this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2024
58 points (82.2% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1907 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Four months ago, after weeks of intense negotiation between my staff and Democrats and Republicans, we came to a clear — clear bipartisan deal that was the strongest border security agreement in decades. But then Republicans in Congress — not all, but — walked away from it. Why? Because Donald Trump told them to. He told the Republicans — it has been published widely by many of you — that he didn’t want to fix the issue; he wanted to use it to attack me. That’s what he wanted to do. It was a cynical and a – extremely cynical political move and a complete disservice to the American people, who are looking for us to — not to weaponize the border but to fix it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I’m not saying one way or another if it’s a good idea, I’m just saying what the calculation is

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Long term it’s an awful idea, for the DNC

It’ll put the DNC in competition for the conservative votes, while leaving progressives free to form a legitimate party that’s actually progressive.

For the short term, it means the republicans are just going to further into fascism while the dnc progresses to fascist lite (exactly where the repugnants used to be.)

The only hope is if one or the other parties fails and/or progressives to finally figure out that “lesser of two evils” is exactly how we got here in the first place

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I’m going to be honest, there is zero chance progressive are going to form a legitimate competitive party anytime soon, definitely not because of this. I’m willing to put down money on it.

To be clear I do not endorse how the Democrats are handling this. But if we’re talking about political calculus, they are not going to see a large migration to a third-party over this. And certainly not to Republicans. In a few years most people won’t even remember Biden did this and those that do aren’t going to punish a different candidate for Biden’s executive order anymore than they’d punish a GOP president for Trump’s.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Short therm, you’re very right- long term, 2+ decades, if the dems keep shifting right, it’ll happen on its own.

Democrats and republicans are not the first political parties in the US. They probably won’t be the last.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I’m not really sure we’re in a position to make a hot take about the political landscape 20 years from now, but I certainly don’t think this executive order is going to be remembered by then. If you argument is “the Democrats are going in a direction that might create a third-party 20 years from now,” well, there’s no way to really prove or refute that right now and that’s a pretty broad bar so sure it’s possible. This is definitely a far cry from your previous comment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

20 years from now, they won’t remember this specific act. But it doesn’t change the shift, and people will remember the broad strokes.

Not sure how that’s a far cry. Short term, democrats are going fascist lite as republicans are full on embracing fascism.

Progressives (and the centrists being passed by,) are either going to continue voting for the lesser evil (which is increasingly fascist…) or they’re going to find other answers.

This is just my prediction.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I just think it’s unproductive, has no basis (feel free to show me some data points on this truly), and requires no risk on your part to make this prediction. I could easily say “based on the long lasting impact of Bernie Sanders just entering the election for a few cycles I predict the democrats will be a far more progressive party in 20 years.” It’s equally valid and safe because like you, I don’t really need to show anything to back it up. I’m just kind of gesticulating at what happened from 2008-2016 with bernie.

I mean this really and truly: feel free to make all the predictions you want, and I hope you push the Democratic party to be more progressive or are currently working to get progressive candidates on ballots. These are good things to do. But these kinds of discussions we are having are really not productive. They’re not even academic or interesting. They’re just so vague and long-term and unsupported that we’re just kind of throwing darts at a bar. Which I mean sure it’s fun I guess but at some point you need to start keeping score and having a basis for how you’re throwing them unless you’re truly just there to kill time, which does not seem like the case for you. You seem passionate about this and like you want to have productive discussion.