153
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
153 points (89.2% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4670 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Seems like republicans are boxed in. If they block an immigration bill because they want to deny Biden a win their complaining about the border will lose most of it's impact as an issue based on massive hypocrisy. If they pass legislation, it helps Biden. Guess they have to hope for voters short memories. Democrats need a spokesman on republican immigration hypocrisy.
Since when do Republicans care about hypocrisy? Mitch might be acting as the voice of reason today, but he was the one who refused to let Obama's last SC pick even have a vote, because he knew it would pass, while rushing Trump's last pick through before the election.
You'll never explain that to a moderate...
Their ideology stopped making sense decades ago, so by now the supporters who are left can't be rational.
If they were, they wouldn't be "moderates". And their identity is wrapped up in that, so they can't. No matter what a Republican or a progressive says should be done, the modern moderate will declare both are bad and the obvious choice is halfway between them.
The man purposefully sending the fed to cut razer wire at dangerous points; that Texas already had the OK to keep up and so put them back up ... And Biden has now caused just about twenty seven other state governors to back Texas in defending itself against illegals .. Isn't interested in a damn actual deal.
That ""DEAL"" Your Democrats want is solely to fund Ukraine and Israel and, 'diminishes' The entry of illegals down to 5,000 a day. There's no compromise here and it is why the Republicans won't take it.
You lot are severely delusional if you think Biden and least of all the Democratic party, want any sort of actual deal. The hypocrisy lies with the left.
Every single word of your post can be proven wrong.
They’re kinda proving the point that the GOP reps can get away with the massive hypocrisy, though.
Yeah the republican voter base is so comically and painfully stupid that it quite literally does not matter what happens, the democrats will be bad.
Even if Biden actually "shuts down" the border, they'll still be mad and still hate him
Their only logic is if a democrat does it it's bad.
There's a bunch of them on the far left too. Biden isn't seizing the means of production therefore he's a genocidal warlord.
Critical thinking skills have basically been ignored in K-12 education and it's really showing.
Ok, start with “the” 👀
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/court-allows-border-patrol-to-cut-texas-razor-wire-along-rio-grande/
This is incorrect
The supreme court, the one that just overturned Roe v. Wade? That one. Told Texas, that they could not have the razor wire in the water.
What compromise do Republicans want? I say a 50% cut in immigration and giving agents more tools is an improvement to our old system.
Does it bother you that white supremacists would agree?
Unless we are going to go purge style on nazis?
....
Right.
Well if we aren't up for that, we might as well work together to address common issues.
Mainly that asylum seekers are traveling to get to America to find a broken system. We can blame on each other, and finger point, but this system broken because of a lack of compromise.
And it isn't like we can't just twist the nobs of power to allow more immigrants later on once we have more stable footing, a wider majority, and a better designed immigration system.
What's your point? It's called compromise. Obviously we're not going to completely lock the border down to 0 immigration, and obviously we're not going to dissolve the border tomorrow. So you try to work out a deal making the most people happy while minimizing downsides.
Does it bother you that white supremacists would agree? What's your solution to the issue?
It's too early to start dunking on idiots so I'll just point and laugh. Hey everyone, look at the dumb little idiot dancing the way OAN told them to. This clown thinks we're democrats and like Joe Biden.
Abolish borders lol
Reaĺy? Those Senators were locked in conference doing a non deal then.
I can't imagine they aren't going to try and send him a bill with some garbage in it.
The Senate made an agreement. In order for the House to pass it, they can't change it much. If they do put garbage in it, it'll never get to the President's desk.
Maybe
No maybe. Won't happen. The upper camber doesn't back off their agreements.
More or less, if the Senate makes any changes it'll have to go back to the House and start again.
Well it goes to conference. That's when Senators and representatives get together and try reconciliation. But this one won't get that far. First, it has to get through the Senate despite Trump. Then it has to get through the speaker to put it on the floor. Once that happens, if it happens, I wouldn't expect it to be modified
Voters, and most Americans at large, have very short attention spans.
They won't vote for the legislation. Trump told them not to. And the base won't blame them or see any hypocrisy, because it's tied to $ for Ukraine. That's their "reason" and the base is in total agreement that the US shouldn't be funding Ukraine.
Never underestimate the power of right-wing propaganda. We have millions of Americans who now think Putin is a glorious world savior fighting against the evil Nazi Ukrainians.
Dems have plenty of spokespeople. All 50 millionish of us. Grassroots is how we fight.
Otherwise it's just a talking head, or a message from some media org, all of which have lost a great deal of trust. But an individual showing someone something like how to use ground.news to see a bigger picture is a bit of a different story, it's personal. You can see their eyes as you talk to them.
If this is the kind of legislation that gets you to door knock and phone bank I really don't want to know you
e; I mean the harassment of migrants and asylum seekers, I'm 110% on board with giving Ukraine everything they want because fuck Putin
I'm not a single issue voter. If I was, my main issue would be fighting against the rise of modern fascism in the US. But even that is not my one, single issue, I try to look at and weigh them all.
Sounds like we have a lot in common. I guess I would just say that I am strongly concerned that rhetoric and legislation like this impedes that fight against rising fascism.
The Russo-Ukrainian War is that very battle gone hot and bloody. I see Gaza as a distraction from it that we can do very little to influence.
I'm a history guy, so I see this all from a very big perspective, where it becomes impossible to keep ones hands perfectly clean. I think the best way to help Gazans is actually, very counter-intuitively, to help Netanyahu, since it keeps him from being backed into a corner and forced to adopt even more brutal, dictatorial, but also slower methods to accomplish his own personal goals, which he will pursue regardless.
If we could save Gazans somehow I would be in favor of that, but simply stopping the flow of weapons would not do that. There are many ways to ethnically cleanse, and we simply cannot change that. So to me, it's weighing between 100k Gazan casualties and 1 million Gazan casualties.
Unless we took hostile action against Israel, but that would have its own consequences. It's very much a rock-and-a-hard-place with no good answers. We simply cannot save them, not at the current moment.
Even the UN resolution was just calling for a cease fire. It wasn't an actual, enforced cease fire, where you go and make it happen through coercion or force. And even if we did, hamas would still be there, still preying on Gazans in pursuit of their own goals.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is just pure ugly. Personally I support a rescinding of our treaties with Israel, but we can't do that during a war without further destabilizing the globe by demonstrating we will not honor our treaty obligations.
Yeah, as far as Israel and Gaza goes, I would at least contemplate hostile action against the Israeli government, but our history of occupying and nation building tells me that wouldn't work out, so what I really want is for us to either give Israel an ultimatum to shape up or we end our allegiance or just end it straightaway (though I do think there's some value in maintaining the reputation of being a country that stands by its treaties and that would take a hit with the second approach). Ultimately, I think they need a one state solution that's secular and gives all Jews and Muslims and everyone else equality before the law regardless of their religious beliefs, but I think any kind of movement to make that happen is going to need to come from the people living there.
I also want us to massively streamline the processes of obtaining asylum and permanent residency and tell every Palestinian (and, while we're at it, Uyghur, Iranian dissident, Saudi dissident, Russian dissident, and anyone else who's being persecuted) - if you can make it to the US you're welcome to build a new life here. The war in Iraq thoroughly convinced me that spreading human rights by force is almost always counter productive, but I think we can still do a lot to protect human rights just by promoting asylum.
Huh?
What part confused you?
After the deal of trust part.
Ah. Ground News is a website that compiles different news sources from all over the world, so people can see outside of their own news bubbles.
Ah, that makes more sense. I assumed it was some kind of weird typo.