to earn your vote, and that’s an expectation that, when reinforced with this “vote blue no matter who” bullshit for years just leads to worse and worse candidates. It leads to democratic candidates catering to center-right republicans because their votes are the only ones “in play”, which just keeps pushing them further away from policies and actions that I’m okay with.
Joe Biden is the most left wing president in 50 years! The left is winning the argument!