There is some pretty fundamental tension between "our opponents don't care about the system" and relying on winning at the system's rules to stop them.
I don't think goose-calling is going to make this immigration discussion more productive. This anger and bile should be directed more at folks actually causing these issues.
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
There is some pretty fundamental tension between "our opponents don't care about the system" and relying on winning at the system's rules to stop them.
Relying on humans is inherently perilous, but the alternatives are typically monstrous.
I don't think goose-calling is going to make this immigration discussion more productive. This anger and bile should be directed more at folks actually causing these issues.
No, people posting "goose" through clenched teeth is funny and they should keep doing it
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
Okay go convince him of that.
Unfortunately I don't have that kind of power on my own. Instead I'm trying to get people to realize this is an actual problem and that instead of scolding those Biden is turning away it might be better to join in on asking the party to better. You know, asking our more liberal brothers and sisters to stand with us and amplify the voices of those who are being abandoned by bad policy. But typically that's just met with choruses of "vote blue no matter who" and countless reminders of what the greater evil looks like, making the whole exercise entirely unproductive.
Like, I don't think the message ever gets across, this is me trying to get y'all to also ask better of Biden. This is me trying to avoid Trump by convincing people who typically aren't very critical of our candidate to vocally be so Biden can correct course and not end democracy by running his campaign while supporting genocide and Republican immigration policy. I want a second Biden term. While I'd want someone else more, I don't want a second trump term. But I don't see Biden winning while also stabbing voters who have already shown up for him once in the back.
No I don't.
+8
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
I feel like the time traveler bit with “Well… you can’t be violent… that’d be bad” heavily suggests that Lanz thinks we ought to be physically fighting and killing people but isn't willing to say so outright due to forum rules.
I'll note that the only thing that stops authoritarians from trying to gain power is them successfully gaining all the power they wanted. The fact that Trump is still trying to gain power after he got voted out is absolutely an endorsement of the power of voting him out, not the other way around. If you want to do away with the phenomenon of bad people democratically losing elections, then coming around to try again next time, what you really want is to do away with democracy. Cause that dynamic is a baked in part of democracy.
On the subject of immigration, a bunch of people (politicians and citizens, left and right alike) are taking a harder stance on illegal immigration than they did four years ago. One could view that as a bunch of people moving to the right, but the simpler explanation is that those people have the same values and they're just responding to illegal immigration having gotten worse. Social services do cost money.
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
Okay go convince him of that.
Unfortunately I don't have that kind of power on my own. Instead I'm trying to get people to realize this is an actual problem and that instead of scolding those Biden is turning away it might be better to join in on asking the party to better. You know, asking our more liberal brothers and sisters to stand with us and amplify the voices of those who are being abandoned by bad policy. But typically that's just met with choruses of "vote blue no matter who" and countless reminders of what the greater evil looks like, making the whole exercise entirely unproductive.
Like, I don't think the message ever gets across, this is me trying to get y'all to also ask better of Biden. This is me trying to avoid Trump by convincing people who typically aren't very critical of our candidate to vocally be so Biden can correct course and not end democracy by running his campaign while supporting genocide and Republican immigration policy. I want a second Biden term. While I'd want someone else more, I don't want a second trump term. But I don't see Biden winning while also stabbing voters who have already shown up for him once in the back.
And people are doing those things. I too would like Biden to change his immigration strategy and have said so to my reps. The annoyance is from people who say "I am not voting for Biden" or communicate to their peers the he's a monster or whatever. Dude's flawed, we knew that in 2008 and knew it in 2020. But so is every candidate (except, of course, Johnny Unbeatable). The only candidate who I would ever 100% agree with is me, and I would probably have to compromise my ideals if I ever served, because I am not such a persuasive person to convince everyone else I was right.
I do think he is owed some grace because there are multiple areas of the Democratic base pushing him in several directions on immigration. Lots of core Democratic constituencies are at best skeptical of increased immigration. And swing voters tend to vote for Republicans if they're thinking about race. There's a reason that Republicans talk about race coded stuff (crime, immigration, all things "urban") all the damn time.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
He helped gain some votes in a special election in an area where they elected an obvious con artist. How many voters has he lost nationwide with this though? People who voted for him 4 years ago.
If for every right leaning vote he loses a left leaning voter that voted for him in 2020, is it worth it?
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration.
I made no such assumption. I am less interested in what the average voter thinks than I am what is right. I have no doubt that the old people who run the Democratic parties views on immigration are close to the old people who vote. I expect leaders to lead on an issue. To borrow a phrase of quotes at me in this thread, you can't expect your issue to always be tip priority.
That people who are directly affected by these issues seem to be insisting that because the gains aren't enough, that letting the arsonists get their foot in the door is an acceptable outcome, just boggles my mind.
I am probably skipping a lot of posts in this thread, but I wanted to address it since I was quoted. I will accept mediocre progress. I would even accept standing still! I will not accept sliding backwards. I will not be complicit in my own oppression. If the game is, and on many issues this is true, simply slowing the speed at which we implement terrible policies then I will not vote for it. Accelerationism is awful, but slowly boiling a frog actually works on people. Everyone is livid Roe v Wade is dead, but less would care if it were death by a thousand cuts. I will not vote for the death by a thousand cuts option. It will make everything worse long term.
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
I feel like the time traveler bit with “Well… you can’t be violent… that’d be bad” heavily suggests that Lanz thinks we ought to be physically fighting and killing people but isn't willing to say so outright due to forum rules.
I'll note that the only thing that stops authoritarians from trying to gain power is them successfully gaining all the power they wanted. The fact that Trump is still trying to gain power after he got voted out is absolutely an endorsement of the power of voting him out, not the other way around. If you want to do away with the phenomenon of bad people democratically losing elections, then coming around to try again next time, what you really want is to do away with democracy. Cause that dynamic is a baked in part of democracy.
On the subject of immigration, a bunch of people (politicians and citizens, left and right alike) are taking a harder stance on illegal immigration than they did four years ago. One could view that as a bunch of people moving to the right, but the simpler explanation is that those people have the same values and they're just responding to illegal immigration having gotten worse. Social services do cost money.
I dunno, man incited a violent insurrection storming the capitol, seems you could something like, I dunno, locking him away for the rest of his natural life for something like that.
But the general interest of democrats with institutional power on that for three years now has been a big fat “eh it’ll sort itself out eventually I guess.”
But gotta focus resources on the real big fish from that day, like a guy dressed up like a cross between a football fanatic and that order of the buffalo from the Flintstones, I guess
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
I feel like the time traveler bit with “Well… you can’t be violent… that’d be bad” heavily suggests that Lanz thinks we ought to be physically fighting and killing people but isn't willing to say so outright due to forum rules.
I'll note that the only thing that stops authoritarians from trying to gain power is them successfully gaining all the power they wanted. The fact that Trump is still trying to gain power after he got voted out is absolutely an endorsement of the power of voting him out, not the other way around. If you want to do away with the phenomenon of bad people democratically losing elections, then coming around to try again next time, what you really want is to do away with democracy. Cause that dynamic is a baked in part of democracy.
On the subject of immigration, a bunch of people (politicians and citizens, left and right alike) are taking a harder stance on illegal immigration than they did four years ago. One could view that as a bunch of people moving to the right, but the simpler explanation is that those people have the same values and they're just responding to illegal immigration having gotten worse. Social services do cost money.
I dunno, man incited a violent insurrection storming the capitol, seems you could something like, I dunno, locking him away for the rest of his natural life for something like that.
But the general interest of democrats with institutional power on that for three years now has been a big fat “eh it’ll sort itself out eventually I guess.”
Mostly because your House rep isn’t a cop and no Senator, House representative, or even Biden have the power to just throw someone in prison.
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration.
I made no such assumption. I am less interested in what the average voter thinks than I am what is right. I have no doubt that the old people who run the Democratic parties views on immigration are close to the old people who vote. I expect leaders to lead on an issue. To borrow a phrase of quotes at me in this thread, you can't expect your issue to always be tip priority.
That people who are directly affected by these issues seem to be insisting that because the gains aren't enough, that letting the arsonists get their foot in the door is an acceptable outcome, just boggles my mind.
I am probably skipping a lot of posts in this thread, but I wanted to address it since I was quoted. I will accept mediocre progress. I would even accept standing still! I will not accept sliding backwards. I will not be complicit in my own oppression. If the game is, and on many issues this is true, simply slowing the speed at which we implement terrible policies then I will not vote for it. Accelerationism is awful, but slowly boiling a frog actually works on people. Everyone is livid Roe v Wade is dead, but less would care if it were death by a thousand cuts. I will not vote for the death by a thousand cuts option. It will make everything worse long term.
It was death by a thousand cuts though. Abortion access was being restricted constantly by the courts and the states and then SCOTUS made it all worse in one big moment. They thought they could get away with it because people had accepted so many smaller steps.
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.
That people who are directly affected by these issues seem to be insisting that because the gains aren't enough, that letting the arsonists get their foot in the door is an acceptable outcome, just boggles my mind.
I am probably skipping a lot of posts in this thread, but I wanted to address it since I was quoted. I will accept mediocre progress. I would even accept standing still! I will not accept sliding backwards. I will not be complicit in my own oppression. If the game is, and on many issues this is true, simply slowing the speed at which we implement terrible policies then I will not vote for it. Accelerationism is awful, but slowly boiling a frog actually works on people. Everyone is livid Roe v Wade is dead, but less would care if it were death by a thousand cuts. I will not vote for the death by a thousand cuts option. It will make everything worse long term.
It was death by a thousand cuts though. Abortion access was being restricted constantly by the courts and the states and then SCOTUS made it all worse in one big moment. They thought they could get away with it because people had accepted so many smaller steps.
Yes, they did get away with it because of the death by a thousand cuts. Because they have gotten away with it. So why would anyone in their right mind continue to let them cut us on other issues, Knowing that this is the ploy?
"Who was more left than Biden" is a weird question to throw into the middle of a conversation about how Biden is explicitly offering the most rapidly anti immigrant GOP of our lifetimes everything they want. Or wanted until the window had been moved.
It wasn't everything they want. It was everything they thought they could get. If you think that the border bill was the end game for Republicans, aka "OK, we solved it, nothing more to be done here", and not just a starting off point for the next time they have the ability to influence policy, I don't know what to say. Republicans who negotiated the bill knew they weren't getting EVERYTHING. They were just able to get everything they thought they could get.
As to the "threat" of Trump being a dictator, maybe he doesn't accomplish it. But he's going to fucking try. And his people know what needs to be done for that to happen. The only reason it didn't succeed last time, was because of "institutionalists" who he just guessed would side with him. Mike Flynn SecDef, handpicking the JCoS for "loyalty". Jeffrey Clark or that other fucker as AG, like they tried to do. Compromised heads of the intel agencies. Making sure the Cabinet is stocked with people who won't even look at the 25th.
Because Trump NEEDS to become a dictator, especially if SCOTUS rule against Presidential Immunity. Because it's the only way he definitely keeps from being convicted. Because even if these cases end up being voided, he's going to keep committing crimes. He can't help himself. And as long as he's got his hands around the nuts of 34 Senators (which he already has), he's immune to anything.
+1
Options
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
A thing that feels like it's getting overlooked in talking about the immigration bill is the detail where it is actually a Ukraine (and Israel) funding bill that the Republicans were demanding immigration concessions before they would vote yes, and between the Senate's dumb rules and the current House majority, getting their votes is a required hurdle if you want Ukraine funding to happen, and the dems would really like Ukraine funding to happen.
Does that make the proposed changes good? No. But the context of how it got there is kind of important to the grand scheme of precisely how deplorable we determine the Dems to be. It's not a fuck immigrants because fuck em bill, it is a Ukraine needs money bill that the gop is demanding we add dumb shit to in exchange for getting to vote on it. And then Trump blew it up because he's a giant baby and gave the dems the opportunity to play an Uno reverse card and point out that the gop are clearly unserious about immigration since they blew up a bill that they agreed on hours before.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
"Who was more left than Biden" is a weird question to throw into the middle of a conversation about how Biden is explicitly offering the most rapidly anti immigrant GOP of our lifetimes everything they want. Or wanted until the window had been moved.
It wasn't everything they want. It was everything they thought they could get. If you think that the border bill was the end game for Republicans, aka "OK, we solved it, nothing more to be done here", and not just a starting off point for the next time they have the ability to influence policy, I don't know what to say. Republicans who negotiated the bill knew they weren't getting EVERYTHING. They were just able to get everything they thought they could get.
As to the "threat" of Trump being a dictator, maybe he doesn't accomplish it. But he's going to fucking try. And his people know what needs to be done for that to happen. The only reason it didn't succeed last time, was because of "institutionalists" who he just guessed would side with him. Mike Flynn SecDef, handpicking the JCoS for "loyalty". Jeffrey Clark or that other fucker as AG, like they tried to do. Compromised heads of the intel agencies. Making sure the Cabinet is stocked with people who won't even look at the 25th.
Because Trump NEEDS to become a dictator, especially if SCOTUS rule against Presidential Immunity. Because it's the only way he definitely keeps from being convicted. Because even if these cases end up being voided, he's going to keep committing crimes. He can't help himself. And as long as he's got his hands around the nuts of 34 Senators (which he already has), he's immune to anything.
Before Trump came out against it, there were a number of Republican senators who came out saying that the bill gave them far more than what they'd ever be able to get with a Republican president and senate (because an immigration bill like this would be filibustered by Democrats).
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration.
I made no such assumption. I am less interested in what the average voter thinks than I am what is right. I have no doubt that the old people who run the Democratic parties views on immigration are close to the old people who vote. I expect leaders to lead on an issue. To borrow a phrase of quotes at me in this thread, you can't expect your issue to always be tip priority.
That people who are directly affected by these issues seem to be insisting that because the gains aren't enough, that letting the arsonists get their foot in the door is an acceptable outcome, just boggles my mind.
I am probably skipping a lot of posts in this thread, but I wanted to address it since I was quoted. I will accept mediocre progress. I would even accept standing still! I will not accept sliding backwards. I will not be complicit in my own oppression. If the game is, and on many issues this is true, simply slowing the speed at which we implement terrible policies then I will not vote for it. Accelerationism is awful, but slowly boiling a frog actually works on people. Everyone is livid Roe v Wade is dead, but less would care if it were death by a thousand cuts. I will not vote for the death by a thousand cuts option. It will make everything worse long term.
It was death by a thousand cuts though. Abortion access was being restricted constantly by the courts and the states and then SCOTUS made it all worse in one big moment. They thought they could get away with it because people had accepted so many smaller steps.
Exactly! No one cares when it was small steps back. Dobbs has caused actual problems. You are echoing the exact reason I won't support Democrats going for death by a thousand cuts on issues. Republicans implementing their full awful policy is better long term.
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
He helped gain some votes in a special election in an area where they elected an obvious con artist. How many voters has he lost nationwide with this though? People who voted for him 4 years ago.
If for every right leaning vote he loses a left leaning voter that voted for him in 2020, is it worth it?
There are at least 217 more districts where voters would elect an obvious con artist…
Re: if. No, that obviously would’ve neutral. You gotta get more for it to be worthwhile. But if you want to get into arguments about demographics and opinions and voting likelihood … the data does not look good for your position.
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration.
I made no such assumption. I am less interested in what the average voter thinks than I am what is right. I have no doubt that the old people who run the Democratic parties views on immigration are close to the old people who vote. I expect leaders to lead on an issue. To borrow a phrase of quotes at me in this thread, you can't expect your issue to always be tip priority.
That people who are directly affected by these issues seem to be insisting that because the gains aren't enough, that letting the arsonists get their foot in the door is an acceptable outcome, just boggles my mind.
I am probably skipping a lot of posts in this thread, but I wanted to address it since I was quoted. I will accept mediocre progress. I would even accept standing still! I will not accept sliding backwards. I will not be complicit in my own oppression. If the game is, and on many issues this is true, simply slowing the speed at which we implement terrible policies then I will not vote for it. Accelerationism is awful, but slowly boiling a frog actually works on people. Everyone is livid Roe v Wade is dead, but less would care if it were death by a thousand cuts. I will not vote for the death by a thousand cuts option. It will make everything worse long term.
It was death by a thousand cuts though. Abortion access was being restricted constantly by the courts and the states and then SCOTUS made it all worse in one big moment. They thought they could get away with it because people had accepted so many smaller steps.
Yes, they did get away with it because of the death by a thousand cuts. Because they have gotten away with it. So why would anyone in their right mind continue to let them cut us on other issues, Knowing that this is the ploy?
You just made gnizmo's point for them.
Do you know who controls SCOTUS? Do you think that Democrats would have ended RvW?
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration.
I made no such assumption. I am less interested in what the average voter thinks than I am what is right. I have no doubt that the old people who run the Democratic parties views on immigration are close to the old people who vote. I expect leaders to lead on an issue. To borrow a phrase of quotes at me in this thread, you can't expect your issue to always be tip priority.
That people who are directly affected by these issues seem to be insisting that because the gains aren't enough, that letting the arsonists get their foot in the door is an acceptable outcome, just boggles my mind.
I am probably skipping a lot of posts in this thread, but I wanted to address it since I was quoted. I will accept mediocre progress. I would even accept standing still! I will not accept sliding backwards. I will not be complicit in my own oppression. If the game is, and on many issues this is true, simply slowing the speed at which we implement terrible policies then I will not vote for it. Accelerationism is awful, but slowly boiling a frog actually works on people. Everyone is livid Roe v Wade is dead, but less would care if it were death by a thousand cuts. I will not vote for the death by a thousand cuts option. It will make everything worse long term.
It was death by a thousand cuts though. Abortion access was being restricted constantly by the courts and the states and then SCOTUS made it all worse in one big moment. They thought they could get away with it because people had accepted so many smaller steps.
Exactly! No one cares when it was small steps back. Dobbs has caused actual problems. You are echoing the exact reason I won't support Democrats going for death by a thousand cuts on issues. Republicans implementing their full awful policy is better long term.
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration.
I made no such assumption. I am less interested in what the average voter thinks than I am what is right. I have no doubt that the old people who run the Democratic parties views on immigration are close to the old people who vote. I expect leaders to lead on an issue. To borrow a phrase of quotes at me in this thread, you can't expect your issue to always be tip priority.
That people who are directly affected by these issues seem to be insisting that because the gains aren't enough, that letting the arsonists get their foot in the door is an acceptable outcome, just boggles my mind.
I am probably skipping a lot of posts in this thread, but I wanted to address it since I was quoted. I will accept mediocre progress. I would even accept standing still! I will not accept sliding backwards. I will not be complicit in my own oppression. If the game is, and on many issues this is true, simply slowing the speed at which we implement terrible policies then I will not vote for it. Accelerationism is awful, but slowly boiling a frog actually works on people. Everyone is livid Roe v Wade is dead, but less would care if it were death by a thousand cuts. I will not vote for the death by a thousand cuts option. It will make everything worse long term.
It was death by a thousand cuts though. Abortion access was being restricted constantly by the courts and the states and then SCOTUS made it all worse in one big moment. They thought they could get away with it because people had accepted so many smaller steps.
Exactly! No one cares when it was small steps back. Dobbs has caused actual problems. You are echoing the exact reason I won't support Democrats going for death by a thousand cuts on issues. Republicans implementing their full awful policy is better long term.
This is just accellerationism
It is also boiling a frog in a pot. I said absolutely as much in my very first post.
A thing that feels like it's getting overlooked in talking about the immigration bill is the detail where it is actually a Ukraine (and Israel) funding bill that the Republicans were demanding immigration concessions before they would vote yes, and between the Senate's dumb rules and the current House majority, getting their votes is a required hurdle if you want Ukraine funding to happen, and the dems would really like Ukraine funding to happen.
Does that make the proposed changes good? No. But the context of how it got there is kind of important to the grand scheme of precisely how deplorable we determine the Dems to be. It's not a fuck immigrants because fuck em bill, it is a Ukraine needs money bill that the gop is demanding we add dumb shit to in exchange for getting to vote on it. And then Trump blew it up because he's a giant baby and gave the dems the opportunity to play an Uno reverse card and point out that the gop are clearly unserious about immigration since they blew up a bill that they agreed on hours before.
Yeah ok but Biden isn't campaigning on these immigration policies as a necessary evil he has to give in order to get something. He's campaigning on and for them. He's going down to the border and talking about how much its a shame that Republicans wouldn't help pass the reforms he needs. He talks about how he'll exercise the entirely optional powers it would give him. He's in favor of the changes on their own merit.
"Who was more left than Biden" is a weird question to throw into the middle of a conversation about how Biden is explicitly offering the most rapidly anti immigrant GOP of our lifetimes everything they want. Or wanted until the window had been moved.
It wasn't everything they want. It was everything they thought they could get. If you think that the border bill was the end game for Republicans, aka "OK, we solved it, nothing more to be done here", and not just a starting off point for the next time they have the ability to influence policy, I don't know what to say. Republicans who negotiated the bill knew they weren't getting EVERYTHING. They were just able to get everything they thought they could get.
As to the "threat" of Trump being a dictator, maybe he doesn't accomplish it. But he's going to fucking try. And his people know what needs to be done for that to happen. The only reason it didn't succeed last time, was because of "institutionalists" who he just guessed would side with him. Mike Flynn SecDef, handpicking the JCoS for "loyalty". Jeffrey Clark or that other fucker as AG, like they tried to do. Compromised heads of the intel agencies. Making sure the Cabinet is stocked with people who won't even look at the 25th.
Because Trump NEEDS to become a dictator, especially if SCOTUS rule against Presidential Immunity. Because it's the only way he definitely keeps from being convicted. Because even if these cases end up being voided, he's going to keep committing crimes. He can't help himself. And as long as he's got his hands around the nuts of 34 Senators (which he already has), he's immune to anything.
Before Trump came out against it, there were a number of Republican senators who came out saying that the bill gave them far more than what they'd ever be able to get with a Republican president and senate (because an immigration bill like this would be filibustered by Democrats).
Because the primary goal for Democrats was to save Ukraine. 10 years ago, the GOP would have voted for that unanimously, now they don't because they're run by a puppet. So you have to horse trade.
Shitty thing to give up and it is a genuine problem with Biden (and Democrats more broadly) that immigration is an issue they are willing to trade. I think that's a fair statement to make. I do genuinely question what Democrats should have given up (that you think the GOP would have accepted). I think a number of people would say Ukraine aid, which is also revealing and would betray other constituencies/interests. The presidency sucks because you have to make decisions like that all the time.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+8
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Do you know who controls SCOTUS? Do you think that Democrats would have ended RvW?
No, but I think democrats never bothered to codify RvW because they could use the republican threat against it as a powerful fundraising call and their disregard for the people affected by it was always going to lead to this eventually.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration.
I made no such assumption. I am less interested in what the average voter thinks than I am what is right. I have no doubt that the old people who run the Democratic parties views on immigration are close to the old people who vote. I expect leaders to lead on an issue. To borrow a phrase of quotes at me in this thread, you can't expect your issue to always be tip priority.
That people who are directly affected by these issues seem to be insisting that because the gains aren't enough, that letting the arsonists get their foot in the door is an acceptable outcome, just boggles my mind.
I am probably skipping a lot of posts in this thread, but I wanted to address it since I was quoted. I will accept mediocre progress. I would even accept standing still! I will not accept sliding backwards. I will not be complicit in my own oppression. If the game is, and on many issues this is true, simply slowing the speed at which we implement terrible policies then I will not vote for it. Accelerationism is awful, but slowly boiling a frog actually works on people. Everyone is livid Roe v Wade is dead, but less would care if it were death by a thousand cuts. I will not vote for the death by a thousand cuts option. It will make everything worse long term.
It was death by a thousand cuts though. Abortion access was being restricted constantly by the courts and the states and then SCOTUS made it all worse in one big moment. They thought they could get away with it because people had accepted so many smaller steps.
Exactly! No one cares when it was small steps back. Dobbs has caused actual problems. You are echoing the exact reason I won't support Democrats going for death by a thousand cuts on issues. Republicans implementing their full awful policy is better long term.
This is just accellerationism
Less accelerationism and more the only time the democrats’ most ardent and vocal supporters will oppose these policies full throatedly is when a Republican holds power, and the moment Democrats hold it they immediately fall back to a position of general complacency and relief, trusting that their favorite people will get the job done, until someone dares point out the problems with the democrats not actually working on that job.
Like with this accursed bill that they keep going on the defense for: there’s always some reason that the horrific fucking nightmare had to be put forward, never once even a consideration that, no, this was a step too far, this was countless pounds of flesh being sliced from the throats of an already destitute and threatened people who’ve gone through more hardship than most of us on this board will ever known, only to be met with a racist, violent border authority that beats and further dehumanizes them once they have their hands on them.
Do you know who controls SCOTUS? Do you think that Democrats would have ended RvW?
No, but I think democrats never bothered to codify RvW because they could use the republican threat against it as a powerful fundraising call and their disregard for the people affected by it was always going to lead to this eventually.
I don't think any law short of an amendment would have stopped this court from overturning abortion protection
"Who was more left than Biden" is a weird question to throw into the middle of a conversation about how Biden is explicitly offering the most rapidly anti immigrant GOP of our lifetimes everything they want. Or wanted until the window had been moved.
It wasn't everything they want. It was everything they thought they could get. If you think that the border bill was the end game for Republicans, aka "OK, we solved it, nothing more to be done here", and not just a starting off point for the next time they have the ability to influence policy, I don't know what to say. Republicans who negotiated the bill knew they weren't getting EVERYTHING. They were just able to get everything they thought they could get.
As to the "threat" of Trump being a dictator, maybe he doesn't accomplish it. But he's going to fucking try. And his people know what needs to be done for that to happen. The only reason it didn't succeed last time, was because of "institutionalists" who he just guessed would side with him. Mike Flynn SecDef, handpicking the JCoS for "loyalty". Jeffrey Clark or that other fucker as AG, like they tried to do. Compromised heads of the intel agencies. Making sure the Cabinet is stocked with people who won't even look at the 25th.
Because Trump NEEDS to become a dictator, especially if SCOTUS rule against Presidential Immunity. Because it's the only way he definitely keeps from being convicted. Because even if these cases end up being voided, he's going to keep committing crimes. He can't help himself. And as long as he's got his hands around the nuts of 34 Senators (which he already has), he's immune to anything.
Before Trump came out against it, there were a number of Republican senators who came out saying that the bill gave them far more than what they'd ever be able to get with a Republican president and senate (because an immigration bill like this would be filibustered by Democrats).
Unless the Republicans removed the filibuster. Which they'd need to do to pass a bill on a national abortion ban.
But I'm also not talking about political expediency. I'm talking political end points. If this bill had passed into law, this would not be a legitimate "mission accomplished" for Republicans. This would be their ceiling moving forwards.
It was why I disapproved of the measure myself, though as part of the greater bill, found it necessary. Because Republicans will just continue to dig. Like they did abortion rights. Free rights becomes 26 weeks. Becomes 20 weeks. Becomes 16. 8. 6. Rape, incest, life and health, becomes R/I/Life. Becomes Life. See the Texas definition of Life of the mother.
These fuckers will KEEP pushing, which is why "everything they wanted" as if it's a finite end, just rings wrong to me.
+3
Options
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
A thing that feels like it's getting overlooked in talking about the immigration bill is the detail where it is actually a Ukraine (and Israel) funding bill that the Republicans were demanding immigration concessions before they would vote yes, and between the Senate's dumb rules and the current House majority, getting their votes is a required hurdle if you want Ukraine funding to happen, and the dems would really like Ukraine funding to happen.
Does that make the proposed changes good? No. But the context of how it got there is kind of important to the grand scheme of precisely how deplorable we determine the Dems to be. It's not a fuck immigrants because fuck em bill, it is a Ukraine needs money bill that the gop is demanding we add dumb shit to in exchange for getting to vote on it. And then Trump blew it up because he's a giant baby and gave the dems the opportunity to play an Uno reverse card and point out that the gop are clearly unserious about immigration since they blew up a bill that they agreed on hours before.
Yeah ok but Biden isn't campaigning on these immigration policies as a necessary evil he has to give in order to get something. He's campaigning on and for them. He's going down to the border and talking about how much its a shame that Republicans wouldn't help pass the reforms he needs. He talks about how he'll exercise the entirely optional powers it would give him. He's in favor of the changes on their own merit.
I do not know what is in the man's heart of hearts, but given how our media hellscape has framed the border issue for all these years, what he is doing probably polls well with the average voter. It will absolutely play well to the DC politics brainrot crowd. Which is exactly where the problem is, it is absolutely a horrid look to anyone who actually
meaningfully cares about the border issue rather than just the media shibboleths, but it might not actually be a losing move electorally.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
"Who was more left than Biden" is a weird question to throw into the middle of a conversation about how Biden is explicitly offering the most rapidly anti immigrant GOP of our lifetimes everything they want. Or wanted until the window had been moved.
It wasn't everything they want. It was everything they thought they could get. If you think that the border bill was the end game for Republicans, aka "OK, we solved it, nothing more to be done here", and not just a starting off point for the next time they have the ability to influence policy, I don't know what to say. Republicans who negotiated the bill knew they weren't getting EVERYTHING. They were just able to get everything they thought they could get.
As to the "threat" of Trump being a dictator, maybe he doesn't accomplish it. But he's going to fucking try. And his people know what needs to be done for that to happen. The only reason it didn't succeed last time, was because of "institutionalists" who he just guessed would side with him. Mike Flynn SecDef, handpicking the JCoS for "loyalty". Jeffrey Clark or that other fucker as AG, like they tried to do. Compromised heads of the intel agencies. Making sure the Cabinet is stocked with people who won't even look at the 25th.
Because Trump NEEDS to become a dictator, especially if SCOTUS rule against Presidential Immunity. Because it's the only way he definitely keeps from being convicted. Because even if these cases end up being voided, he's going to keep committing crimes. He can't help himself. And as long as he's got his hands around the nuts of 34 Senators (which he already has), he's immune to anything.
Before Trump came out against it, there were a number of Republican senators who came out saying that the bill gave them far more than what they'd ever be able to get with a Republican president and senate (because an immigration bill like this would be filibustered by Democrats).
Because the primary goal for Democrats was to save Ukraine. 10 years ago, the GOP would have voted for that unanimously, now they don't because they're run by a puppet. So you have to horse trade.
Shitty thing to give up and it is a genuine problem with Biden (and Democrats more broadly) that immigration is an issue they are willing to trade. I think that's a fair statement to make. I do genuinely question what Democrats should have given up (that you think the GOP would have accepted). I think a number of people would say Ukraine aid, which is also revealing and would betray other constituencies/interests. The presidency sucks because you have to make decisions like that all the time.
“So you have to horse trade”
And this is why we don’t trust you all to not turn us over to the Republicans once you get int in your heads there is some more worthy cause that we can be your noble sacrifice for.
If you’ll do it to abused and exploited, desperate immigrants trying to escape to a better life, you’ll do it to us the moment the Republicans put you over a barrel.
You won’t fight for us, you’ll just “make deals,” just “find a compromise.”
It’s “horse trading” after all, and what value does a horse have really than to be worked or sold off?
Maybe we don’t want to be your fucking. Horses anymore
Sisyphus isn't surprised when the boulder rolls back down,
Honestly, I feel like we’re both making the same argument but just drawing very different conclusions on what it means we should do.
More or less.
I see it as a brick wall where you can either scrape the mortar or smash your head against it.
Both require loudly doing something about the wall. The knee jerk reaction by many on this board is to shout anyone who wants it to change down. Any complaints is immediately met with the defense that Republicans are worse. That is not an action of trying to push change. It is the action of maintaining the status quo.
Immigration cannot get better until we can all sit with the uncomfortable reality that the gerontocracy of the Democratic party still has really outdated ideas about society. There is no reason for that to be a controversial stance.
While you're not wrong on the face of it, I'm not convinced that's the whole story. Your assumption is that the Democratic gerontocracy are out of touch with the average American voter on immigration.
I made no such assumption. I am less interested in what the average voter thinks than I am what is right. I have no doubt that the old people who run the Democratic parties views on immigration are close to the old people who vote. I expect leaders to lead on an issue. To borrow a phrase of quotes at me in this thread, you can't expect your issue to always be tip priority.
That people who are directly affected by these issues seem to be insisting that because the gains aren't enough, that letting the arsonists get their foot in the door is an acceptable outcome, just boggles my mind.
I am probably skipping a lot of posts in this thread, but I wanted to address it since I was quoted. I will accept mediocre progress. I would even accept standing still! I will not accept sliding backwards. I will not be complicit in my own oppression. If the game is, and on many issues this is true, simply slowing the speed at which we implement terrible policies then I will not vote for it. Accelerationism is awful, but slowly boiling a frog actually works on people. Everyone is livid Roe v Wade is dead, but less would care if it were death by a thousand cuts. I will not vote for the death by a thousand cuts option. It will make everything worse long term.
It was death by a thousand cuts though. Abortion access was being restricted constantly by the courts and the states and then SCOTUS made it all worse in one big moment. They thought they could get away with it because people had accepted so many smaller steps.
Exactly! No one cares when it was small steps back. Dobbs has caused actual problems. You are echoing the exact reason I won't support Democrats going for death by a thousand cuts on issues. Republicans implementing their full awful policy is better long term.
This is just accellerationism
It is also boiling a frog in a pot. I said absolutely as much in my very first post.
That metaphor is wrong, the frog jumps out. It's a very human thing to accept incremental shittiness.
Anyway, my point is deeper: to fix the institutional problems plaguing the country you need sustained Democratic control. To see how this would work, look at Wisconsin. First, they had to elect a Democratic governor in 2018 to prevent the Republican legislature from making the deck even more stacked against them. Things didn't get fixed, because the legislature was gerrymandered. Then they had to elect Biden. Things didn't get fixed, because the federal government can't fix the gerrymandered districts (at least with this court). Then they had to re-elect Evers despite him not being able to accomplish the things he wanted to. All this time they had to elect Democrats to the state's Supreme Court. And finally they won last month and got the maps re-drawn and Wisconsin will have competitive legislative elections for the first time in 14 years. They didn't stop because Evers didn't fix it in 2019. You need sustained access to the levers of power to actually fix things. And you need consistent public pressure to make sure the people you elect do the things you want.
The problem national Democrats have is that they have been granted control of the government twice in thirty years, both after monumental crises caused by their opponents, and within two years fickle voters gave partial control back to their opponents when Democrats didn't fix everything immediately. They put the fire burning the whole house down out, but didn't get the frog out of the boiling water or something.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
"Who was more left than Biden" is a weird question to throw into the middle of a conversation about how Biden is explicitly offering the most rapidly anti immigrant GOP of our lifetimes everything they want. Or wanted until the window had been moved.
It wasn't everything they want. It was everything they thought they could get. If you think that the border bill was the end game for Republicans, aka "OK, we solved it, nothing more to be done here", and not just a starting off point for the next time they have the ability to influence policy, I don't know what to say. Republicans who negotiated the bill knew they weren't getting EVERYTHING. They were just able to get everything they thought they could get.
As to the "threat" of Trump being a dictator, maybe he doesn't accomplish it. But he's going to fucking try. And his people know what needs to be done for that to happen. The only reason it didn't succeed last time, was because of "institutionalists" who he just guessed would side with him. Mike Flynn SecDef, handpicking the JCoS for "loyalty". Jeffrey Clark or that other fucker as AG, like they tried to do. Compromised heads of the intel agencies. Making sure the Cabinet is stocked with people who won't even look at the 25th.
Because Trump NEEDS to become a dictator, especially if SCOTUS rule against Presidential Immunity. Because it's the only way he definitely keeps from being convicted. Because even if these cases end up being voided, he's going to keep committing crimes. He can't help himself. And as long as he's got his hands around the nuts of 34 Senators (which he already has), he's immune to anything.
Before Trump came out against it, there were a number of Republican senators who came out saying that the bill gave them far more than what they'd ever be able to get with a Republican president and senate (because an immigration bill like this would be filibustered by Democrats).
Because the primary goal for Democrats was to save Ukraine. 10 years ago, the GOP would have voted for that unanimously, now they don't because they're run by a puppet. So you have to horse trade.
Shitty thing to give up and it is a genuine problem with Biden (and Democrats more broadly) that immigration is an issue they are willing to trade. I think that's a fair statement to make. I do genuinely question what Democrats should have given up (that you think the GOP would have accepted). I think a number of people would say Ukraine aid, which is also revealing and would betray other constituencies/interests. The presidency sucks because you have to make decisions like that all the time.
“So you have to horse trade”
And this is why we don’t trust you all to not turn us over to the Republicans once you get int in your heads there is some more worthy cause that we can be your noble sacrifice for.
If you’ll do it to abused and exploited, desperate immigrants trying to escape to a better life, you’ll do it to us the moment the Republicans put you over a barrel.
You won’t fight for us, you’ll just “make deals,” just “find a compromise.”
It’s “horse trading” after all, and what value does a horse have really than to be worked or sold off?
Maybe we don’t want to be your fucking. Horses anymore
If people stay home and give control of the government to Republicans, yeah, this shit will happen. Because we're not a dictatorship as much as you dream of one. If Democrats held the House, this would be the bill. They would just pass Ukraine aid, propose a better but imperfect immigration system, get it filibustered, and Manchin/Sinema would refuse to break the filibuster, so it would die and we'd have status quo for another year.
EDIT: Also lol at the performative outrage over a figure of speech. Very on brand.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Regarding the recent spate of 'politicians lie' comments I've seen in here; I could swear there was a study shared on these very forums many moons ago that found that “politicians lie to get into office” wasn’t backed in reality, but simply that the opposition and/or other factors might preclude getting what they were striving for done. It’s easy to yell “then they didn’t try hard enough”, but that’s a cyclical spiral to fall into, and can get awfully close to the often quoted “perfect” being the enemy of “the good”.
And yes, I recognize that the world is highly imperfect right now. That it’d be nice if it were way less imperfect on an endless number of facets.
But on one hand we have the highly flawed Democratic party and Biden, and on the other hand we have Project 2025, which is straight up horrifying.
They are not being quiet about this. There is zero subterfuge, it's a veil so thin it qualifies as lighter than Aerogel.
Biden and his admin can simultaneously be bad on scales ranging from "c'mon man" to "...the fuck?" to "holy fucking shit guys, for fuck's sake!" and still be better than the opposition's stated goals of Banning Abortion, directly or de facto, advocating Christian nationalism, dismantling Climate protections, some straight up clown shoes gold standard curiosity (fuck, that takes me back), an expansion of presidential powers, rescinding LTBTQ+ rights protections, mass fucking deportation of immigrants, so delightfully racistly titled "Operation Wetback", outlawing pornography (which has plenty of horrors as an industry, but is also a way of attacking minorities and others lacking In Group placement and protection, sex work is work, etc), and gutting the 'deep state' of career governmental employees to replace them with toadies and true believers.
So that seems pretty fucking bad.
Especially since those efforts, as noted, are aimed at also reducing or eliminating resistance to electoral shenanigans and a destruction of checks and balances the likes of which we've never seen before. Fuckery on an industrialized scale, with a focus on making the likelihood of a Finding Out phase be negligible unless we really do want to see the US throw down into an actual hot (or at least warm) civil war, rather than the underlying civil cold war that's been going on longer than most of us have been alive, to pre-empt the obvious comment.
As I have pointed out before, and has come up recently, a common defense for those deeply (seemingly endlessly critical) is that 'I live in a deep blue or red state, my vote doesn't matter anyways', which I feel can both be true and disingenuous.
The goal in these discussions is to convince people, even if not 'the opposition' (who, as often noted, are ostensibly on the same side, even if priorities or stances differ in scale and/or scope), but outside observers, or to refine one's rhetoric and discourse to a level that might be more convincing, if not here then elsewhere. And while the discussions on The Penny Arcade Forums may or may not be influential on a scale that can tip the balance, I would put forth that the vehemency with which the debates happen, repeatedly, over literal decades, indicates that at the very least, the various points of view being advocated (I'm striving to avoid boiling it down to merely 'both sides', as these complex situations don't have simple binary facets) are things people hold to passionately, so I don't allow for the similarly often deployed caveat that it's not important enough to be concerned about.
Some of y'all have been around for something approaching literal decades (don't go crumbling into dust on me here, I made it, you can too), with a body of work that condensed could probably qualify as a small collection of encyclopedias.
That's not the action of someone who thinks that nothing said here matters, no matter how much they say that's the case, unless they have a straight up masochistic love for exchanging barbs with folks on hot topic issues for what has to account for a solid chunk of their life at this point.
Sorry to get into the weeds there, but we've all done this dance often enough that the usual retorts are pretty well established at this point.
The status quo sucks. I wish the current administration were better. I hope that in the upcoming election we see more progressive candidates win and enough political power condensed where some shit can actually get fixed.
This isn't a reason to falsely proclaim that Everything Is Awesome and it's impossible to improve upon, but I have a hard time taking some of the stances advocated seriously when the consequences of inaction or counterproductive actions (or advocacy thereof) are so dire.
It can always get worse.
I really, dearly hope it gets better.
But I'm not at all confident that'll be the case.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
"Who was more left than Biden" is a weird question to throw into the middle of a conversation about how Biden is explicitly offering the most rapidly anti immigrant GOP of our lifetimes everything they want. Or wanted until the window had been moved.
It wasn't everything they want. It was everything they thought they could get. If you think that the border bill was the end game for Republicans, aka "OK, we solved it, nothing more to be done here", and not just a starting off point for the next time they have the ability to influence policy, I don't know what to say. Republicans who negotiated the bill knew they weren't getting EVERYTHING. They were just able to get everything they thought they could get.
As to the "threat" of Trump being a dictator, maybe he doesn't accomplish it. But he's going to fucking try. And his people know what needs to be done for that to happen. The only reason it didn't succeed last time, was because of "institutionalists" who he just guessed would side with him. Mike Flynn SecDef, handpicking the JCoS for "loyalty". Jeffrey Clark or that other fucker as AG, like they tried to do. Compromised heads of the intel agencies. Making sure the Cabinet is stocked with people who won't even look at the 25th.
Because Trump NEEDS to become a dictator, especially if SCOTUS rule against Presidential Immunity. Because it's the only way he definitely keeps from being convicted. Because even if these cases end up being voided, he's going to keep committing crimes. He can't help himself. And as long as he's got his hands around the nuts of 34 Senators (which he already has), he's immune to anything.
Before Trump came out against it, there were a number of Republican senators who came out saying that the bill gave them far more than what they'd ever be able to get with a Republican president and senate (because an immigration bill like this would be filibustered by Democrats).
Because the primary goal for Democrats was to save Ukraine. 10 years ago, the GOP would have voted for that unanimously, now they don't because they're run by a puppet. So you have to horse trade.
Shitty thing to give up and it is a genuine problem with Biden (and Democrats more broadly) that immigration is an issue they are willing to trade. I think that's a fair statement to make. I do genuinely question what Democrats should have given up (that you think the GOP would have accepted). I think a number of people would say Ukraine aid, which is also revealing and would betray other constituencies/interests. The presidency sucks because you have to make decisions like that all the time.
“So you have to horse trade”
And this is why we don’t trust you all to not turn us over to the Republicans once you get int in your heads there is some more worthy cause that we can be your noble sacrifice for.
If you’ll do it to abused and exploited, desperate immigrants trying to escape to a better life, you’ll do it to us the moment the Republicans put you over a barrel.
You won’t fight for us, you’ll just “make deals,” just “find a compromise.”
It’s “horse trading” after all, and what value does a horse have really than to be worked or sold off?
Maybe we don’t want to be your fucking. Horses anymore
If people stay home and give control of the government to Republicans, yeah, this shit will happen. Because we're not a dictatorship as much as you dream of one. If Democrats held the House, this would be the bill. They would just pass Ukraine aid, propose a better but imperfect immigration system, get it filibustered, and Manchin/Sinema would refuse to break the filibuster, so it would die and we'd have status quo for another year.
That you won't have to horse trade away minority protections so long as you don't lose elections isn't going to assuage anyone's nerves because you're absolutely going to lose elections at some point.
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
"Who was more left than Biden" is a weird question to throw into the middle of a conversation about how Biden is explicitly offering the most rapidly anti immigrant GOP of our lifetimes everything they want. Or wanted until the window had been moved.
It wasn't everything they want. It was everything they thought they could get. If you think that the border bill was the end game for Republicans, aka "OK, we solved it, nothing more to be done here", and not just a starting off point for the next time they have the ability to influence policy, I don't know what to say. Republicans who negotiated the bill knew they weren't getting EVERYTHING. They were just able to get everything they thought they could get.
As to the "threat" of Trump being a dictator, maybe he doesn't accomplish it. But he's going to fucking try. And his people know what needs to be done for that to happen. The only reason it didn't succeed last time, was because of "institutionalists" who he just guessed would side with him. Mike Flynn SecDef, handpicking the JCoS for "loyalty". Jeffrey Clark or that other fucker as AG, like they tried to do. Compromised heads of the intel agencies. Making sure the Cabinet is stocked with people who won't even look at the 25th.
Because Trump NEEDS to become a dictator, especially if SCOTUS rule against Presidential Immunity. Because it's the only way he definitely keeps from being convicted. Because even if these cases end up being voided, he's going to keep committing crimes. He can't help himself. And as long as he's got his hands around the nuts of 34 Senators (which he already has), he's immune to anything.
Before Trump came out against it, there were a number of Republican senators who came out saying that the bill gave them far more than what they'd ever be able to get with a Republican president and senate (because an immigration bill like this would be filibustered by Democrats).
Because the primary goal for Democrats was to save Ukraine. 10 years ago, the GOP would have voted for that unanimously, now they don't because they're run by a puppet. So you have to horse trade.
Shitty thing to give up and it is a genuine problem with Biden (and Democrats more broadly) that immigration is an issue they are willing to trade. I think that's a fair statement to make. I do genuinely question what Democrats should have given up (that you think the GOP would have accepted). I think a number of people would say Ukraine aid, which is also revealing and would betray other constituencies/interests. The presidency sucks because you have to make decisions like that all the time.
“So you have to horse trade”
And this is why we don’t trust you all to not turn us over to the Republicans once you get int in your heads there is some more worthy cause that we can be your noble sacrifice for.
If you’ll do it to abused and exploited, desperate immigrants trying to escape to a better life, you’ll do it to us the moment the Republicans put you over a barrel.
You won’t fight for us, you’ll just “make deals,” just “find a compromise.”
It’s “horse trading” after all, and what value does a horse have really than to be worked or sold off?
Maybe we don’t want to be your fucking. Horses anymore
If people stay home and give control of the government to Republicans, yeah, this shit will happen. Because we're not a dictatorship as much as you dream of one. If Democrats held the House, this would be the bill. They would just pass Ukraine aid, propose a better but imperfect immigration system, get it filibustered, and Manchin/Sinema would refuse to break the filibuster, so it would die and we'd have status quo for another year.
EDIT: Also lol at the performative outrage over a figure of speech. Very on brand.
Your leaders made the fucking deal and you described the behavior at hand to a T; I think my anger and distrust is well earned.
Like again: why should I trust you’re not going to trade trans rights or the Dreamers or anyone else of us for the next Ukraine bill?
Posts
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Relying on humans is inherently perilous, but the alternatives are typically monstrous.
No, people posting "goose" through clenched teeth is funny and they should keep doing it
Unfortunately I don't have that kind of power on my own. Instead I'm trying to get people to realize this is an actual problem and that instead of scolding those Biden is turning away it might be better to join in on asking the party to better. You know, asking our more liberal brothers and sisters to stand with us and amplify the voices of those who are being abandoned by bad policy. But typically that's just met with choruses of "vote blue no matter who" and countless reminders of what the greater evil looks like, making the whole exercise entirely unproductive.
Like, I don't think the message ever gets across, this is me trying to get y'all to also ask better of Biden. This is me trying to avoid Trump by convincing people who typically aren't very critical of our candidate to vocally be so Biden can correct course and not end democracy by running his campaign while supporting genocide and Republican immigration policy. I want a second Biden term. While I'd want someone else more, I don't want a second trump term. But I don't see Biden winning while also stabbing voters who have already shown up for him once in the back.
I feel like the time traveler bit with “Well… you can’t be violent… that’d be bad” heavily suggests that Lanz thinks we ought to be physically fighting and killing people but isn't willing to say so outright due to forum rules.
I'll note that the only thing that stops authoritarians from trying to gain power is them successfully gaining all the power they wanted. The fact that Trump is still trying to gain power after he got voted out is absolutely an endorsement of the power of voting him out, not the other way around. If you want to do away with the phenomenon of bad people democratically losing elections, then coming around to try again next time, what you really want is to do away with democracy. Cause that dynamic is a baked in part of democracy.
On the subject of immigration, a bunch of people (politicians and citizens, left and right alike) are taking a harder stance on illegal immigration than they did four years ago. One could view that as a bunch of people moving to the right, but the simpler explanation is that those people have the same values and they're just responding to illegal immigration having gotten worse. Social services do cost money.
And people are doing those things. I too would like Biden to change his immigration strategy and have said so to my reps. The annoyance is from people who say "I am not voting for Biden" or communicate to their peers the he's a monster or whatever. Dude's flawed, we knew that in 2008 and knew it in 2020. But so is every candidate (except, of course, Johnny Unbeatable). The only candidate who I would ever 100% agree with is me, and I would probably have to compromise my ideals if I ever served, because I am not such a persuasive person to convince everyone else I was right.
I do think he is owed some grace because there are multiple areas of the Democratic base pushing him in several directions on immigration. Lots of core Democratic constituencies are at best skeptical of increased immigration. And swing voters tend to vote for Republicans if they're thinking about race. There's a reason that Republicans talk about race coded stuff (crime, immigration, all things "urban") all the damn time.
He helped gain some votes in a special election in an area where they elected an obvious con artist. How many voters has he lost nationwide with this though? People who voted for him 4 years ago.
If for every right leaning vote he loses a left leaning voter that voted for him in 2020, is it worth it?
I am probably skipping a lot of posts in this thread, but I wanted to address it since I was quoted. I will accept mediocre progress. I would even accept standing still! I will not accept sliding backwards. I will not be complicit in my own oppression. If the game is, and on many issues this is true, simply slowing the speed at which we implement terrible policies then I will not vote for it. Accelerationism is awful, but slowly boiling a frog actually works on people. Everyone is livid Roe v Wade is dead, but less would care if it were death by a thousand cuts. I will not vote for the death by a thousand cuts option. It will make everything worse long term.
I dunno, man incited a violent insurrection storming the capitol, seems you could something like, I dunno, locking him away for the rest of his natural life for something like that.
But the general interest of democrats with institutional power on that for three years now has been a big fat “eh it’ll sort itself out eventually I guess.”
But gotta focus resources on the real big fish from that day, like a guy dressed up like a cross between a football fanatic and that order of the buffalo from the Flintstones, I guess
Mostly because your House rep isn’t a cop and no Senator, House representative, or even Biden have the power to just throw someone in prison.
It was death by a thousand cuts though. Abortion access was being restricted constantly by the courts and the states and then SCOTUS made it all worse in one big moment. They thought they could get away with it because people had accepted so many smaller steps.
Yes, they did get away with it because of the death by a thousand cuts. Because they have gotten away with it. So why would anyone in their right mind continue to let them cut us on other issues, Knowing that this is the ploy?
You just made gnizmo's point for them.
It wasn't everything they want. It was everything they thought they could get. If you think that the border bill was the end game for Republicans, aka "OK, we solved it, nothing more to be done here", and not just a starting off point for the next time they have the ability to influence policy, I don't know what to say. Republicans who negotiated the bill knew they weren't getting EVERYTHING. They were just able to get everything they thought they could get.
As to the "threat" of Trump being a dictator, maybe he doesn't accomplish it. But he's going to fucking try. And his people know what needs to be done for that to happen. The only reason it didn't succeed last time, was because of "institutionalists" who he just guessed would side with him. Mike Flynn SecDef, handpicking the JCoS for "loyalty". Jeffrey Clark or that other fucker as AG, like they tried to do. Compromised heads of the intel agencies. Making sure the Cabinet is stocked with people who won't even look at the 25th.
Because Trump NEEDS to become a dictator, especially if SCOTUS rule against Presidential Immunity. Because it's the only way he definitely keeps from being convicted. Because even if these cases end up being voided, he's going to keep committing crimes. He can't help himself. And as long as he's got his hands around the nuts of 34 Senators (which he already has), he's immune to anything.
Does that make the proposed changes good? No. But the context of how it got there is kind of important to the grand scheme of precisely how deplorable we determine the Dems to be. It's not a fuck immigrants because fuck em bill, it is a Ukraine needs money bill that the gop is demanding we add dumb shit to in exchange for getting to vote on it. And then Trump blew it up because he's a giant baby and gave the dems the opportunity to play an Uno reverse card and point out that the gop are clearly unserious about immigration since they blew up a bill that they agreed on hours before.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Before Trump came out against it, there were a number of Republican senators who came out saying that the bill gave them far more than what they'd ever be able to get with a Republican president and senate (because an immigration bill like this would be filibustered by Democrats).
Exactly! No one cares when it was small steps back. Dobbs has caused actual problems. You are echoing the exact reason I won't support Democrats going for death by a thousand cuts on issues. Republicans implementing their full awful policy is better long term.
There are at least 217 more districts where voters would elect an obvious con artist…
Re: if. No, that obviously would’ve neutral. You gotta get more for it to be worthwhile. But if you want to get into arguments about demographics and opinions and voting likelihood … the data does not look good for your position.
Do you know who controls SCOTUS? Do you think that Democrats would have ended RvW?
This is just accellerationism
It is also boiling a frog in a pot. I said absolutely as much in my very first post.
Yeah ok but Biden isn't campaigning on these immigration policies as a necessary evil he has to give in order to get something. He's campaigning on and for them. He's going down to the border and talking about how much its a shame that Republicans wouldn't help pass the reforms he needs. He talks about how he'll exercise the entirely optional powers it would give him. He's in favor of the changes on their own merit.
Because the primary goal for Democrats was to save Ukraine. 10 years ago, the GOP would have voted for that unanimously, now they don't because they're run by a puppet. So you have to horse trade.
Shitty thing to give up and it is a genuine problem with Biden (and Democrats more broadly) that immigration is an issue they are willing to trade. I think that's a fair statement to make. I do genuinely question what Democrats should have given up (that you think the GOP would have accepted). I think a number of people would say Ukraine aid, which is also revealing and would betray other constituencies/interests. The presidency sucks because you have to make decisions like that all the time.
No, but I think democrats never bothered to codify RvW because they could use the republican threat against it as a powerful fundraising call and their disregard for the people affected by it was always going to lead to this eventually.
Less accelerationism and more the only time the democrats’ most ardent and vocal supporters will oppose these policies full throatedly is when a Republican holds power, and the moment Democrats hold it they immediately fall back to a position of general complacency and relief, trusting that their favorite people will get the job done, until someone dares point out the problems with the democrats not actually working on that job.
Like with this accursed bill that they keep going on the defense for: there’s always some reason that the horrific fucking nightmare had to be put forward, never once even a consideration that, no, this was a step too far, this was countless pounds of flesh being sliced from the throats of an already destitute and threatened people who’ve gone through more hardship than most of us on this board will ever known, only to be met with a racist, violent border authority that beats and further dehumanizes them once they have their hands on them.
I don't think any law short of an amendment would have stopped this court from overturning abortion protection
Unless the Republicans removed the filibuster. Which they'd need to do to pass a bill on a national abortion ban.
But I'm also not talking about political expediency. I'm talking political end points. If this bill had passed into law, this would not be a legitimate "mission accomplished" for Republicans. This would be their ceiling moving forwards.
It was why I disapproved of the measure myself, though as part of the greater bill, found it necessary. Because Republicans will just continue to dig. Like they did abortion rights. Free rights becomes 26 weeks. Becomes 20 weeks. Becomes 16. 8. 6. Rape, incest, life and health, becomes R/I/Life. Becomes Life. See the Texas definition of Life of the mother.
These fuckers will KEEP pushing, which is why "everything they wanted" as if it's a finite end, just rings wrong to me.
I do not know what is in the man's heart of hearts, but given how our media hellscape has framed the border issue for all these years, what he is doing probably polls well with the average voter. It will absolutely play well to the DC politics brainrot crowd. Which is exactly where the problem is, it is absolutely a horrid look to anyone who actually
meaningfully cares about the border issue rather than just the media shibboleths, but it might not actually be a losing move electorally.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
“So you have to horse trade”
And this is why we don’t trust you all to not turn us over to the Republicans once you get int in your heads there is some more worthy cause that we can be your noble sacrifice for.
If you’ll do it to abused and exploited, desperate immigrants trying to escape to a better life, you’ll do it to us the moment the Republicans put you over a barrel.
You won’t fight for us, you’ll just “make deals,” just “find a compromise.”
It’s “horse trading” after all, and what value does a horse have really than to be worked or sold off?
Maybe we don’t want to be your fucking. Horses anymore
That metaphor is wrong, the frog jumps out. It's a very human thing to accept incremental shittiness.
Anyway, my point is deeper: to fix the institutional problems plaguing the country you need sustained Democratic control. To see how this would work, look at Wisconsin. First, they had to elect a Democratic governor in 2018 to prevent the Republican legislature from making the deck even more stacked against them. Things didn't get fixed, because the legislature was gerrymandered. Then they had to elect Biden. Things didn't get fixed, because the federal government can't fix the gerrymandered districts (at least with this court). Then they had to re-elect Evers despite him not being able to accomplish the things he wanted to. All this time they had to elect Democrats to the state's Supreme Court. And finally they won last month and got the maps re-drawn and Wisconsin will have competitive legislative elections for the first time in 14 years. They didn't stop because Evers didn't fix it in 2019. You need sustained access to the levers of power to actually fix things. And you need consistent public pressure to make sure the people you elect do the things you want.
The problem national Democrats have is that they have been granted control of the government twice in thirty years, both after monumental crises caused by their opponents, and within two years fickle voters gave partial control back to their opponents when Democrats didn't fix everything immediately. They put the fire burning the whole house down out, but didn't get the frog out of the boiling water or something.
If people stay home and give control of the government to Republicans, yeah, this shit will happen. Because we're not a dictatorship as much as you dream of one. If Democrats held the House, this would be the bill. They would just pass Ukraine aid, propose a better but imperfect immigration system, get it filibustered, and Manchin/Sinema would refuse to break the filibuster, so it would die and we'd have status quo for another year.
EDIT: Also lol at the performative outrage over a figure of speech. Very on brand.
And yes, I recognize that the world is highly imperfect right now. That it’d be nice if it were way less imperfect on an endless number of facets.
But on one hand we have the highly flawed Democratic party and Biden, and on the other hand we have Project 2025, which is straight up horrifying.
They are not being quiet about this. There is zero subterfuge, it's a veil so thin it qualifies as lighter than Aerogel.
Biden and his admin can simultaneously be bad on scales ranging from "c'mon man" to "...the fuck?" to "holy fucking shit guys, for fuck's sake!" and still be better than the opposition's stated goals of Banning Abortion, directly or de facto, advocating Christian nationalism, dismantling Climate protections, some straight up clown shoes gold standard curiosity (fuck, that takes me back), an expansion of presidential powers, rescinding LTBTQ+ rights protections, mass fucking deportation of immigrants, so delightfully racistly titled "Operation Wetback", outlawing pornography (which has plenty of horrors as an industry, but is also a way of attacking minorities and others lacking In Group placement and protection, sex work is work, etc), and gutting the 'deep state' of career governmental employees to replace them with toadies and true believers.
So that seems pretty fucking bad.
Especially since those efforts, as noted, are aimed at also reducing or eliminating resistance to electoral shenanigans and a destruction of checks and balances the likes of which we've never seen before. Fuckery on an industrialized scale, with a focus on making the likelihood of a Finding Out phase be negligible unless we really do want to see the US throw down into an actual hot (or at least warm) civil war, rather than the underlying civil cold war that's been going on longer than most of us have been alive, to pre-empt the obvious comment.
As I have pointed out before, and has come up recently, a common defense for those deeply (seemingly endlessly critical) is that 'I live in a deep blue or red state, my vote doesn't matter anyways', which I feel can both be true and disingenuous.
The goal in these discussions is to convince people, even if not 'the opposition' (who, as often noted, are ostensibly on the same side, even if priorities or stances differ in scale and/or scope), but outside observers, or to refine one's rhetoric and discourse to a level that might be more convincing, if not here then elsewhere. And while the discussions on The Penny Arcade Forums may or may not be influential on a scale that can tip the balance, I would put forth that the vehemency with which the debates happen, repeatedly, over literal decades, indicates that at the very least, the various points of view being advocated (I'm striving to avoid boiling it down to merely 'both sides', as these complex situations don't have simple binary facets) are things people hold to passionately, so I don't allow for the similarly often deployed caveat that it's not important enough to be concerned about.
Some of y'all have been around for something approaching literal decades (don't go crumbling into dust on me here, I made it, you can too), with a body of work that condensed could probably qualify as a small collection of encyclopedias.
That's not the action of someone who thinks that nothing said here matters, no matter how much they say that's the case, unless they have a straight up masochistic love for exchanging barbs with folks on hot topic issues for what has to account for a solid chunk of their life at this point.
Sorry to get into the weeds there, but we've all done this dance often enough that the usual retorts are pretty well established at this point.
The status quo sucks. I wish the current administration were better. I hope that in the upcoming election we see more progressive candidates win and enough political power condensed where some shit can actually get fixed.
This isn't a reason to falsely proclaim that Everything Is Awesome and it's impossible to improve upon, but I have a hard time taking some of the stances advocated seriously when the consequences of inaction or counterproductive actions (or advocacy thereof) are so dire.
It can always get worse.
I really, dearly hope it gets better.
But I'm not at all confident that'll be the case.
That you won't have to horse trade away minority protections so long as you don't lose elections isn't going to assuage anyone's nerves because you're absolutely going to lose elections at some point.
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Your leaders made the fucking deal and you described the behavior at hand to a T; I think my anger and distrust is well earned.
Like again: why should I trust you’re not going to trade trans rights or the Dreamers or anyone else of us for the next Ukraine bill?
What a lovely sentiment to share about people concerned with being able to continue to live.
Jumping back and forth between trans rights matter and getting mad at trans people for suggesting their rights shouldn't be a bargaining chip.